The Sun.
London, England, 1821-05-31 00:00:00

IRISH INLAND NAVIGATION BILL.

The House went into a Conimittee on this Bill. The Re-.
port to-morrow.
Lord STANLEY presented a Petition from the Township
of Salford, against the Poor Relief Bill.—Ordered to lie on the
Table.

On the motion of Mr. C. GRANT, the House went into a
Committee on the Irish Insolvency Court Bill.—The Report
ordered to be received to-morrow.
IRISH STAMP ACT.

The Report on this Act was brought up, and" a Bill ordered
to he brought in, pursuant to the same.
EXTRA POST-OFFICE BILL.

Mr. WARRE complained, that this. Bill, which should have
been previously printed, as different opinions were entertained
upon it, had been brought in at one o'clock on Tuesday morn-
ing, and ordered to be read a second time on Wednesday. He
would therefore move that the second reading be postponed,
and he hoped that the Bill in the mean time would be printed.
He felt it necessary also to say, that the Correspondence with
the General Post-office, which was ordered ten nays ago, was
not yet laid upon the Table of the House.
Mr. LUSH ING TON said, he had no objection to postpon-
ing the 2d reading, and it was accordingly postponed to Mon-
day next.
COURT OF CHANCERY.

Mr. M. A. Tayeop, in rising to bring forward
his promised motion respecting the Court of
Chancery, said, that the delay which occurred
in administering justice in that Court, as well as
in the appellant jurisdiction, was most oppressive
to the suitors, and took away from the tribunal
itself the value and importance that properly be-
longed to it. In the prosecution of a scarcely
questionable right, one third of the property at
issue was often paid away in costs. In 1811, he
brought the subject before Parliament, a Com-
mittee was appointed, that Committee reported
that there were 330 appeals before the House of
Lords—a number which could not be disposed of
in less than ten years. In the Chancellor's list
there were one hundred and six causes and thirty-
five appeals. Another Committee was appointed
to inquire into the cause of She delay ; on that
Committee sat many Members from the opposite
Benches. They refused to examine professional
men as to the causes of the delay; the Ilouse
ultimately concurred with the Committee, and
the liminess was dropt. The Lords appointed .a
Committee on the same subject; the proceedings
which followed led to the appointment of the.
Vice-Chancellor's Court. He (Mr. T.) at the
time asserted in his place, that that tribunal
would only increase the number of appeal causes,
and he suggested, that a" tribunal should be
created for Appeals in Bankrupt cases, which
would have the effect of taking all that heavy
business off the ChancellJr's shoulders. The
Vice-Chancellor's Court was, however, created,
and instead of 35 Appeal causes, the Chancellor
had now 116 Appeal causes on his, list. He
would say,a word on the delay of hearing Ap-
peals. In the case of Smith v. Fitzgerald, the
Appeal was set down to be heard in February,
Isl-1, and still
_remains without being heard ;
Browne v. Defastet, set down in 1812, was not
yet heard ; many other causes stood in precisely
the same situation. In one case, the parties,
after anxiously remaining hr the Court for some
years, despairing of ever having the cause heard,
settled the matter between themselves ; few
causes of any consequence were heard in the first
instance for ten years after the bill was filed.
So great was the delay—so vexatious and oppres-
sive to .parties (grievances which grew out of the
system itself, and were not to be impitted to the
Lord Chancellor), that if he (Mr. Taylor) were
called upon to answer a bill, on a question where
property to the amount of 3 or 40001. was con-
cerned, however idle the claim, and however
strong might be' his defence, he would sooner
pay the money than go into Court. The Ilo-
nourable
and Learned Gentleman proceeded to
observe, that it was better for any one who
had a right to 4 or 50001. to give up his right
than to litigate -it in Chancery. The Appeals
in the House of Lords which had been heard this
Session, were those of 1817, and they had now
just arrived at those of 1818. There was one

