Star.
London, England, 1822-06-27 00:00:00

clause,
:crest

of virtuous allies, and . igt,
and happiness of the country. With respect to the
Sew difficulties started by the Noble and Learned
Lord, they had already attracted the attention of the
framers of the Bill, especially the case in which re-
versionary rights should have been disposed of for a
good consideration' and he should have to propose a
clause, 'which he should be happy to submit to the
Noble Lord, which would have the effect of charging
ea the estate the sum received for its reversion. He
assured the Noble and Learned Earl, that the clauses
which he (the Lord Chancellor) intended to propose,
should be treated with due attention, and that he
(Lord Ellenborough) would be happy to agree with
his amendments, provided the principle of the retro-
spective clause should be held sacred.
The LORD CHANCELLOR had not failed in
respect to the Noble Lord or to the House, in not
submitting his clauses for their consideration. He i
had not had time to pen diem, except when engaged
in the business of the Courts ; but when the retrospec-
tive clause should have been carried, as he expected
it would be, he should have no objection to commu-
nicate them to the Noble Lord, and to postpone
moving them till the third reading of the Bill.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH assured the Noble and
Learned Earl, that if he would propose a clause to
remedy the deficiency which he had observed in the
Bill, and to validate marriages solemnized by undue
banns as well as those by licenses, it would be re-
ceived.by the friends of the measure in the most fa-
vourable manner.

The LORD CHANCELLOR then said, that for
the purpose of recording his opinion he should now
move, " That the retrospective clause be left out
of the Bill."

The Earl of HARROWBY wished thatthe Amend-
ments proposed by the Noble and Learned Lord on
the Woolsack, should be added to the clause, before
the sense of the House should be taken, as it might
procure many more votes in its favour.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL was for a retrospective
clause, but a modified one, and moved that these
words be added to the first exception-4. Provided
that the said clause be not construed to extend to any
marriage with respect to the validity of which suits
were now depending."
A long conversation ensued as to the best mode of
putting the question. It was at last, however, put on
the LORD CHANcsLLoit's motion, when the tetrospec-
tive clause was adopted without a division.
The Earl of LIVER POOL then moved his proviso.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN opposed it, as
tending to prevent that general settlement of all li- '
tigious questions which it was the object of the Bill
to effect. The only defined point where to stop at,
was, in his opinion, the actual possession or enjoy-
ment of property.
After a few words from the LORD CHANCELLOR
and the Earl of WESTMORLAND, the Ilouse divided on
t..e Amendment :
Contents • 2$
Non Contents 67
Majority against the Amendment —39
Oa the re-admission of strangers, it was understood
that the Loan CHANCELLOR'S clauses had been re-
ceived and ordered to be plinLed.
Another conversation then arost respecting the time
and nature of the next proceeding, at the close of
which it was ordered, on the motion of Lord ELLEN-
BOROUGH, that the further consideration of the Re-
port should be adjourned to Friday next, and that
their Lordships should be summoned for that day.—
Adjourned.

