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

Friend, who had a right, according to the usual courtesy and
usages of their Lordships' House to lay his Bills on the
table. At the same time he begged leave to A state
that as his Noble and Learned Friend had not communicated
the substance or his Bills to him, though he had said, by
implication, that he had done so to the profession generally,
having stated that the voice of the profession was distinctly
in favour of the measure, yet as he had not been kind enough
to communicate the particulars of these Bills to him, he trusted
he should be excused if he did not enter into any details on the
present occasion, and confined himself merely to general ob-
servations on the subject, and on some of the remarks that
had been made by his Noble and Learned Friend. In the
first place, with respect to the Court of Chancery, his Noble
Friend had alluded to the Bill of last Session, which Bill was
supported by Noble Lords on both sides of the House ; the ob-
ject of that Bill was to clear off the arrears of the Court of
Chancery, and to bring the business of the Court into such a.
state that suitors might have their causes tried whenever they
were ready for hearing. He was happy to state that tkat object
had been completely accomplished. He, himself, (the Lord
Chancellor) twelve years ago, when he had the honour of
holding the Great Seal, introduced at two successive periods,
Bills which were directed to the same object.—( Hear,
hear,) But, unfortunately, though they passed their
Lordships' House, almost without opposition, yet they met
with so much opposition in another place, that they were not
successful. He congratulated his Noble and Learned Friend
near him that this was not the case with the measure he had
introduced. It was a wise measure, and had been attended
with all the advantage which he had predicted from it, and
which he himself, as an individual, felt confident would flow
from it. Their Lordships would allow him to state, in a few
words, what had been the result of that measure up to the pre-
sent time. In November last, when the Bill first came into
operation, there were upwards of five hundred cases standing
for hearing in the Court of Chancery. and that amount of ar-
rears had continued for a long period. Their Lordships would
recollect the eloquent description given by his Noble and
Learned Friend of the state of the Court of Chancery, and of 1
the exertions made by the Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor, Tier
did he think that that description was at all exaggerated.. He
believed that his Noble and Learned Friend stated that for a
considerable period the Court of Chancery had been sitting
permanently till three and four o'clock every even-
ing,
when the Vice-Chancellor relieved guard, without
being able, notwithstanding all these extraordinary ex-
ertions to reduce the amount of the arrears. At the present
moment there were standing for hearing, including old arrears.
and new cases, not quite 100 causes. He slid not at all exag-
gerate when he said that the object of the Bill had been com-
pletely and effectually accomplished. His Noble and Learned
Friend in a Committee of thet House, had stated that the ap-
pointment of one additional Judge would be sufficient to accom-
plish the object he had in view, but he must say, that at this
moment he could not come to the conclusion to which his Noble
and Learned Friend had arrived. He thought it would be pre-
mature to decide on that point, because they must remember
that in the Committee of that House much evidence was given
by men of general experience and great knowledge in the pro-
fession of the law, particularly in the Courts of Equity, to the
effect that if a way was opened to new cases, there would be a
large accession of business to the Court of Chancery. This to
a certain extent had been verified by the event ; he
had made inquiry into the number of bills filed
in two corresponding periods, and he found that
the increase had been in the proportion of 30 per cent., or
nearly one-third ; but these cases not being ripe for hearing,
they had not the effect of increasing the list of cases to which
he had before referred. Independently of these considerations
he would state that they could form no adequate idea of the
amount of the grievance which suitors laboured under on ac-
count of the charges. The term fees arising from causes in a
single year amounted to upwards of 40,0001. The conse-
quence, therefore, was not merely to get rid of the arrears,
but to get rid of them promptly, in order to relieve the suitors.