cause, however, there-, Ward v. the Attorney-
General, an Appeal from the Exchequer, of as
Old standing as 1816: 'The delay and mischiefs
in the business of the Court of Chancery he did
not attribute to- individuals, but to the system,
which made the Lord. Chancellor a political cha-
racter, liable to,the interruptions, and obnoxious
to-the anxieties 'which accompanied the posses-
sion of a seat iii the Cabinets. The\ast mass of
property in litigation in the Corrt; Made this a
matter of great importance. In 1756 the pro-
perty in the hands of the Accountant General
alone amounted to 2,800,000/. ; in 1818 it
amounted to 33,500;000/. Not all of this, bet
probably half of it, was contested property.—
When the Great Seal was in commission, delay
had not occurred. The first commission he re-
membered was that at the head of which was
Lord Lougborough; and then, to his own know-
ledge, there was not a single cause in arrear.—
The other was that at the head of which was
Chief Baron Eyre. The Commissioners being
called upon to go up to his late Majesty with the
Great. Seal at two o'clock, and being asked by
the King in what state the business of the Court
was, replied, that if his Majesty had not sent for
them till four,.there would have been no business
before them, as they had been in the course of
hearing the last cause on the paper. He was in-
clined in favour of plurality of Judges in a Court
-of Equity. He knew that when it was proposed
to separate the Speakership of the House of
Lords. from the office of Lord Chancellor, or to
appoint Keepers of the Great Seal, it was said
that the great prizes of the law would then be
taken away. It was his duty, though he had a
great affection to that profession, to look first to
the, poblic. It was his wish, however, to 'see the
Lord Chancellor in the possession of all his pa-
tronage, distinction,, and emoluments, though he
did not wish to see him paid by fees of office. As
to the Masters in Chancery (and than the present
ones there could not be a niOre active or ho-
nourable set of men), he should make the_ same
remark. He knew a case in which the fees of
the Master's Office, on the sale of a little pro-
perty of 100 acres in their office, were 2001.
The fees were 40 odd pounds on each day's sale;
and in other cases he knew they had been
double. The fees of the RegiSter's Office and
the Examiner's were also enormous. If Lord
Eldon was at liberty to apply his mind to the.
business of the Court, without being distracted
with politics, he" would have time to look into
and correct the abuses of the several departments
under his jurisdiction. The fact now was, that
if a man litigated a property of 60001. in Chan-
cery, he was lucky if he could save six. The
Hon. Gentleman then said, that. he should state
a plan which had' occurred to him, for obviating
the inconveniences of the present system, and yet
preserving the dignity and pre-eminence of the
Lord Chancellor. He proposed to remodel the
Court of Chancery on the plan of the Court of
Exchequer; the Lord Chancellor bearing the
same relation to the Judges who might sit in the
Court, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer does
to the Barons. Four Judges would be associated
to the Lord Chancellor, to whom all bills should
still be addressed, (as in the Exchequer to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) ; with these Judges
all the judicial business of the Great Seal should
be left, except when their opinions were divided,
when they might call for the judgment of the
Chancellor. Bankruptcy questions should be.
left to the Chancellor, and also the business of
Appeals in the House of Lords. Suitors would
then have a real appeal, whereas the appeal from
the Chancellor to the House of Lords was merely
an appeal from Lord Eldon in an undress wig,;
to Lord Eldon in a full bottomed wig. What...!
ever might be the fate of the'present motion, he
was determined to persevere in pressing this sub-
ject on the attention of the House, who, as guar-.I
dians of the liberty and
,property of the subject,
were bound to attend to the causes of the pro-
crastination and delay of justice, which was the
ruin of so many families.--(Bear, hear!)—He
moved a Resolution—" That this House will,
early in the next Session of Parliament, take
into its most serious consideration the State of the
High Court of Chancery in England, as well as
that of the Appellant Jurisdiction of the House
of Lords, with a view to the adoption or'such
measures as may tend, in future, to facilitate, the
general' business of those Courts."
Lord LONDONDERRY said, though Parliament
sometimes pledged itselfas to the course it would
take in a subsequent Session, it should never do
so without great caution ;.and he thought they
should hesitate to do so in the present case, be-
cause the Resolution countenanced the opinion
that there was something wrong in the Court of
Chancery, and that a practical remedy had been
proposed. He was not at that time capable of
forming an opinion on the sweeping remedy which
nail been proposed, which opened the' view of a
large field of judicial reforni. As far as the Ap-
peal business of the House of L6rds was con-
cerned, he understood that the establishment of
the Vice Chancellor's Court had been very suc-
cessful. As to_ the original business of all the
Courts, he also understood that it was never less
in arrear than at present. He su.7gested that it
would' be more advisable for the Hon. Gentle-
man to withdraw his motion, especially as much,
information on the subject, which had been moved
for by the lion. Member for Wareham (Mr.
Calcraft,) was nct yet on the table of the IfoOse.
If the lion. Gentlernan persisted in his motion, he
(Lord L.) should move the previous question._

