The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-28 00:00:00

EVENING,

ham at the same time stated that there had been a great in-
crease in the number of petitions, and that they had increased
from 1,187 in 1823 to 2,817 in 1832. In looking at the late
returns from 1841 to 1851, he found that in the year ending
November, 1843, the number of petitions was '2,715, being
nearly the same number as there were in 1832. But in 1849
they had increased to 3,984, and in 18F:0 to 3,724; showing
a great increase over former years. On looking at the other
return—he did not wish to go into detail—he found the
total of the matters which had b"en brought into the Court
of Chancery under various heads, which were known to every
lawyer, to be—

In 1842 ... ... 7,325
1813 ..• ... 6,873
1844 ... . 7,639
giving an average of 7,278. lie found further that the re
turns for three years subsequent were—

1848 .. ... 8,332
1849 8,697
1850 ... ... 8,356
giving an average of 8,461, which proved the increase of
busi"ess in the Court of Chancery as regarded the two pe-
rio is. Upon looking through these returns in detail he
perceived that the Court of Chancery in 1848 seemed fully
adequate to the functions it was called upon to perform;
that the Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls, and the
three Vice-Chancellors, were quite adequate to the business,
and that the number of cases in arrear on the last day of the
last term of that period was not more than would probably
be disposed of in the course of the next ensuing term—cer-
tainly not more than had existed forseveral years previously.
But, upon looking through the returns for the year 1849750,
one might observe how essential it was that the Lord Chan-
cellor should not alone have an adequate number of judges
to assist him, but that he and they should be in the full
and entire possession of their health, strength, and intel-
lect. He (Lord J. Russell) found by these returns that, in
the Easter term as 1849, and in the other term which fol-
lowed it, during which the Lord Chancellor had not been
able to attend his court from illness, a considerable arrear
had arisen, and that the number of cases to be heard
was very much greater than in the preceding terms. He
(Lord J. Russell) would, however, now refer only to the
quantity of business before the judges of the Court of
Chancery on the first day of Michaelmas Term,lBso, and the
first day of Hilary Term in 18 A. At that time there were
only two Vice-Chancellors, the Act for the appointment of
two additional Vice-Chancellers having made no provision
for the appointment of a third. He found in these two
terms that the cases set down before the judges of the
Chancery courts, viz. :—motions, pleas, demurrers, &c.—
were—

Lord Chancellor ...
Master of the Ito .
Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce .
Vice-Chancellor Lord Cranwurth

219
90
290
173

Giving a total of ... ... ... 772
While on the first day of Hilary Term, 1851, they were—
Lord Chancellor ... ... ... ... 106
Master of the Rolls ... ... ... 136
Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce .. ... 532
Vice-Chancellor Lord Cranworth ... 242