have no objection to give every information in his power.
Lord ALTHORP spoke in favour of the motion.
Mr. WYNN Asserted, that the present motion could not be
agreed to without bearing an invidious meaning.
The Marquis of CHANDOS defended the Bucks Yeomanry.
Mr. HUME said he thought the circumstance of the Backs
Yeomanry charging so much as they bad done for coming up to
the Coronation, was quite sufficient to warrant their making an
inquiry on this subject.
Lord PALMERSTON felt himself quite at a loss to under-
stand upon what Parliamentary ground the Hen. Member made
his motion. It might be satisfactory to the Hon. Member to
knOw, that not one of the Corps he had selected for his Return
had received one shilling for the year list, except for perma-
nent duty—(Hear).—The pay for that was Ss. a day, and nothing
had been paid to them for suppressing riots.
Mr. DAWSON and the Marquis of CHANSONS explained.
Mr. RENNET contended that there was nothing invidious
in the motion of his Hon. Friend. He expressly stated that he
called for Returns with regard to these particular Regiments,
because it appeared that they were more expensive than others.
After a few words from Mr. MONCIC, Mr. Hoax, and Mr.
DawsoN, the motion was withdrawn, upon an understanding that
the deficiency in point of information in the present accounts
should be supplied.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
Mr. M. A. TAYLOR reminded the House that
when he made a motion on the subject he then rose
to resume, last Session, there was a feeling in favour
of it on both sides of the House, and it was nega-
tived only by a majority of four. He need scarcely
tell the House what were the evils of a suit in Equity.
—The expenses of such a suit were sufficient to ruin
any moderate fortune. The evils being so great it
might be asked why they saw or. their table no Peti-
tions complaining of them? The House might under-
stand this, when he told them that, in consequence
of the jurisdiction of that branch of the law being
in the hands of one individual, be never yet could
prevail on any of the persons aggtievad, by delay or
otherwise, to allow him to mention their names. In
all the anonymous applications he had received, how-
ever, he had taken the greatest pains to ascertain the
truth of the allegations. The Hon. Member pro-
ceeded to state a case of an individual, who had been
left one twenty-eighth share of a certain property near
London, which was valued at 1,200/. the single share.
The property, however, fell into Chancery, and after
twelve years delay the decree was made, by which
this individual got 4501. out of his 1,2501. The Hon.
Gentleman stated other cases of delay and loss, of
which he had heard, to justify the motion he was
about to make, to induce the House to make some
alteration in the constitution of the Vice-Chancellor's
Court in favour of the suitor. In the Reports of the
Committees of Inquiry in the years 1811 and 1812,
the abuses of the Chancery Court were so ably ex-
posed, that a Bill was brought in for the appointment
of a Vice-Chancellor. That Bill was opposed by
characters of the first consideration on both sides of
the House. Amongst others it was opposed by Sir
Samuel Romilly—a man as eminent in his station as
any great man of any description ever was in his.—
But he had even the authority of the present Vice-
Chancellor himself against the appointment. The
Bill, however, passed the House, as he thought, in an
evil hour, for it deprived the suitor of the right of
having his cause heard by the Great Seal. It was
the business of the Great bye
to administer justice
in the ciica[est and most speedy manner. But with
all the talents of Lord Eldon, the delay in his Court
was tenfold, and the expenses enormous, and that was
because he was withdrawn from the Court. The fact
was, he was more of a Statesman than Judge, and it
did happen that, whenever a ca..e of great intricacy
was commenced, he shut his note-bo,,k, and went
away— ( near, hear and \o I limn the Ministerial
benches).—He meant no reflection on that great and
good personage, but he stated what he believed to be
the case. It was no fault of his, for he was called
away to the Privy Council, or on some •other State
business. The consequence of this multifarious duty
of this office was, that in eight years and a half he
had decided only 53 causes and 157 appeals. The
Vice-Chancellor had determined 2,300 causes in the
same time, and he asked if this was not withdrawing
the Great Seal from the Chancery Court? All this
arose from his being so much harassed with other
business. With respect to motions, since the enact-
ment of the Vice-Chancellor's Bill, the Lord Chan-
cellor had heard 5,150, the Vice-Chancellor had
heard 14,560. Now he should like to know how many
of these motions before the Chancellor were appeals
from the Vice-Chancellor ; for he knew that a gi eat
portion of his time was taken up with such business.
All this .wus exactly what Sir Samuel Hominy had
foretold. Sir Samuel Romilly had said, that the hear-
ing of these appeals upon motions would probably
take up as much time as was then devoted by the
Lord Chancellor in the Court. He also said, that it
would have the effect of increasing the expenses of
the suit, multiplying the number of them, and pro-
tracting the decision. In the same space f time, the
Lord Chancellor had heard 39 exceptions and further
hearings, whilst the Vice-Chancellor heard 106. In
petitions also, where the Lord Chancellor had heard
4071, the Vice-Chancellor had heard 2302. This
was absolutely withdrawing the Lord Chancellor
from his Court. He assured the Noble Marquis op-
posite, who, he supposed, was going to oppose him
in his motion, that it would be better for him to sit
two months longer in that House, than have the
anxiety and vekatton of a Chancery suit. He would
say no more, but leave it to the good sense of the
House to determine upon what he had already stated
to them. He would only entreat of them to take into
their consideration the case of the unfortunate suitor,
or rather suppliant, who, after being dragged through
all the horror of an equity ordeal, awoke to the worst
reality of worsted fortune and ruined property by the
merciful decree of the Lord Chancellor. From such
mercy, he said, might the (ion in Heaven deliver
them I He now wished to see what had been done
by the House of Lords since the passing of the Bill
for appointing the. Vice-Chancellor. The ntkmber of
cases, disposed of in the first year was 66, in. the se;
coed 82, in the next 54, and in the years which fol-
lowed, 42, 35, 27, 41; 22, and 26. This was the
state of things OD the 10th of May, 1822, when there
remained in affair cases .already appointed 122, and
35. cuss not appointed. Taking the cases decided in
each year en the average of the last nine years, he
found the number disposed of in each year to be 38.

