The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-02 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, March 1.

Thy 1.4011 D CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool-
sack shortly after Five o'Clock.
Thu Earl of ROSEBERY presented petitions from
places in Stirling, Dumbarton, and Linlithgow, praying
for a total repeal of the Corn-laws. The Noble Earl dis-
sentel from the prayer of the petitioners, but expressed
an opinion that some alteration should be made in these
laws.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from
the owners and occupiers of mills engaged in the grind-
ing of corn in the city of London, stating that the pre-
sent duty on flour did not afford them a sufficient pro-
tection ; that they had heard with regret that a measure
was about to be introduced to lower that duty, and they
prayed their Lordships not to give their consent to the
measure.
The Duke of BUCCLEUCH presented ..1 petition from
the landowners of Banff, praying the House to pass some
measure to secure the franchise.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from Ren-
frew, praying for a total repeal of the Corn-laws.. The.
Noble Lord also presented a petition from Antrim,
praying for an alteration in the law with respect to
Dissenters' marriages.
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
Lord CAMPBELL then rose for' the purpose of
bringing under the consideration of their Lordships
three Bills which he had prepared, for the
pose of improving the administration of justice in this
country. In bringing- those measures before their Lord-
ships, he would state shortly the object he had in view,
reserving the discussion till the second reading of those
Bills. It gave him great satisfaction to think that
the measures he proposed were totally uncon-
iected with party. His object was to im-
prove the administration of justice in the Courts
of the last Appeal, and likewise to improve the
o,dministration of justice in Chancery. He need
not point out to their Lordships the extreme
importance of having a satisfactory tribunal to which
all cases might be carried in the last resort, for not only
the rights of the parties were finally determined by that
tribunal, but that tribunal settled the law. It was of
the last importance, therefore, that there should be a
supreme Court of Appeal, which should command
the respect of all those who had occasion to
resort to it, and of the community at large.
It was of importance that that Court should be sitting
the greater part of the year—that access to it should be
easy, and that the administration of justice should be
expeditious, and should not be burdened with excessive
costs. It was of particular importance that there should
be only one tribunal of appeal. In England there had
been great irregularity on this subject. Their Lord
ships' House, from an early period, had had the
undisputed power of deciding upon writs of error from
the Courts of Common Law ; but it was not till the
reign of the Stuarts that appeals respecting equity suits
were entertained by that House. With respect to the
Ecclesiastical Courts, which determined matters of great
consequence, before the Reformation the appeal was to
Rome—to the Pope. After the Reformation that was
put a stop to, and there was a strange sort of anomalous
tribunal established—a tribunal pro hac vice. That
was the Court of Delegates. 'With regard to
Admiralty causes they came before the King in Council.
Appeals from the colonies also came before the King
in Council, and from the Court of Chancery in lunacy
cases appeals were not to their Lordship's House but to
the King in Council. Things continued in that state
till the year 1833, when an Act was passed for which the
public were indebted to his Noble and Learned
Friend (Lord Brougham) who then sat on the wool-
sack. By that Act the Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council was established, which was a great
improvement in the administration of justice. By that
Bill the Courts of Delegates were abolished, and al:
cases from the Admiralty and Ecclesiastical Courts
were to come before the Judicial Committee. Although
the system established by his Noble and Learned Friend
was a great improvement, yet that improvement was by
no means of a permanent nature, and the time had now
arrived when a change must be produced. That system
still allowed of two tribunals of the last resort. Extreme
inconvenience arose from such a system. There was
no question which came before their Lordships' House
which might not likewise come before the Privy
Council upon an appeal from the Courts of Law or Equity
in the West Indies, Australia, and America. Those two
Courts were of co-ordinate power and authority. The Judi-
cial committee of the Privy Council had no control over
the House of Lords, nor had the latter any power over
the decisions of the Privy Council. Nay, more not
only might the same questions be referred to both
tribunals, but in the very same suit it was a matter of
doubt whether the case would come before the Privy
Council, or the House of Lords. For example, such a ques-
tion as that of the Braintree Church-rate case, when the
question was, whether the churchwardens had the power to
make a rate against the wish of the majority of the parislioners.
Now this question might ultimately come before either tri-
bunal. If it went in regular course before the Ecclesiastical
Court in the first instance, it would afterwards come before
the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ; but if an ap-
plication were made to the Court of Queen's Bench for prohi-
bition, it would then come before a Court of Common Law,
and finally before the House of Lords, so that their Lordships,
as well as the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, would
have to decide whether or not the churchwardens exceeded their
authority in making such a rate. Now, in the case of a will
respecting a personal estate, the Ecclesiastical Court first had
jurisdiction, then the question of validity would come before the
Judicial Cemmitteo of the Privy Council; but if it concerned
a real estate, the , question would come before. that House.