Total . . ... 1,016
The accumulation of business in the latter period was very
much owing, no doubt, to certain Acts of Parliament re-
cently passed, among others the Winding-up Acts; and no
doubt much of it was therefore temporary, and of a nature that
the judicial strength of the Court, increased by the appoint-
ment of another Vice-Chancellor, the Bill for which was
before the House, would reduce. It was not, consequently,
to that subject that he wished to point attention; but he
considered it to be very desirable that the House should see
generally the state and progress of the judicial business of
the Court of Chancery, and judge by the agency of facts of
the very great importance that attached to any change in
the constitution of that court. The progress of society in
these days, and the complicated state of the property of the
country, had led more and more to the concentration within
the circle of that court of a vast deal of property; making it,
therefore, a matter of the greatest importance to the nation
at large that there should be justice in that court.--(Hear,
hear.) He next came to the nature of the office of Lord
Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor, who was at the head of
that great court, had other most important functions to
perform also. In the first place he was at the
head of the Court of Chancery, and, though he
seldom now a days heard original motions, the
daily business of the court was transacted by
him, and lie heard appeals brought from the other judges is
Chancery before him. The Lord Chancellor was likewise the
judge who presided in the House of Lords while that House
remained the great court of appeals in this kingdom. Ile
had, besides, various administrative functions; he was a
member of the Cabinet for the time being, and as such he
was consulted by the Government of the day on all poli-
tical questions which came before the Government, more es-
pecially those relating to the constitution, to arfiendments of
the existing law, and to the enforcement of that law when
it became a question in what manner it should be carried
into execution. He was also the adviser of the royal family
in all difficulties respecting their interest which might ,arise,
and in consequence of all these functions he was placed in a
very high position. Under these circumstances he (Lord J.
Russell) thought it right to state to the House his view of the
advantages and disadvantages of this union of functions in
that high position before he proceeded further. In the first
place, he thought it a great advantage that the Government
of the country could have the aid and the authority of a
person who had risen by his 'talents at the bar to a place
of the greatest eminence in the State—a person who, for that
cause, as well as from the high position he had acquired,
must have great weight with the country. This he considered
as one of the greatest advantages possible to the executive
Government. It was, however, a still greater advantage if
that were possible, that the Lord Chancellor should preside
in the House of ords, and be there the ultimate judge of
appeal, because thereby the House of Lords had the security
that their decisions were presided over by a man of whose
capacity and authority there could be no manner of doubt.—
(Hear ) There was, however, a still further advantage in
this constitution of the office of Lord Chancellor. It was
an office always reckoned the great prize of the legal pro-
fession ; and, therefore, while the Lord Chancellor sat at the
head of the Court of Chancery, and at the head of the House
of Lords, to deliver, in the name of that House, its judg-
ments to the country, it was felt that this high eminence
might be reached by men of talent from the humblest sta-
tion, by men who had devoted their early lives to the cul-
tivation of the law, and who might truly say that they had
earned by their talents that eminent station.—(Hear, hear.)
It was, therefore, one of many instances in this country
whereby the most aristocratic body in the state was con-
nected with those, who, by no original advantage of birth or
fortune, bat solely by their own merit and abilities, had
attained the highest station. These were the advantages.
He should next state some of the disadvantages of the pre-
sent constitution of the office. The chief disadvantage was
that the functions of the Lord Chancellor as judge were of
so weighty a character—the attendance in the Court of
Chancery to deliver judgments, for instance, was of such
high importance, and involved such great labour of mind and
body, that its junction with the requisite attendance on the
House of Lords, and with the solution of the great questions
of State which came before the Cabinet for discussion, all
formed a mass of business so important and so weighty that
it seemed hardly possible for any one man to be found ade-
quate to the duty. It was evidently another disadvantage
also, that while the Executive Government for the time
being had the advice and assistance of the Lord Chancellor,
it was requisite he should be a man whose general political
sentiments coincided with theirs, and that, when the Cabinet
was changed, the country and the Court of Chancery lost all
the advantages of the accumulated experience of this high
officer. These considerations had been placed before the
couctry, and weighed by eminent men of various minds
and dispositions; and the result was that various plans
had been I roposed from time to time in order to secure
the great advantage which he had already mentioned, and
to obviate the disadvantages by a change in the ma-
chinery of the Court of Chancery, of the House of Lords,
or of the Administration. The first plan he should men-
tion for the purpose was propounded with all that ability
and all that clearness of statement for which he was
so famous, by Lord Langdale. In that •I an a perma-
nent judge was proposed for the Court of Chancery, who
should not be changed with the Administraiossi of the day.
It was proposed, likewise, that a Lord President should sit
in the House of Lords as a permanent judge; and, further,
that there should be a third officer, with the title of Lord
Keeper of the Great Seal, or Minister of Justice, who should
belong to the Administration of the day, and whose whole
duty should be directed to the framing and advising such
changes in the law as the Government or individuals should
see fit, from time to time, to propose to Parliament. It ap-
peared to him (Lord John Russell), however, that however
plausible such a proposition might be—however sit might
agree with theoretical views of a separation of the judicial
from the political functions of the Lord Chancellor, he could
not think that such a plan would be found beneficial. In
the first place, he did not think that the objection to the
mixture of judicial and political functions in the Lord Chan-
cellor was well-founded in all cases—but more especially
as regarded the impartial administration of justice to suitors
in the Court of Chancery. To say nothing of Lord Mans-
field and Lord Ellenberough, he (Lord John Russell)
thought it would be found that this might be of some
weight in the case of a criminal judge; but with regard
to a judge who presided in a court for the settlement
of questions solely relating to property, he could not think
it at all likely that any political case would occur to bind,
in the slightest degree, the decision of the Lord Chancellor.
—(Hear, hear.) In the course of the debates which had
taken place on the subject, it had been maintained, he be-
lieved by Lord Haddington, that, notwithstanding the repu-
tation of Lord Chancellor Jeffrey as a politician, his decisions
on property were equitable, and frequently looked back to
on that ground. But without referring to such an extreme
case he (Lord J. Russell) thought he might say that since
the Revolution—a period during which many decided poli-
ticians e hadet de d sat in
with
there fe r eCnocuer Court
of
politicaleh y—, none of them
to parties .—(Hear,
Therefore, if there was no reason why a political
Chancellor should not decide cases of property justly, and if
from the Revolution to the present time no practical evil had
arisen on that ground, he was bound to say, upon a full con-
sideration of the question, that, however plausible, he could
not agree with it. But to come to the practical evil of the
plan. The Lord Chancellor, appointed to the permanent
office of Judge of the Court of Chancery, would no doubt dis-
charge his duty like all the other judges -with zeal and
ability; the presiding judge in the House of Lords would
doubtless do the same; but when the House came to con-
sider that which was so useful and advantageous in the pre-
sent constitution of the office of Lord Chancellor—namely,
that a person of authority and,weight was always ready to
assist the Government, and to take part in all- debates on
constitutional and legal questions in the ;House of Lords—
then the plan entirely failed. In the first place, to obtain a
first-rate man at the bar in that capacity, looking at all the
chances of the change, the House would be obliged to give a
higher salary and a higher retiring allowance than was at
present given to any member of the Government; and he
(Lord John Russell) could not but foresee that the House,
though it might grant them at first, would soon begin to
complain and to inquire why such an officer should have a
higher salary and retiring allowance than any other political
person. He did not, therefore, think this part of the plan
could be maintained. In respect of the other offices,
that of Lord Chancellor and Lord President in the House
of Lords, he should say nothing ; but it would be
found, however, that the judgeships of the common law
courts would be more sought atter than that of
the Keeper of the Seals or Minister of Justice. The
country would, therefore, be liable to have an inferior man
in this situation, who, when he advised the Government,
would be liable to have his advice overthrown by the dicta
of more eminent men in the other high situations. If that
was the case he (Lord J. Russell) did not see why such large
provision should be made for such officer, or why the Home
Secretary of the day should not be competent then as now
to perform all the duties of Lord Keeper or Minister of
Justice. With regard to one of the duties of the proposed
Minister of Justice, he (Lord J. Russell) should say from
his own experience that no such high officer was required—
he meant that of superintending Bills to be brought into
Parliament, and seeing that no errors crept into their legis-
lation, either as regarded truth or language. But the legis-
lation of this country was settled by both Houses-one of
which was elected by the popular vote; and, therefore, all
Bills that passed through them should not only. **WY ;