As far as related to the present question, the main point was as
to the appeals ; and it had been said that increasing the number
of Judges would have the effect of increasing the appeals. Now
what had been the result? Why, at the present moment there
were not more than twenty-four appeals, and he was quite satis-
fied that, when the cases got into the ordinary channels, the num-
ber of appeals would not exceed fffteen a year.—( Hear.) His
Noble Friend had said how unwise it was that the Chancellor
should sit in that House, to hear appeals from his own deci-
sions. He was sure that his Noble Friend had not properly
considered the character of that officer, because he thought he
could undertake to say that when a case came before their
Lordships, either upon appeal or otherwise, the Chancellor
would look with more caution to his own decision than any
other. He was quite, when his Noble Friend came to reflect
on the observations he had used, he would see that there was
no foundation for them. He would appeal to his Noble Friend
himself, whether there was any truth in the observation. Now,
as to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, what were
the observations made by his Noble Friend, and what were his
arguments? Their Lordships must recollect that that Court
was one of the most ancient tribunals of the country, and it
had been rendered illustrious by such men as Lord Stowell and
Sir Williem Grant ; and yet it was the tribunal that his
Noble Friend was anxious to abolish, notwithstanding their
Lordships had thought proper to extend the jurisdiction of that
tribunal, and establish it on a more solid foundation. That
tribunal had jurisdiction new in matters connected with the
Ecclesiastical Court, and he thought it must be apparent to
all that the present system was far better than the old. Under
the old system the appeal from the Ecclesiastical Court was
to a Court of Delegates composed of three Judges and three
Doctors of Ci ,i 1 Law, and when their opinions were equally
I balanced what was the remedy? Why they were obliged to
resort to a Commission of Adjuncts. That proceeding was had
resort to in a case in which he was engaged, and the result
;here was that the Judges were on the one side and the civilians
on the other; in that case a second Commission of Ad-
juncts was selected, and toe result would have
been the same had not one of the civilians given way.
Now was it not proper to abolish such a tribunal ? and accosd-
ingly it was wisely so abolished by his Noble and Learned
Friend's Bill, and the jurisdiction given to the Privy Council.
t7hen they came to consider that tribunal, it was material to
look to its composition. It was admirably adapted for the con-
sideration of those subjects which came before it. There were
questions from all the colonies, embracing almost every variety
of European and Eastern law. Where were the Spanish law
and the French la.weaccording to the new and old code; Dutch
law ; English law (teeth ,law and equity) ; and the Colonial
Statutes. In addition to that they had Oriental law—Hindoo
and Mohammedan. Subjects connected with those various
systems of law continually .came before that tribunal ; and
what was the cemposition of that tribunal which was so admi-
rably adapted for the purposes for which it was established ?
In addition to what he had already stated, there were also the
Ecclesiastical and Civil law. Well, that tribunal was composed
of the Judges of England—the Common-law Judges to decide
questions of common law; and the Judges of the Courts of
Equity, to decide questions of equity. There were also the
Judges of the Ecclesiastical Courts, to decide questions arising
out of Ecclesiastical law. In addition to those there were,
with respect to the laws of the East, two learned individuals,
who filled high judicial situations in the East, and who were to
give their advice and assistance upon questions connected with
Oriental law. His Noble and Learned Friend said that there was
great difficulty in getting that tribunal to assemble. He (the Lord
Chancellor) was not aware of such a difficulty existing. It
might happen that at times they could not be got to meet upon
some particular day and constitute a Court, because individuals
who formed that Court were engaged in other occupations;
out he (the Lord Chancellor) never knew any serious incon-
venience to arise from that circumstance. The Judges were
summoned according to the questions to be decided. He be-
lieved that the tribunal had given perfect satisfaction. He had
inquired of persons connected with the Colonies on this sub-
ject, and they not only expressed their entire satisfaction with
the management of matters brought under the cognizance of that
tribunal, but stated they would regret very much any altera-
tion in the present system. But his Noble and Learned Friend
said that this Court sat only forty or fifty days in the year.
They sat long enough to dispose of the business before them,
and they must mark that there was no arrear. According to
the returns now on the table of the House, it appeared that
only eight or nine cases were now standing for hearing; and
there never would have been any arrear if it had not been
for the circumstance of there being no persons to prosecute in
some East Indian causes which came before the Court. That diffi-
culty was now however removed, and that Court would go on
as it was now going on, in a manner perfectly calculated to
satisfy the suitors who awaited its decision. When he (the
Lord Chancellor) found a system working well, and people
perfectly satisfied with it, he was one of those who were very
much indisposed for change—he did not wish to change for
the sake of change. Some great man connected with the law
in the olden time had said, you should never make a change in
the law unless it was demonstratively for the better. At the
same time he (the Lord Chancellor) was not surprised to find
his Noble and Learned Friend bringing the present measure
before their Lordships. His Noble and Learned Friend•had
led a busy life ; he had now little or nothing to do, and it was
natural his active mind should seek something to employ it.