Thus. if a will, devising a, personal estate of millions of money,
as in the case of the late M 7. Wood, of Gloucester, the ques-
tion came before the Judicial CoMmittee as the tribunal of the
last resort; but if it devised, a single rood of land, it would
come before their Lordships finally. Another great inconve-
niente attending the fact. of the Judicial Committee being a sepe-
rate tribunal, waseihat it bail no bar of its own ; consequently,
either a ease was partially argued, or the Judges had to decide
without the assistance of Counsel, or the suitors had
to pay enormous fees to the ConnFerand solicitors whom they
called from the Courts in which they usually practised. It
was, therefore, indispensably necessary that the country should
'have ono tribunal of appeal in the last resort, and in choosing
between the Judicial Committee of theTrivy Council and the
House of Lords, he trusted their Lordships would prefer the
latter. The foregoing were only a few of the reasons why they
should prefer the House of Lords. But the House of Lords
might avail themselves of the advice of the Queen's Judges,
which would give this tribunal a great advantage over the
other. The tribunal of the House of Lords would also be pre-
sided over by the able and illustrious men who were generally
Lord Chancellors of England, assisted by many proessional
Peers, by an able bar, and by a body of solicitors, at very much
lower fees than the other tribunal would require. His (Lord C. 5)
Bill then proposed that all appeals from the Ecclesiastical
Courts, the Admiralty Courts, tiie Colonial Courts, and, in
cases of lunacy, from the Court of Chancery, should come be-
fore the House of Lords. He proposed also that the Vice-
Chancellor should be summoned when required. Of the Scotch
Judges his Bill said nothing ; but they might be summoned
whe a required ; and, being jealous of the honour of his country,
he begged to express a hope that on such occasions the Judges
of Scotland would be placed on the woolsack, and not at the
bar, as had formerly been the case. He proposed that the
jurisdiction of their Lordships' tribunal should he coterminous
with the British empire, and that in future, as in the early
part. of the reign of Edward 111., they should be summoned
to sit upon judicial business only. He proposed also that
their Lordship's President being Lord High Chancellor should
also have a seat in the Cabinet of the Government, and that
there ought to be a permanent Chief Judge having nothing to
do with politics appointed to preside at the Court of Chancery.
For his part he did not see anything in the judicial functions
of the Lord Chancellor at all incompatible with his political
duties. But he knew that others, amongst whom was his
Noble and Learned Friend the Master of the Rolls, thought
otherw se. But all were agreed that to have a removable
Judge was a great evil.—( Hear.) It was a great evil to have
a Judge removable at the will of the Crown ; but still greater
to have a Judge removable upon any change of the Ministry.
...--(llear, hear.) Let their Lordships consider what en evil
it would be to have a removable Judge in the Court of Queen's
Bench ?—(Hear.) It was no less an evil in the Court of
Chancery, and unless it was a necessary evil, it ought not to be
allowed to continue.—( Hear.) He might acknowledge that
in former times it might be necessary. Formerly the business
of the Court of Chancery was of little amount, and might not
present any objection to his being a Cabinet Minister, and sit-
ting in that House. But according to his (Lord C.'s) plan,
the Chancellor would have sufficient time for his duties in that
House and in the Ministry ; and there would be in his place in
the Court of Chancery a Judge, unremo' able quamdiu se
ben,. gesserit. This plan could be carried into effect without
creating a new Judge ; for there had recently beets created
two new Judges, and these were rapidly subduinz the arrears
of business. It was almost certain that four Judges would be
amply sufficient to dispatch all the business in a satisfactory
manner. He proposed, 'herefore, that one of those Judges
should be appointed to preside in the Lord Chancellor',
Court, and that there should be the same appeal
to .him as there was at present to the Lord Chancellor.
Another advantage arising from this would be that there
would be a real appeal from the decision of the Lord Chan-
. , cellar. Hitherto the appeal had been little better than a
mockery, because it was from one man to himself.—( Hears
hear.) It had been said that the Judges of a Court of Appeal
ought to be Judges, at the same time, of a Court of origi-
. seal jurisdiction ; and it had been said that the Lord Chancel-
. ler, unless he sat in a Court of original jurisdiction, would not
boa fit Judge to sit'in a Court of Appeal. • He thought such
arguments were futile in the extreme. Sir John Head, when
he sat in the Privy Council as a Court of Appeal, would not
allow even his own decisions to be quoted there. In the plan
proposed by his Noble and Learned Friend, the Vice-Chan -
cellor was to preside over the Judicial Committee, and the
Master of the Rolls in the Privy Council. The Master of
the Rolls likewise thought that the present system could not
continue, and he proposed a change of a more sweep-
ing nature than his, for he wished to create a
Chancery Judge, a Judge of Appeal, a President
of the Council, with the title of Lord Keeper, with a seat in
the Cabinet. He therefore had the highest authority for say-
ing that some change was necessary, and it then became the
question what change to choose. He thought the plan he
Proposed the most advisable, because it combined two Courts
of Appeal,
.and made only one great Court of Appeal for the
arisen"" empire.' He thought that great convenience would have
m having a Vice-Chancellor, or the 'Master of
the Rolls, or creating a new officer, as the Master of the Rolls
proposed to do in creating a President and Lord Keep
among whom the functions of the present Chancellor should be
Camp distributed. His (Lord Ca bell's) plan could be carried into
effect without disturbing anything,nl without creating any new
Judge, or bringing any new burde on the public, or introduc-
ing in fact any change. He thought it the most effective plan
that could be proposed. To carry this plan into effect, he -pro-
posed to introduce three Bills ; one referred to that House,
and all' Bills and questions that were brought before the
second Bill gave power to the Crown to summon that House
during the p:'orogation of Parliament, to meet and transact
judicial business. He could not see any objection to extending
this power to the period of the dissolution of Parliament, but
the period of fifty days between the dissolution and the re-
was perhaps Father unfavourable to Judi-
turning of the writs,
eial business, but during the recess the House would have
ample time to transact all the business belonging to it. The
third Bill was f ,r the purpose of appointing a permanent Judge
in the Court of Chancery, and he thought in the fist instance,
• he ought to be appointed from arr,ring the four Judges pre-
siding in the Court of Chancery ; the Lord Chancellor would
thus be entirely transferred from the business of the Court to
presiding over the busiress of that House. He thought it ne-
evoary to state as briefly as possible, the object of his Bills,
• and when they came to a second reading he should be prepared
to answer any objections that might be made to them.
The:LORD' CHANCELLOR said he did net rise to make
say objections to the Bills proposed by his Noble and Learned