MARCH

legal gentlemen, but should also express the sense of the
legislative body, composed as he had said it was. But a
great advantage was hoped from the supervision of
the language of Bills. He, however, did not, for l'.is
own part, perceive that the greatest lawyers with the
largest views were always more competent to carry out
these views in a Bill than those learned persons wh, spe-
cially devoted their time to the framing of laws' and who
were practically engaged in the construction of the Acts
that passed both Houses. So that, probably, it would be
found that the Minister of Justice would himself, instead of
framing and amending Bills, revert to such men as Mr.
Gregson, who had assisted him (Lord John Russell) in
the Reform Bills, or Mr. Colson who assisted his Right
Honourable Friend the Home Secretary, as at present, for
their valuable services in the matter. He should be
afraid, therefore, if this plan were adopted they would be
parting with that which had, he thought, been a great ad-
vantage to the country, an advantage which it had possessed
ever since the Revolution, of having belonging to the Execu-
tive Government, and at the same time presiding in the
House of Lords, a man of the most eminent legal abilities,
chosen from among those who had achieved the greatest suc-
cess at the bar. He thought that the Executive Govern-
ment would sink the weight of their authority by such an
arrangement, whilst their judicial. machinery would not re-
ceive any equivalent gain. He could not, therefore, advise
the House to adopt this plan, though so ably recommended,
of a division into three of the office of Lord Chancellor.
There was another plan which had been much considered,
which did not go the length of that which he had been con-
sidering. but was at the same time a very considerable
alteration—he meant the plan of giving a per-
manent judge to the Court of Chancery, of sepa-

rating the LOrd Chancellor altogether fromany duties
in the Court of Chancery. but preserving him with the
office and name of Lord Chancellor rather as the appellate
judge in the Have of Lords. He owned he thought that
plan had very great advantages over the one he had just
noticed. It preserved to the Executive Government a per-
son of great authority and weight in legal matters; but he
must say that on consulting the debate which took place
upon the subject, and observing the clearend able statement