Mr. M. A. TAYLOR declined to withdraw his
motion.—The previous question was then moved.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, he would not
then go into an examination of the novel system
of judicature which it appeared to be the object
of the Hon. Member's motion to establish, but
would content himself with remarking upon some
of his statements, which by.implication affected the
character of the Learned person who presided in
the court to which his observations chiefly applied.
He had stated that the erection of the Vice-Chan-
cellor's Court did not expedite the causes, hut he
(the Attorney-General) could assure the House
that the _Honourable Member was mistaken
or misinformed, both in bankruptcies and ori-
ginal causes ; the old arrears had been nearly
cleared off, but appeals had increased, as had

beet foreseen when it was first proposed to erect
the Court. Parties, indeed, often came into the
COurt to obtain'a decision for the purpose of
bringing the case, in the shape of an appeal,
under the view of those high talents and
that- great legal learning Which presided else-
where ; but none,- however; were allowed to be
tried as Appeals, unless having the cerlificaikof
Counsel that they containekone or more toe*.
bons wort y,4 bein,g'ht!arAiftyNflother tribufial.
From time to tune .cases occurred which were de-
serving of being accelerated ; , but none were
taken out of the ordinary course unless for suffi-
cient
reason. lie then entered into a statement
to show that in the cases of Brown and De Tastet,
and others alluded to by the Honourable Mover,:
there was no unnecessary delay, and cOnclUded
by declaring, that to all parts of the motion he
would give his decided negative, as be could
never agree to any "propositionwhich would .go
to demolish the Vice-Chancellor's Court, or to
remove from his seat in Chancery that high cha-
racter, than whom no man ever pronounced de•
cisions more entitled.to present and future respect.
Mr. LOCKHART observed, that to. say the mo-
tion of his.:.Hon. Friend went to threw discredit
on the Courts, was a weak argument to prevent
inquiry. The fact was that the delay stated to
occur did happen, but not by will or negligence;
it was the result of the mechanism and practice
of the Court by Which the time of causes was ne-
cessarily lengthened. He then stated, .that in
the case of legacies the present system inflicted
upon suitors the most cruel hardships, as, by.
going into Equity, the assets of the estate were
frequently unable to. defray the costs. If, then,.
by the system at present acted upou, it appeared
that delay.occurred, by which justice was'almost
denied, and dishonesty of course promoted, the
House was bound to pledge itself to inquire if
any remedy could be applied. What his Hon.
Friend had stated as to delay, all England knew
to be true, and the matters.which he had brought
forward were highly deserving the attention of
the House..

Mr. Serjeant ON3LOW opposed the motion.—
He said that the arguments of the Iton. Member
for Oxford (Mr. Lockhart) proved to him how
dangerous it was at that late period for the
House to pledge itself to any inquiry ; such argu-
ments, if pushed to the extreme, would go to the
abolition of the Courts of Equity. He observed,
that considering the great increase of wealth, .the
number and variety of questions in Equity must
have been greatly increased, and he only won-
dered that the arrears were not greater than they
actually were. He concluded by saying that he
would vote for the previous question, as he
thought it both unwise and unsafe to hold forth
to the world, in the interim, that great evils ex-
isted in our system of Equity.

Mr. W. SMITH said his IlOnourable Friend was
very unfairly treated. It was notorious to all
England, that delays took place in our Equity
Courts which were extremely injurious to the
suitors, and therefore Parliament could do no less
than pledge itself to inquiry. [file (Mr. Smith)
had entertained any doubt on the subject, it was
resolved by the Honourable and Learned Mem-
ber who had spoken last; he. told the House that
he did not wonder at the quantity of .arrears un-
der the present system, but considering the ac-
cumulation of wealth, he only wondered that the
arrears were not more .numerous. The reason
assigned for their not being so was, simply the
abilities and learning of the present Chancellor.
It was evident, then, that no time could be more
proper for an inquiry than while we had a Chan-
cellor whose character for abilities, learning, and
integrity, could not be affected by the adoption
of such inquiry, for it was allowed that his assi-
duity and talents in some measure counteracted
the evils resulting from the system and structure
of the Court, which would otherwise
,prevail to a
much higher degree with regard to the delays
which suitors endured ; he would only say, in
the words of the old song—

Could a man be secure
That his life would endure,
As of old, for a thousand long years;
lie might bear, with some patience, the delay of
a suit in Chancery.
Mr. M. A. TAYLOR replied, and defended his
former statements.—After which, the If di-
vided on the previous question—

Ayes -
Noes - - - 52
Majority - - - -4.
LORD REGISTRAR OF SCOTLAND.

On re-entering the House, wa, found Lord LONDON-
DERRY on his legs,. adyerting to a question which had been
put to him on a former night, by an Honourable Gentleman
whom he did not now see in his place, with reference to the
office of Lord Registrar in Scotland; The arrangement entered
into. by .Government was, 'that the present holder should retain
the office without any emolument or salary, and that the fees
belonging to the office should go to defray the expellees of the
clerks. He trusted this aerangement would-be considered per-
fectly satisfactory.