d

this rate,' it would take four years to
cases already in atrear ; matters beilt,
ice-Chancellor's Bill did not afford the
I' the desired relief, he would propose
.s duties the hearing of Scotch Appeals,
occupied so much time ; and he would
from petitigns and Motions, and pats
__ Bankruptcy business. He earnestly pressed on .
the House the importance of giving their most serious
attention to the subject, with a view to remedy the
evils of which he complained. He had spoken oa
this business with the Lord Chancellor, having pre.
viously postponed his motion on a suggestion from
that Noble and Learned Personage. The Lord Chan.
cellor adititted the case to he one that merited atten:
don; but said, as he might shortly retire from the
Great Seal, as a matter of delicacy he must leave chi
subject to be dealt with by his successor. He (Mr.
M. A. Taylor) had said no young Chancellor couli
frame a plan so well. He had seen the Noble an 4
Learned Earl again about a month ago, and then, al
he stated, it was not his intention to originate any
plan. He (Mr. M. A. Taylor) informed him he should
bring the present motion before the House of Corn.
mons. He concluded by moving, That this House
will resolve itself into a Committee of the whole
House, to consider of an Act passed in the .53d of
the late King, entitled an Act to facilitate the Admi-
nistration of Justice." Should the motion which be
now made be carried, the Honourable and Learned
Gentleman said, he proposed to move to limit the
duration of the Bill in question to one or two years.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL did not see that it
was necessary for the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
to call for a Committee to inquire into this subject,
as he seemed to have made up his mind already as
to what ought to be done. He could not deny that
proceedings in the Court of Chancery were attended
with •considerable expense; but this was not the
ground on which a Committee was called for, but the
delay of which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
complained. The llon. and Learned Gentleman
thought the House ought to interfere to take away
one branch of the Court, which, in his judgment, iii-
stead of ridding the business, contributed to the de-
lay. He defended the Noble and Learned Lord from
the imputation that he was more of a Statesman thaa
a Lawyer, or that he was obliged to attend to all
Cabinet Councils. From his own experience in that
Court, he could declare that that part of his duty
occupied very little of his time. It was well kniesir
that the Lord Chancellor attended t holidays very
little, and that during the greater part of all the v,-
cations. he attended to hear and dispatch all kip ds of
business that can be brought before him. He coy..
tended that these were no such arrears of causes is
Chancery ; though he admitted chit the Lord Chan-
cellor was as much occupied as he was before the
establishment of the Vice•ChancelloCs Court. la
1821, the Lord Chancellor heard 103 bankrupt pe-
titions, and 418 motions, which were in fact causes
each of them. In the sanie year he heard eight
causes, six exceptions, five pleas and demurrers,
petitions, and 24.5 lunatic 1 etitions. In the whole
year he dispatched 890 matters of all kinds. LI I%.:Zri,
they were 1015; and, in 1819, they were iOll. la
ten years before the establishment of the Vice-Chas.
cellor's Court the House of Lords heard 193 rippeah;
and in the last ten years they had heard 121. It was
true that the number of appeals had greatly increased
from Scotland, and this as as the great cause of the
increase of business in the House of Loads. He con-
tended that the Hon. and Leitrim.' Gentleman had
made out no case for breaking up the Vice-Chancel-
lor's Court. Last year he wa, for sweeping aa ay the
Chancery, the Roll,, and the Vice-Chancery, and
new modelling them altogether. He then wished to
have the Lord Chancellor confined to the House of
Lords entirely ; and he had no doubt that next year