of Lord Lyndhurst, and referring to the euthories which
that Noble and Learned Lord quoted—Sir Samuel Romilly,
Lord Redesdale, and others—on consulting also with those
whom he thought had the best opinions upon the subject
he found that there had been a very general, if not nearly a
unanimous opinion in the profession of the law,
that a judge who sat merely in the Court of Appall in the
House of Lords would not have the weight and authority,
and would not be so capable of acting as a judge, as one
who sat in the daily practice of a court where matters were
continually occurring to call for the exercise of his office.
That opinion he found stated over and over again in the
discussions which took place in 1836. And, notwithstand-
ing the arguments of Lord Cottenham on the plan then
proposed, the House of Lords decided by 94 to 29 against
it. There had been other schemes proposed upon
this subject, and none, perhaps, more deserving of attention,
on account of the authority, and the learning, and the
eminence of the person from whom it emanated, than that
of Sir Edward Sugden. Now, Sir Edward Sugden's plan
contemplated an immediate court of appeal, which was to
be formed of separate judges, who were to be chiefly, he
believed, the Vice-Chancellors. The objection made to that
plan, and it seemed to him (Lord J. Russell) to be an objec-
tion which was fatal to it, was, that by depriving the several
Courts of Chancery of their chiefs, in order to form this
court of appeal, they paralysed the action of those courts,
and that the time which these judges ought to be able to
give in their respective courts to the cases brought before
them there, would be thus consumed in the appeal court.—
(Hear, hear.) At the same time there was a statement of
Sir Edward Sugden made before the Committee upon Judicial
Salaries, which was well worthy of attention, because he
himself was stating his own experience as Lord Chancellor
of Ireland—and he (Lord J. Russell), believed that no man
had ever presided in the Court of Chancery in Ireland with
greater reputation and authority than that Hon. and Learned
Gentleman.—(Hear.) If any man had a right to be con-
fident in his own opinion, and to feel that by his learn-
ing and acuteness of mind he was likely to be right in his
decision, Sir Edward Sugden was that man.—(Hear, hear.)
[The Noble Lord here read an extract from the evidence of
Sir E. Sugden before the Committee on judicial salaries, in
which that Learned Gentleman stated that he considered the
office of a single judge the most painful that a man could
fill; qualifying that opinion, however, with respect to those
who did not hold the situation of appellate judge—and the
Vice-Chancellors were in that position—who must have the
feeling that if they were in error their decisions might be re-
heard and corrected by a court of appeal.] He (Lord John
Russell) found also in other quarters that there was an opi-
nion, which had gained great strength of late, that it was
desirable when parties came to the Lord Chancellor's Court,
that they should have the decision of more than one judge.
Now, he thought that this view would be still further
strengthened if the House agreed with him that it was desi-
rable not to make an alteration in that practice by which an
eminent man at the bar or on the bench was taken at once
into the Court of Chancery to preside there as a judge.
Of course it would be very unjust, and the occasion of a
great loss to the Government and the public in general if the
rule were absolutely laid down that none but a man who had
always practised in the Court of Chancery should obtain the
office of Lord Chancellor; and that those eminent men who,
at the common law bar and in the courts had distinguished
themselves, and risen to the greatest: repute in their pro-
fession, should be excluded from the highest eminence to
which a lawyer could attain.—(Hear.) If such a rule were
adopted, then the difficulty would be all the greater for a
single judge to take upon himself the responsible duties of
this court. Now, Sir (proceeded the Noble Lord) the Bill
which I have to propose to the House goes, first, upon the
foundation that it is desirable to have more than one judge
sitting in the Lord Chancellor's Court. It goes upon this
other foundation. that the wear and tear being such as Sir E.
Sugden describes, and the political functions, and the atten-
tion not only to political questions, but to all the forms of
law, being so desirable, it is likewise desirable that the Lord
Chancellor should have a greater portion of time than he
now possesses to devote to the consideration of these subjects.
—(Hear, hear.) It has been my fortune to be connected in the
administration of the Government with my Noble and
Learned Friend Lord Cottenham. And I believe no man
ever imparted more satisfaction, by the attention which he
gave to the cases in the Court of Chancery, and the clear
judgment which he brought to bear upon all questions which
came before him than my Noble and Learned Friend.
But I must say that that great attention which was
shown, not only by his judgments in the court, but by
his study of the cases in his own house—far I have found
him late at night in his study consulting precedents, and
I know that he very often sat up until two or three in
the morning— I must say that that great attention,
which, with all his learning and familiarty with the law,
he gave to these subjects, did render him less able to
devote the time which ethers would desire to political ques-
tions and to questions of administration.—(Hear, hear) I
think, therefore, that it is desirable on this ground that the
Lord Chancellor should be enabled to have relief from at-
tendance in the Court of Chancery, and that he should be
able—not to enter into that work which I have mentioned
of criticising minute details and the precise language of
Bills—but too give sufficient time, for the consideration of all
measures which affect the administration of the law, or
which may tend to alter in any respect any of the institu-
tions of the country. Now what I venture to propose is, that
