The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-12 00:00:00

CHANCERY REFORM..

Lord CAMPBELL, in Moving the Order of the Day
for the second reading of the Privy Council Appeals Bill,
said that he thought it would be convenient to discuss
those Bills which stood for second reading this evening
as parts of one measure. The object of the first was to
transfer the appellate jurisdiction of the Privy Council
to their Lordships' House—that of the second was to
create a permanent Judge of Chancery—and of the third,
to allow their Lordships to sit upon appeals during the pe-
riod of the Parliamentary recess. To him it appeared that
the greatest inconvenience connected with the present
practice of the Court of Chancery arose from the cir-
cumstance of the Chief Judge being removable with
every change of Ministers. The number of appeals
had greatly increased since the . augmentation of
the Vice-Chancery Courts, and the augmenta-
tion was going 1 on at a very rapid rate, When
the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack
decided a ease in the Court of Chancery, if the parties
made an appeal to that House he would hear it in a
-most fair and dispassionate manner, and he would be
ready at any time to reverse his decision. But what was
the feeling of the public upon it ? That feeling was
described by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who said it
was contrary to analogy, that prevailed in all the lower
establishments. This evil would continue unless they
separated the functions of the Lord Chancellor sitting in
the Court of Chancery and sitting in the House of Lords.
This was one of the principal alterations contemplatedin
the Bill. In the Irish Ecclesiastical Court, no man could
sit to hear appeals if he were a Roman Catholic
They could have no uniformity in decisions on the same.
subject in England and in Ireland. That House might
decide that a Presbyterian mixed marriage seas legal,
but it would not be held so in Ireland. This question
would soon be argued at their Lordships' bar, and if the
marriages were decided to be valid it would subject
many persons to transportation. For this evil,
he knew no remedy but that which he had
the honour of proposing to their Lordships. The
very circumstance of the fact of the contrary de-
cisions between the two tribunals ought, in his (Lord
Campbell's) humble opinion, to convince their Lordships
that there ought to be only one tribunal. The decisions-
of the Judicial Committee were merited by good sense
and soundness of argument and doctrine, and their de-
cisions were now quoted quite as much as the
judgments of their Lordships, and yet their decisions
might be very different. Take the case of the making
a rate ; the Churchwardens might make a rate, and a
rate-payer appealing, their Lordships might decide'
that the Churchwardens were not competent -to the
making a rate, • whilst the Judicial Committee
might decide that they were competent. In such
a ease the parish must most unquestio.iably be placed
in a very unpleasant situation. In marriage cases
also, the same thing might result ; and he thougt these
instances ought to convince their Lordships that there
should be only one tribunal ; if there were only one
tribunal there would be no fear but that the decisions
would be uniform ; and he thought that should induce
their Lordships to support the proposition which
h 4. had the honour to make to them. Formerly, Parlia-
ment met twice or thrice a year, and on these occasions
the Privy Council used to be summoned to attend to
jud.cial business. It was not until the reign of Henry
VII. that the Privy. Council assumed to itself the power
of deciding - in appeals without the inter-
position of Parliament. It was in the reign
Of Henry • the Eigth, the Judicial Committee
of the Privy Council; called the Committee of the Star
Chamber, assumed to itself a power - entirely indepen-
dent of Parliament. The reason why the appeals•froM
the Channel Islands, Jersey, and Guernsey, were trans-
ferred to the Privy Council was, that during a .long
period under the Tuderi, Parliament was not
called together, and the • Privy Council were
enabled to exert, independently, an authority which they
caultt only hold legitimately under the sanction of. their
Lordship. ; and if their Lordships agreed to the mea-
sure which he proposed they would not introduce any
innovation, but only recur to the ancient practice
of the Administration, according to the consti-
tution in this country. The object of his
measure was to secure uniformity in the administration
of justice.