he would come forward with a new proposition. He
trusted that he had shewn that the Chancellor ha l
not withdrawn himself from the Court of Chancery
since the establishment of the Vice Chancell,r's Court ;
and that in fact he had done more since that time..—
It was not for him to apologize for any delays which
many accused the Lord Chancellor of; but all who
knew the Court of Chancery must know that it pro-
ceeded from a conscientious desire to render equity.
The House would see that no case had been made
out for this motion, therefore he would oppose it.
Mr. J. WILLIAMS said, that no disrespect was
intended, by the motion, of the Learned Lord. He,
himself, had no experience of the Noble Lord, ex-
cept when he filled the highly ambiguous situation
of a Party and a Judge. The result of- the appoint-
ment of a Vice-Chancellor, had been a great increase
of expense to the suitors, from the multiplication of
Appeals. In the course of nine years, the Vice-
Chancellor had; decided 261 Bankrupt cases more
than his Illustrious Head. In the decision of causes
generally, the number decided in the Vice-Chancel-
for's Court, had been in the proportion of ten to one.
At the present moment, there were 109 Appeals to
the Court of Chancery. The creation of the Vice-
Chancellor's Court had increased those evils of the
Court of Chancery that had been so long complained
of. He should vote for the motion.
Mr. HORACE TWISS said, that all the reasons
now advanced against the Vice-Chancellor's Bill had
been anticipated at the time when that Bill was first
brought forward, but which were not then considered
powerful enough to prevent the House from adopting
it. He Contended that it was false in argument to
say, that by the return before them the Lord Chan-
cellor had Only disposed of 53 causes in a year.—
There were other matters which might properly be
called causes. Since the erection of the Vice-Chan-
cellor's Court, the entire number of matters disposed
of by the Lord Chancellor was 11,320, and those dis-
posed of before the Vice-Chancellor, 17,881. Upon
the first day of the present year there remained in ar-
rear in the Vice-Chancellor's Court 320 matters; and
in that of the Lord Chancellor's 164. Of these, the
number of causes amounted to the overwhelming mul-
titude of two. The appointment of the Vice-Chan-
cellor's Court had reduced the arrear of causes to less
than half. He therefore saw no reason for carrying
' this restless activity of change, so much the rage of
the day, into the highest Courts of Law in the realm
---(Hear, hear).—ln a great Judge, they were not
only to look at the number of causes dismissed within
a year; they were to look also to the effect of his
judgments, in the way of precedent, upon the future
' administration of the laws—(Hear,hear). He would
venture to say, that when.the decisions of the .present
Lord High Chancellor were consulted by future

, ~...,
•
. >
clause, and in tbaek was Uoi stated reversionary fib-, rlslitit btmsttt " ill *lt of a Ireelnic___„rf Core,he .1
Proceeding at th
Oiler a dor opts teat dew
:crest had been-sold, opthat their Lozdships might le- .0,71-4.,, boomed= Elm ~- is w"" so "1"1- dispose of the cat
Nirdiraw
,• _the
gislate on the subject with aperfectly (dear mind. The Wood itAcQUellt, tion. Member thus, as the Vice
retrospective clause would only destroy rights which for.Abisdem woad statetim pole which be leatkines Lord Chancellor
were never intended to exist—rights of a dishonour- ittdeced to mike this
sedsal . to tae from his d
Mr. HUMS said, that &byres a *titles the Ham blvvobv,
able nature, and of immoral policy, whilst it would ~,a, by no means entitled —.. whi now occui
to put.
remove the apprehensions and confirm the happiness Colonel MACQUICEN said, that, as far as he was concerned also relieve him f
of virtuous families, and through them the morals Ise Colonel of the Regiment which had been alluded to,he could of the Bankruptc:
- t_ _have no objection to give every information in his power. the House the imi