there shall be established a court which shall be called the
Supreme Court in Chancery, or the Lord Chancellor's Court,
whichever may be decided upon; and that in that court shall
tit the Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls, and one of
the judges of the courts of law, to be summoned from time
to time for that purpose. lam informed that, in the present
state of the business before the common law courts—at least
it is the opinion of the present Lord Chancellor—it would
not be difficult for those courts to give the assistance of one
of the judges for the performance of this duty. I propose,
therefore, that there shall be three judges—the Lord Chan-
cellor, the Master of the Rolls, and one of the judges of the
common law courts; that any two of them shall have the
power of hearing causes in the Court of Chancery ; and that,
in the absence of the Lord Chancellor, the two others shall
have all the powers and authority in the Court of Chancery
which the Lord Chancellor himself possesses. It is also part
of the measure which I shall have the honour to propose,
that appeals in bankruptcy, and all other statutory juris-
diction now exercised by the Lord Chancellor, shall be ex-
ercised by this Supreme Court ; and that the Lord Chan-
cellor alone shall not exercise the authority which he now
exercises in the Court of Chancery, but shall always exer-
cise it as a member of the Court. By this provision the
Lord Chancellor would be enabled—indeed, would be re-
quired to attend to the business of the Court of Chancery.
He would sit there as a judge. All the interlocutory matter,
and other matters which would come before the Court, would
be heard by him, and at the same time he would not be so
entirely absorbed by those duties as not to have time for the
other high and important functions which he has to fulfil.
In the same way questions of lunacy shall be heard by this
Supreme Court, and an arrangement shall be made with the
judges of the law courts for dispensing with the attendance
of one of their body for the purpose of attending to this
court. With regard to the salaries in future to be paid, it
will be recollected that the Committee upon Judicial Salaries
proposed last year that if no division of the office of Lord
Chancellor was effected, the salary should be reduced to
8,0001. a year. It is our opinion that that reduction is a
greater reduction than ought to be made in so high an office,
and we think especially, that the pension to be paid on the
retirement from office of the Lord Chancellor should not
be diminished, because when the situation itself must de-
pend upon the changes in political life, it is desirable that
there should be a retiring allowance sufficient to induce men
who would otherwise hold permanent situations, to accept
of an office of so much importance to the country. What I
propose, therefore, is, that the salary should be 10,0001. a
year, and that the retiring allowance should remain as at
present, 5,0001. a year. There is another change which I
should, perhaps, have some difficulty in mentioning, be-
cause it would certainly seem as if, being First Lord of the
Treasury, I had an interest in the proposal I am about to
make. There is a great deal of ecclesisastical patronage
vested in the Lord Chancellor. Originally, I believe, it
was vested in him by the arrangement under which the
persons who then assisted him in the Lord Chancellor's
office were clerks in holy orders, and benefices were given
them as a mode of rewarding them for the performance of
their duties in the Court of Chancery. In fact, this pa-
tronage belongs to the time when the Lord Chancellor was
usually an ecclesiastic, and held ecclesiastical livings. It is
now disposed of, not by reference to the Crown—not by
taking the Queen's pleasure, as is the case with the political
offices of the State, but by the Lord Chancellor's own discre-
tion. A Commission, which reported last year, recommended
that the whole of these benefices should be sold for the pur-
pose of increasing the means of spiritual instruction; but the
Government, upon taking that proposal into consideration,
were decidedly averse to it—(Cheers)—thinking, in the first
place, that it was not advisable to part with a great public
trust, and sell it to whoever might offer the best price for it
—( Hear, hear) and thinking, in the second place, that such
a separation of a great part of the Church from connexion
with the State was in itself not at all desirable. What I pro-
pose therefore is, that this patronage should in future be
vested in the Crown, and that the Minister of the Crown
should take the pleasure of the Soverign with reference to its
distribution, in the same way as with the ecclesiastical titles
which are vested in the Crown.—(Hear, hear.) I have now
stated the general provisions of the Bill which I shall hive
the honour to propose ; but I should mislead the House if 1
gave it to suppose that I was now carrying into effect all the
proposals which the Government and the Lord Chancellor
will have to make for the improvement of the administration
of justice. In her Majesty's Speech at the commencement of
this session, it is said:—
" The administration of justice in the several departments
of law and equity will no doubt receive the serious attention
of Parliament ; and I feel confident that the measures which
may be submitted, with a view of improving that administra-
tion, will be discussed with that mature deliberation which
important changes in the highest courts of judicature in the
kingdom imperatively demand."
Now, Sir, one of the changes which has been male, as any
one who consulted the newspapers of the day will have seen,
is a reduction and an abolition of many of the fees which
are now paid on proceedings in the Court of Chancery.—
(Hear, hear.) lam persuaded that there is nothing more
desirable than that the suitor should be enabled to obtain
justice without those very great expenses, which must deter
many from entering the courts.—(Hear, hear.) I have
heard it said by some, that it is desirable the avenues of jus-

