Star.
London, England, 1830-06-25 00:00:00

CHANCERY DEBATE.

The order of the day fur the resumption of the adjourned debate
on the Court of Chancery having been read,
Mr. J. WILLIAAIS rose.—He dwelt, at great length, in exa-
mination of Mr. Fergusson's arguments on a former evening; and
he contended that if the present jurisdiction were continued to the
Court of Chancery, a fourth judge would undoubtedly be necessary;
out he maintained that it would be more wise and prudent to limit
the Court of Chancery to its ancient jurisdiction. If the present
.ystem were to be continued--there being fory millions abiding its
decisions--a fourth judge would be required. The judicial business
of the country ought to be administered by men who were not corn.
pletely drudges to their office, but by those, who had time to well
consider all matters that came before them for decision. The ex.
penscs of the Registrar's Reports, from their prolixity, were of them.
selves sufficient to amount to a denial of justice. He thought fur.
then jurisdiction ought to be given to the Court of Common Law,
which would diminish the overwhelming business of the Court of,
Chancery, and gave a solid benefit to the public. Thinking as he
did that this measure was likely to lead to very beneficial results, he
gave it his humble but hearty support.
Mr. ROBERT GRANT thought all the promises that had ,
been made were totally inadequate to the legal crisis about to
take place, and very inadequate to the recommendations In the
Speech from the Throne on the opening of Parliament. (Hear.)
He did not want to hear the history of this Court for the last
two centuries, the experience of the last two years was quite
sufficient to show the necessity of something being done. Referringl
to the Chancery Commission of 1826, he would say—

" Thou sleep'st Achilles, sleep thy sleep may be;
But ne'er can wc.forget thy deeds—or thee."
The whole of the business of bankruptcy and tithe causes ought to
be separated from the Court of Chancery. The hon. member then
alluded to the evidence of tie Viee.Chancellor, Mr. Bell, and others,
given before the Commission of 1825. Twelve Chancery Commis-
siors, some of them high in office, heard this evidence ; they had
every opportunity of introducingrreforms ; but up to this moment
not one of them had made a single proposition having for its object
reform. It appeared from the statement of a high legal authority,
Nat the arrears of business in the Court of Chancery had not in-
creased for the last seven years. Now, if such were the fact, there
certainly could be no necessity for the appointment of a new judge;
but in his (Mr. Grant's) opinion, something ought to be done. The
measure now proposed was only a show of remedy, as it did not
touch the subordinate offices. It was no use without something was
done to prevent causes lying one year, or eighteen months, in the
Masters Office. He did implore the Right Honourable Secretary
of State, who had done much towards reformation in the law, to
take this question into his most serious consideration. He must
again repeat, that the great evil now complained of, was in the
Registrar's and Master's Offices, and there was no provision in
the bill at all likely to lessen the expense in those offices. It
was true the masters were to be paid by fixed salary, but the clerks,
by whom the principal part of the business was performed, were
still to he reimbursed by fees. The case of Sincox and Bell, for
instance, was referred to the Master in 1802, and no distribution of
the property was made to the claimants till 1823, a period of 21
years. twenty years of which expired before the Master made his
report. The hon. member then alluded to the plan proposed to re-
medy these evils, end noticed: the appointment of an additional
judge, when at the same period it was proposed to diminish the
business in the Courts of Law, or, in other words, appointing
another judge when the business was gone. The Noble and Ve.
iicrable Ex.Chnncellor, Lord Eldon, had stated in his place in the
House of Lords, that the most important improvement that could
he adopted would be to release the Lord Chancellor from the duty
of hearing appeals, and thus allow him more time to attend to origl.
nal juristbetion. The appointment of an additional judge must,
however, have a directly contrary effect. The most important ques-
tion that, perhaps, was put to the Commissioners—than whom, he
was sure none were more able, or could more satisfactorily perform
the important duties intrusted to them—was whether the jurisdic.
tion could not be divided. Upon one point he thought it might--
but he acknowledged that, situated as he was, he approached the
question with considerable difficulty, and feelings of the greatest
delicacy. He alluded to questions on bankruptcy ; and al.
though he would not now, for obvious reasons, and especially
because a time must arrive when it will be better discussed ;
yet he must 'thou that the present system was susceptible of very
great improvements. The hon. and learned gentleman then at some
length detailed the mode by which petitions in bankruptcy were now
brought before the Court of Chancery, and contended that they
ought in the first instance to be heard by the commissioners them-
selves, reserving of course an appeal from their decision. This,
with other alterations that readily suggested themselves, would, he
was convinced, reduce the bankruptcy business in Chancery to one-
fifth ; and from what Lord Lyndhurst had been reported to say, that
saving of time would be all that he required. The question now
before the house differed very widely' from those judicial reforms
that had been so ably introduced by the right hon. secretary of state
for the home department, and he trusted that the consideration of it
would be postponed until that right hon. gentleman should have an
opportunity of applying himself to the subject, and bringing for-
ward a proposal less objectionable.—(Hear.)