It was very much like a scheme formerly submitted to the
House by a Noble Friend of his (Lord Lyndhurst's), and which
was negatived by a very large majority when it came to be
discussed. Having said so much with respect to the Privy
Council, he would now turn the attention of their
Lordships to the jurisdiction of their Lordships' House.
He must say that there never was a moment
when it was less necessary to interfere with the
jurisdiction of that House. There were Noble and
Learned Lords who gave their constant attention to the sub-
ject. Even vs hen their Lordships sat for public business, the
House also sat for the purpose of disposing of causes. The
Noble Lord at the end of the bench, formerly Lord Chancellor
—his Noble and Learned Friend near him, his immediate pre-
decessor in office—there was his Noble and Learned Friend
who brought forward this measure, the late Lord Chancellor for
Ireland—all gave their assistance. He thought nothing could
he better than the appellate jurisdiction of that House at a
time when the Noble Lord was desirous of producing a change.
They had many schemes brought before that House. with re-
spect to this subject; but he would state to their Lordships
that it appeared that nothing could go on better, on the
whole, than the present system. He would next allude
to the jurisdiction of the Privy Council, which the
Noble Lord was desirous to alter. The Noble and
Learned Lord said, with :respect to this subject,
and he (Lord Lyndhurst) ought to have alluded to it before—
that there was extreme difficulty in getting a bar. Now, he
had attended there himself while there were questions of great
weight, but he never found any deficiency of gentlemen of the
, long robe of the very first talent. He bad often heard the
Noble and Learned Lord arguing with great force there, and he
( Lord Lyndhurst) believed it was as good a bar, and as regu-
larly attended, as any other Court of Justice. The Noble
Lord said the two appellate tribunals were co-ordinate.
A Noatz LOttn—They are for the same questions.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—The Noble Lord said they
were for the same questions, but they were not co-ordinate,
because the jurisdiction of one Court was for a certain part of
the country, and the other Court for another part. But he
said they were the same questions which came for decision.
Now, it was a remarkable fact, that during the two hundred
years that the Privy Council had exercised its jurisdiction, in
no one instance had there been a decision at variance with
that of their Lordships' House. So that practically
there had been no inconvenience.—(Hear.) Various ale
terations had been from time to time proposed. One was to
divide the Lord Chancellor into two, and send one-half
of him to the Court of Chancery, and keep the other half on
the Woolsack.—( Laughter. ) The project of the late Lord
Chancellor of Ireland, if carried, was to put the Lord Chancellor
in an easy chair, with two assessors by his side to do the duty.
Another was, to take away the appellate jurisdiction of their
Lordships' House, and transfer it to the Privy Council ; and
now it was proposed by his Noble and Learned Friend to take
away the jurisdiction of the Privy Council and transfer it to
their Lordships. Such were the various and incongruous
plans proposed by ingenious and leaned men when they applied
their minds to this complicated subject. The best way to look
at the question was, had the present system worked well?
He announced that it had worked well—had worked
admirably. His Noble and Learned
.Friend thought that the
intervals between the sittings of that House were too long.
Why, the intervals between the sittings of the Law Courts was
nearly as long. In the long vacation it was four months and a
half, which was nearly as great as the interval between the
sittings of Parliament, which was usually more than five months.
The Law Courts did not set to hear questions of law more
I than seventy days in the year ; and their Lordship's House
set more than 100 days.—( Hear.) But his Noble and Learned
Friend proosed to alter the constitution of Parliament. He
(Lord Campbell) proposed to prorogue the House only for a par-
j titular putpose, or to appoint a Committee. If this plan were '
adopted the appellate jurisdiction would not be considered to be
in their Lordships, but in a distinct body sitting within the same
wells- The House of Lords had established its judicial autho-