28, 1851.

s tics should be closed upon them, because, otherwise, of jus-
tice were made too cheap, litigation would be increased.
' I Now, if it be desirable to discourage litigaion, this is not
the way in which it ought to be discouraged.—(Hear.)
If a person comes with a frivolous complaint, or brings a fri-
volous action against another, let him by all means pay the
penalty of such a proceeding, by the costs which would be
awarded against him. That is a fair way of discouraging
litigation ; but to say that a man shall pay a particular
amount of money before he can obtain justice on a fair com-
plaint, that I hold to be inconsistent with all the prin-
ciples which ought to regulate the administration c.f
justice. And when you say that it would discourage litiga-
tion, I really think that even in that point of view the
greatest error would be committed, because it evidently
depends upon the fortune of the person upon whom this pe-
nalty is inflicted. Take a man of 20,0007. or 30,000!. a year,
who to indulge his spite, or to revenge himself upon some
person who is his enemy, would have no hesitation in spend-
ing 1,0001. in a court of justice in order to obtain that end.
But take a poor man, who has had real wrong done him, he
would not be able to spend even 100/. to obtain redress. So
that whilst the rich man would be at liberty to indulge a
vexatious spirit of litigation, the poor ;man would be actually
debarred from obtaining the redress which he deserved —the
making justice cheap, therefore, so far as it can be done, I
hold to be one of the duties of the State, and I think we
cannot in this respect err in abolishing or reducing as many
fees as it may be found possible to abolish or reduce. But
there are other measures in regard to which we have issued
two Commissions—one to inquire into the proceedings in the
common law courts ; the other to consider all the proceedings
in the Court of Chance'ry. Without mentioning any particular
measures which are under their deliberation, I may state that
, I am persuaded the result of these Commissions will be very
much to prevent the continual transfers fr.-sm one court to
another; to prevent those tedious proceedings which have
hitherto greatly embarrassed our courts of justice. I
believe they are devoting their attenticn to get
rid, as far as possible, of those technicalities
which do not belong to the real circumstances and
merits of a case. I believe that if we proceed in this course
very great good may be effected ; and lam sure there i i no
subject which more deserves the attention of Parliament.
This I can assure the House, that however difficult these
questions may be, the Government will continue to pay the
most earnest attention to them, convinced not only that it
is their duty to pay such attention, but that if there is any
right which the people of this conntry possess, it is the right
to have justice not only impartially and fairly administered,
as I believe it is, but administered at as little cost to the
suitor as his state can sustain.—(Bear, hear.) With those
opinions, and without asking the House to pledge itself to
the details of a measure on this great subject, I conclude by
moving for leave to bring in a Bill for the better administra-
tion of justice in the Court of Chancery.
Mr. STUART said he only rose to say that the Noble
Lord, in speaking of the office of Lord Chancellor, and the ad-
ministration of justice in the Court of Chancery, had ex-
pressed himself so admirably with respect to the general ob-
jects of the Bill, that although he entirely disapproved of the
latter portion of the measure, he could not refrain from express-
ing his admiration of the views which he had expressed. The
Noble Lord's proposal assigned to the Lord Chancellor cer-
tain judges for his associates, though it might be that he
would prefer the assistance of others. In his opinion there
was no occasion for this arrangement, because at the pre-
sent moment the Lord Chancellor had the power of calling
any of the common law judges to his aid, an invitation that
was never refused. Then the removal of the Master of the
Rolls from his court would have the effect of closing it on
every day that the Lord Chancellor sat.—(Hear.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—That was by the direction of the
Lord Chancellor.