Mr. DODS WELL supported the bill. The hon. and learned
gentleman defended the practice pursued in the Master's office, and
read several documents, tending to show that the. evil and expenses
• most complained of, namely, copy-money, was not to be attributed
to the practice pursued there. The Masters in Chancery were most
anxious that the present system of remuneration by fees should
be discontinued. and that like the judges, they should be paid
by salaries. This had long been their unanimous wish, and they
bad requested all the commissioners that had been appointed of late
years to recommend the change. Nothing could be more unfair or
more unfounded in fact, than representing the situation of Masters
in Chancery as a mere sinecure. In his own office, for instance, no
itnpoitant investigation was suffered but under his own superin.
tendance. The hon. and learned gentleman then went into a long
htitory of the manner in which cases were conducted in the Master's
office, and repelled the assertion that those functionaries did not pay
' due and adequate attention to their professional duties. In fact, it
was to their interest to use all possible dispatch ; but unless the par-
' ties that came before them were inclined to allow it, the thing was
isu possible.
Mr. M. A. TAYLOR said, that after having for so many years
expressed his opinion upon the important subject now before the
house, it was not his intention to enter into any long detail. He
was happy to leave it in abler hands, although he did hope that the
time would soon come when not one particular bill only, bat the
' whole of that complicated and important question would be before
the house. His hon. and learned friend who had just sat down,
and who was one of the Masters in Chancery, had, with considera-
ble ability, defended himself and his colleagues, although he
must say that he (Mr. M. A. Taylor) had never in his life said
one word against the personal character and personal merits of
those functionaries. He hesitated not to say, that a more respect.'
able, and, he would add, a more talented body of individuals never
existed- lie was, however, anxious to make them even more re.

spectable and respected if possible than they were. For instance,
he wiflicd to see them sit in open Court, and thus give the public an
opportunity of knowing the excellence of their judgment. The evils
for which he had for 21 years complained would not nor could not
be remedied by the appointment of an additirsl Judge. The
Learned Solicitor-Oworral Ilikt complained that this Court had been
unnecessarily and improperly-stifled. If it hati,bein so, all that he
would sty was that he. and those Who supported his view, wets alto.
ember innocent of such a charge He bagged his boo. and learned
(deed to look back to the motions that beTillr. Taylor) bad, from
time to time, made on this subject. It was, indeed, necessary to do