The LORD CHANCELLOR did not know whether he
ought to be heard at all upon this subject, as the object of
-the Bill was to shut the doors of the Court of Chian-,
eery against the . Lord Chancellor. According to the
Bill the. Queen would not have the power of placing
st the head of the Court the person to whom she con-
Lided the Great Seal. His Noble and Learned, Friend
,•-frar him (Lord Cottenham), whose fitness to fill the
high office had been the subject of so much
eulogy, could not be appointed if this Bill
;vere passed ; and if her Majesty were desirous
of placing upon the bench his Noble and Learned Friend
( L-)rti Brougham) whose zeal and assiduity had despatchA
long arrelr of suits and appeals, this Bill would
stand in her wey.---(tlear, hear.) Nay, if the
Noble and Learned Friend (Lord CampbolP):owas
desirous of again serving his country in the ca-
pacity of an Equity Judge, he must again
go across the Channel, and take his seat upon the bench
which he so lately adorned. He (Lord Campbell) di-
vided his measure into three Bills. 'IT e first object of
that Bill was to abolish the Judicial Committee -of the
i'rivy Council. It was but nine years since their Lord-
;hips passed a Bill for the purpose of extending the
jurisdiction of the Privy Council and for the purpose of
ell:m'ing their powers. That Bill was maturely con-
sidered at the time. It passed, and passed without
oppelition either in that House or the other House of
Parliament ; and it gave universal satisfaction. Must
they then retrace their steps ? Let them mark the his-
tory of that tribunal.. It disposed of all cases as they,
game before it. For the last nine_years 116 appeals had
been got rid of. He would mention one circumstance
leeisive of the character of that tr:bunal. In every case
,f importance the judgment was a written judgment,
lelirered not hastily, but a judgment well considered, a
eritten j.y.lg-:nest, to insure its being considered with
diligence, attention, and circumspection; and he (the
, Lent Chancellor) appealed to those very reports to which
the Noble and Learned Lord appealed in confirmation
of the diligence and the legal ability and the sound
judgment manifested in 1111 decisions of that tribunal.
' This was the Court which this Bill sought to abolish.
The tribunal was admirably adapted to the business
which it had to perform. There were questions
of civil and ecclesiastical law. Judges who had
been• enewred in the Ecclesiastical Courts attended
in the lmurt, and formed part of it, for the pdr-
pose of deciding the question. Again, there were ques-
tions of equity. There were Judges of the Equity
;Courts who were members of the tribunal. When ques-
tions of this kind were discussed, their attendance was
required to form part of that Court. Again, there were
questions of common law that were agitated and dis-
cussed, and on those occasions the Judges of the Com-
mon Law Courts formed part of the Court. Nay more,
there were questions of Hindoo law and Mahomedan
law. On these occasions there were gentlemen who had
been Judges in India, who attended to give their assist-
ance. Questions of the utmost importance
were there discussed and decided. This was
the tribunal the Noble Lord sought to abolish.
lie was sure their Lordships would not assent to the
proposition of his Noble Friend. His Noble Friend said
he was not reforming, he was only restoring, and he re-
ferred- to what wasAhe practice in the reign of King
Richard the Second. But the question wasnot what was
the practice in the time of Richard the Second, but what
was bust to be done now. His Noble Friend proposed
that their Lordships should attend all the year round for
the purpose of hearing appeals; that was one of his Noble
Friends innovations; their attendance, however, was to
be voluntary, and thus, while the Noble Lord might
be enjoying himself in Scotland. and another Noble
Lord was regaling himself at his villa in the
South of France—(Langhter)—the Chancellor, who
sat on the %Toolmack, would not have the opportunity of
ving town. But what would be the id vantage of
this? Suppose, now, the Noble Lord who-brought for-
ward this motion should attend, and another Noble and
Learned Lord who sat near him (Brougham) should also
attend, the tribunal would consist of the Chancellor and
his two Noble and Learned Friends.—(flcar, hear.) But
his Noble end Learned Friend complained that there
were two tribunals. Why, their jurisdictions were quit*
distinct. The House of Lords decided all cases of equity
throughout the United Kingdom, and the Judicial Com-
mittee of the Privy Council decided in cases of equity
and common law in the colonies. This law had been in
operation now for 200 years, and there was no instance