Mr. STUART—He regarded it as an improper arrange-
ment. The Noble Lord had made up his mind not to sepa-
rate the political and judicial functions of the Chancellor, and
upon that point he agreed with the Noble Lord, that no man
filling that office would be biassed in giving a decision on
property by political motives. He thought the Chancellor
would give a better opinion singly than assisted by assessors.
The single judgments of Lord Cottenham were better than
those which he gave in conjunction with his assessors. He
had a great objection to have the ecclesiastical patronage at-
tached to the office transferred to the Treasury. He would
prefer that it should be vested in the keeper of the King's
conscience.

Mr. R. PALMER felt satisfied that this Bill would not be
satisfactory to the profession or to suitors. It was proposed
to relieve the Lord Chancellor from the details of the busi-
ness of the court, and give him the benefit of the services of
the Master of the Rolls, and of another judge. He would
ask what was to become of the Rolls Court? It was, in fact,
tantamount to its abolition.
Mr. S. WORTLEY had heard with pleasure the constitu-

tional principles developed by the Noble Lord. There were
one or two points only upon which he would venture to offer
an opinion. He thought the business of the equity courts,
which was increasing, should have an increased judicial
staff. The business of the common law courts was decreas-
ing, yet they had fifteen judges, while the equity courts had
only five judges. The plan was, however, mainly deficient,
in not providing for an efficient court of appeal in the Rouse
of Lords. . .. .

Mr. BEADLAM thought that there should not be a per-
manent judge at the heaa of the Court of Chancery, as it
would place too much power in the hands of one individual.
Lord J. RUSSELL thanked Hon. Members who had made
so many suggestions in a friendly spirit. There were some
offices connected with the Lord Chancellor that it was neces-
sary to maintain. There were others that might be abolished,
and at present the Lord Chancellor was paying every atten-
tion to this subject.
Sir HENRY WILLOUGHBY said, that what the public
desired was some mode of decreasing the expense of conduct-
ing a suit in Chancery.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that was an object of
the greatest possible importance, and he hoped that further
opportunities would occur for discussing this subject.
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.
APPRENTICES AND SERVANTS BILL.

On the consideration of the Apprentices and Servants Bill
as amended,
Sir W. JOLLIFFE moved the addition of a clause, to the
effect that, where any young person, under the age of 18,
shall be taken from the workhouse, and apprenticed or hired,
a written notice of such hiring shall be sent to the guar-
dians, to be registered, and the guardians shall cause the
said young person to be visited frequently.
Mr. BAINES said he would not oppose the clause, and it
was accordingly agreed to; and the Bill was ordered to be
read a third time on Monday next.
APPOINTMENT OF A VICE-CHANCELLOR BILL.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL having proposed the third
reading of this Bill,
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY rose to bring forward the amend-
ment of which he had given notice for the reduction of the
retiring pension of the Vice-Chancellors. The point he
wished to present to the House was this, that the retiring
pension of the Vice-Chancellor under this Bill should be
3,000/. instead of 3,5001. So far as diplomatic services were
concerned, the pension did not exceed 1,7801. To take the
civil service, in all the other departments of the State, there
was nothing like it, and in the military service he believed
there was no pension that exceeded 3,0001. Up to 1825 the
retiring pension in the judicial service was 2,0001. a year;
and, in that year, the retiring pension of the puisne judges
was increased to 3,5001. a year. He concluded by moving,
as an amendment, to Clause 5, after the word " annuity," the
insertion of the words, "not exceeding 3,0001."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said there was no one
who accepted the office of Vice-Chancellor, without incur-
ring a considerable diminution of income. The retiring
allowance was a considerable inducement to men of ability
to accept of the office, and if they decreased that allow-
ance they must of necessity increase the salary. He earnestly
besought the House not to adopt the amendment of the Hon.
Baronet _ _ _ _ _

Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when the numbers were—
For the amendment ... ... 32
against it ... 49
Majority ... —l7
The Bill, as amended, was then considered.
ENFRANCHISEMENT OF COPYHOLDS BILL.
__

Mr. AGLIONBY moved the second reading of this Bill.
He believed that there was no objection to the principle of
the Bill, seeing that it had already twice received the sanc-
tion of the House; there were, however, objections to the
details, and, in order to meet these, he proposed, if the
House agreed to the second reading, to refer the Bill to a
Select Committee.

Mr. MULLINGS did not oppose the principle of the Bill,
but because it was one that involved such minute, and, at
the same time, such important details, that he thought it
should be brought forward under the sanction of the Go-
vernment.

The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
referred to a Select Committee.