qo, for without it, it would appear that he had pressed the adoption
sonic such measure as this. He had, it was true, stated
that additional force, that an additional impetus was necessary; but
it was of a very different description to that now proposed. The se-
paration of the appellant from the judicial duties, which, indeed,
was only the Lord Chancellor sitting in his full-bottomed wig in the
House of Lords, instead of sitting in his close wig in his own Court,
was what he had always advocated, and what he always sliculd.—
Now what was the state of business before the Court of Chancery
at Hilary Term, 1828 ?—(Hear, hear.)--There were 1,071 appeal
causes, demurrers, and further directions in arrear, when, at the
commencement of the present term, they only amounted to 772,
and a considerable number of those had now been disposed of. This
in his opinion, was a clear demonstation that no necessity existed for
a fourth Judge. Indeed, he felt some curiosity to know what duties a
new Judge would have to perforn. The present Master of:the Rolls
and Vice-Chancellor performed their duties in a most masterly
manner, and he was creditably informed that soon all arrears would
be got rid of. What then, he would again ask, was the new Judge
to do ? If it was intended for him to relieve the Lord Chan.
cellor from his duties, he felt insuperable objections to the ap-
pointment. So long as he continued Chancellor, so long he ought
to be found presiding in his own Court. The evils of which
he and the country complained would not be touched by this
bill. They were the great and ruinous expenses, and the
shameful waste of time, that characterised all the proceedings in this
Court. Who, he would ask, supported this measure, and what was
the reason that it was!not withdrawn ? All the distinguished prac-
titioners of the Court were opposed to it, Lord Eldon, the Master of
the Rolls, and Mr. Bell, all of whose opinions were entitled to the
greatest deference, declared that it was unnecessary. Lord Lynd-
hunt, it was true, supported it; but although that learned judge
was, he admitted, a man of consummate talent, it must be recol-
lected his experience in equity was very limited. That learned
judge had already brought in two bills upon this subject. What
was become of them ? They had been abandoned ;—his lordship
had acted wisely in doing so, and he would unquestionably add to
his reputation in consigning the present one to a similar fate ; at
all events it ought to have been introduced at an earlier period, and
not at the close of the session. The present system was indeed in.
tolerable; and he earnestly hoped the House and the country would
not be diverted, by the introduction of such fallacious measures as
the one now before them, from pressing other remedies. It affected
the interests of all classes. Money that once got into the Court
would never be got out without an expense amounting to perhaps
one half of the amount. Infants, if ten years of age, made wards,
who were intitkd to 5,0001. would not, on coming to age, get more
than 1,0001. if so much. He had had so little experience, and he
was only telling the results of that experience. This bill would not
carry with it the opinion of the public, and he therefore hoped that
it would be pressed no further.
Mr. D.W. HARVEY had been long enough in the house to
know that no member could secure a patient hearing on any subject,
unless he lent himself to the views of one party or the other. Never.
theless, as he had been conversant for twenty years with the business
of the Court of Chancery, he trusted he should be allowed to say a
few words on this occasion. He felt much reluctance in supporting
the motion of the hon. and learned member for Plympton. He
highly respected the political consistency of that hon. and learned
member; still he could not help observing, that when he (Mr.
Harvey) had a few years ago moved for some papers relating to the
abuses of the Court of Chancery, the boe and learned member for
Plympton, who was then attorney-general, opposed the motion, on
the ground that it was a covert attack on the lord chancellor. By
the measure before the house, the expense would not be lessened,
nor the delay decreased. To effect any good, in the Court of Chan.
eery, they must adopt a very different course. He saw nothing in
these measures calculated to do away with delay. If the Court of
Chancery was to remain as it then was, he would admit that the four
judges were insufficient; but if they honestly meant to reform the
Court of Chancery, he would say that the present number of judges
was quite sufficient. Was it not a disgrace to the country that per-
sons were enabled to keep out of the Court of Chancery for three
years ?—(Hear.)
Sir R. PEEL said that the question was, would they allow a
preliminary measure which was intended to do away with expense
in the Court of Chancery, to be met by a motion calling for an in-
quiry into the Court of Chancery ? He thought that the great
complaint of the present day was, that we had much inquiry, but
no practical measure. If they adopted the suggestions proposed,
they would be following the practice complained of in the Court of
Chancery. They would be supporting delay. They had every in.
formation on the subject of the Court of Chancery. The question
was, did or did not the measure before the house lay the foundation
for great reform in the Court in question. He asked was there not
a sufficient case to justify the application of the present measures,
in the absence of any others ? Were they merely to institute any
enquiry The right hon. baronet agreed that the abolition of the
fees in the Masters' Office was a great step In the way of reform.
The right honourable baronet concluded by moving the previous
question.
Mr. BROUGHAM said that the noble and learned lord in the
other house of parliament had pledged himself to make such a
reform in the Court of Chancery as would set all cavilling at rest,
provided be was allowed but a year to mature his plans. He had
more than one—he has had three yew; yet what was done ?
Why nothing, but a request on the part of the noble and learned
lord to have a journeyman Judge to do his business.—(a laugh.)
He (Mr. Brougham) thought he knew the industry of that noble
lord—his diligence—but most of all, his ambition, not to allow
the Woolsack, which ought to be a place of duty and judgment,
to be a bed of repose. However he might be mistaken with re-
spect to the conduct of the noble lord. This he could assure the
house, that he would not aggravate that mistake by voting for an
additional Judge.
After some observations from the ATTORNEY-GENERAL
in favour of the bill, and Mr. HUSK ISSON against it, Sir C.
WETHERELL replied, and the house divided, when there ap.
peered—
For the amendment
For the motion _ _ ..

Majority
On the motion of Mr. BROUGHAM, that the second reading
be postponed to Monday, the house divided.
For this amendmcnt
Against it
Majority
Notwithstanding this division it was agreed that the second
reading should be postponed to Monday.
The other orders of the day being read, the house adjourned at
Four o'Clock this morning.