CIVIL BILLS (IRELAND) BILL.
The ATTORNEY-GENE AL for IRELAND, moved the
second reading of this Bill.—(" Oh, oh," from a number of
Irish Members, who had taken their seats on the Opposition
benches.) If there was the slightest objection on the part
of Hon. Members opposite to proceed with the Bill, he would
postpone it to another day.
Mr. F. FRENCH hoped the Right Hon. Gentleman would
persist in carrying a measure so urgently required, and of so
beneficial a character.—(oh, oh.)
The ATT )RNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND, seeing the
opposition, would withdraw it, and move the second reading
this day.
Mr. REYNOLDS opposed a Bill of this kind containing
160 clauses, being considered at this time of night, or rather
of morning. It made an entire alteration of the practice in
Ireland. It was understood that the principle was to be
discussed on the second reading; but instead of that, the
Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman, in the most private and
confidential manner, asked them to take it on his credit.—
(Laughter.) That appeared to be a practice of his—(Hear,
hear)—but he could not agree to it. He asked the Right
Hon. Gentleman to explain the clauses, and if he refused to
do so, on the plea that it would be considered in Committee,
he (Mr. Reynolds) would ask whether it was in a select or a
full Committee of the House, as that was not the case at this
advanced hour of the morning, he would move, as an amend-
ment, that this House do adjourn.—(No, no.)
The amendment not having been seconded,
The O'GORMAN MAHON said he would have seconded
the motion if he had not thought the Bill deserved the sup-
port of the Hon. Member for Dublin, above all others. He
would not support any factious motion made by those who
assumed to be the representatives of Ireland, because at this
moment they chose to band themselves against the only
party who ever did justice to his country.--(Adjourn.) He
had supported the cause of Ireland at a time when many of
these Members had not a seat in that House—(Question)—
but he would not be a party to any factious opposition, and
he should, therefore, give;his vote in favour of the second read-
ing of the Bill.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE defended the course pursued by
the Goverment. The question had been urged upon them
by many Honourable Members representing Ireland, and
there was not the slightest intention to make it a party
question.— (Hear, hear.)
Mr. KEOGH though the course taken on that side had
been misunderstood. There was no objection to the prin-
ciple of the Bill, but they thought a Bill of this importance
and magnitude, brought before the House after long delibe-
rati n, ought to have been explained by the law officers of
the Crown. lie was anxious to explain why the Irish Mem-
bers took this course; they thought that legal Bills affecting
Ireland ought not to be left to the English Attorney-Gene-
ral,
the,or
should lawbe officers
explainedof theby Crown
Irishwnin
lEanwglofi
afnde,erbsuotfthualet
Crown.—( Hear, hear.) They thought, and he had no
doubt that the English public thought so too, that the offi-
cers of the Crown in England hsd quite business enough of
theirf
the Bill. own.—(Hear, hear.) He should support the principle
o

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND explained
that on the introduction of the 13111 he had stated that it was
a consolidation of numerous s-atutes in Ireland, and intended
to form a " manual" of reference. He
must now
say that
there was not an Irish Member in this House who was not in-
formed on the subject. IT
—e Was erfectiv aware of the
habitual objection made to the introductionr' of Bills at that
hour of the morning ; and all he at present wished was the
second reading of the Bill, and then to refer it to a Select
Committee. Hon.
Gentlemen however, were anxious to
express their opinions
on the Bill, not so much, he regretted
to say, for that purpose as for the more congenial one of
giving their opinions, and indulging in abuse of him, abuse

•
which we should in future resent. He thanked the House tbr
the patiez Ice with which they had heard him, but be pat it
to the House, whether in an assembly of Illaglish gentlemen
the course pursued towards him was a becoming one.—(Heg.)
Mr. APCULLAGIi thought that at that late hour thoap
who objected to the introduction of the Bill ware not out et
order.

Mr. ANSTEY hoped that Hon. Gentlemen wquld give
consideration to this matter, so as to allow the Bil to be
read a second time, and go to a Seleot Committee. He ap-
proved of the object of the Bill ; but he thought it quite im-
possible the Right Hon, Gentleman could put fifty statutes,
as he had said, in one.

Lord PALMERSTON said the time of the Rouse Ifni
sometimes wasted by difference of opinion, b 4 it was rather
hard that they should be kept out of their lAds when they
were all agreed. (Hear, and laughter.) The Noble Lord, in
his happy vein of humour, then proceeded to criticise the
course taken by the various Members on the subjeet,
concluded by proposing that they should all agree to post
the Bill.

Mr. REYNOLDS and other Hon. Members_approved of
the proposition, and the Bill was accordingly p-stpontii.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the House adjourned at Two o'clock.