Star.
London, England, 1826-05-19 00:00:00

CRIMINAL JUSTICE.

The Earl of LI VBRPOOL moved the third reading of the Bill
for improving the Administration of Criminal Justice.
The Earl of MALNIESBURY approvetfof the prin-
ciple of the Bill, but objected to a practice which was
attended with much partiality and injustice. In eases
of Felony, Judges were empowered to grant the ex
penes to proseastors. The present Bill extended that
principle to misdemeanours, but the grievance was that
the fund out of which those eZpenoes were defrayed
was the Cyr. ►ty 'tate, which was in fact nothing else
tban an a...rssment on the Poor Rates. Now, in the
County of Southampton, during the ten years ending
lin 1799 the ezpence of defraying criminal prosecutions
had la no year exceeded nool. In the first ten years of the present
leathery it had never exceeded annually SEW. whereas in the ten
years ending in te2ll it had amounted to t,3156. a year. The

Mr. HUME captained. He had no objection to stabil* the
Petition to the inspection of Mr. Jones; but he trusted the Host.
Member did not expect him to visit the respective prisons against
which any complaint might be made. Was he to go down to York,
or any other place, and visit the prisons there, before he presented
a Petition complaining of them ? He had stated front the beginning.
that he would not be answerable for the allegations contained In the
Petition. The Hon. Member then withdrew the Petition.
Mr. HUME presented Petitions from three indivi-
duals in the Parish of St. Olave's, complaining of the
exaction of Tithes in that Parish, and begging an in-
quiry into the abases complained of in the Petitions.
He thought that if the Clergy of England pursued the
ex .ctions of their Tithes in the same way that they were
pursued in lieland, the House would be called ulon to
interfere, and appoint that the Tithe should he applied
for the relief of the poor, and thus relieve Gentlemen
from the pnor's rates, which was the end intended when Tithes
were first exacted. He thought it his duty to make these observa-
tions when be saw a man like Or. Owen (the present Incumbent)
receive at :he rate of 4001. a sermon, and a Curate perform his duty
for him for 601. a year. Ile thuught the time was approaching
when the landed intern: would feel it their duty to interfere, and
devi.e slime plan to relieve themselves from this exaction.
After k few words from far. Aldernt.ui Wows and Mr. W.
W rsii, the Petitions were ordered to be printed.

Dlr. LITTLETON presented srveralPetitione against

THE COURT OF CHANCERY.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL rose, ii pursuance
to a notice which he gave on a foroTer night, with the
purpose of moving for leave to Loisig in a Bill founded
upon the recrimmendatiot s of the Commission ap-
pointed to inquire into the practice of the Coun of
Chansery. The House w• uld be aware that upon an
occasion like the present, etrer the vat iowt allefions that
had been made to the nature of this inquiry, and after
,he debates which had frequently taken place upon the
whole subject, he must necessarily trespass upnn a
considerable portion of tt.eir time. It would be necessary
for him to enter into the manner in which the Com-
missioners had done their duty, to call the attention of
the Honig to the points which bad occupied their in-
and to explain the nature of the pleasures which
they recommended for the ;adoption of filirliament. Many
übbervatious had Seen made • both *ad ,out of use

boa._

House uporahe composition Oboe Commission which
had been appointed to un kerta e this inquiry. It
had been said thit nothing good could be expected
from a body so constituted; indeed be had heard it said
in that House, that it was perfectly ridiculous to expect
anything from s •ch pet sons. And if it were objected
that such as inquiry should be conducted by persons
deeply conversant with the subject in all its branches,
persons of the greatest experience, and of acknowledged
talent, then he admitted that such objections applied
with full force and effect to those who composed this
Commission, because he thought it impossible that a
C mmission could have been formed of men of longer
experience, of greater talent, or of more habitual ac-
quaintance with the points requiring investigation.—
Then it was said that their prejudices were of such a
nature as to preclude the possibility of their decisions
leading to any important result. Now, he b-gged to
appeal to all who hid attended to the conduct of the
Commissioners, to some who were his friends, and to
some with whom he generally differed upon poli-
tical questions, and he would confidently ask them whe-
ther they had ever witnessed, in any inquiry whatever,
a greater portion of fairness, liberality, and candour.—
He was not one of the Commission, but he ha I oat been
an inattentive observer of its proceedings, and he would
tike upon himself to say, that no suggestion of abuse
was ever made, but it received immediate and ample
attention. It was impossible for the Commissioners to '
pursue a more judicious course than they had done in
laying the evidence before the House. If that
evidence had not been on the table the day after the
bringing up of the Report, some Honourable Gentleman
would certainly have moved for the printing of the
whole of it. If they had selected such portions of the
evidence as they might deem most clear and instruc-
tive, they would be charged with having garbled the
subject. They therefore could obviate all objection
only by laying the whole body of the evidence before
the House. To this course he could not anticipate any
objection from his Hon. and Learned Friend the Mem-
ber for Winchelsea, for that Hon. Gentleman had said
on a former occasion, that he hoped Gavernment would
not be satisfied with barely furnishing a report, but that
they would lay before the House all the evislence. The
Commissioners requested the attendance of Fall those
who were best calculated to furnish information on the
aubject of their inquiry; but they in no instance se-
fused the evidence of any individual who had any com-
plaint to make or any suggestion to offer. Further to pre-
vent the possibility of mistake, after the evidence was
taken down, a copy of it was transmitted to the witness,
that its correctness might be completely ascertained.—
The Commission was all through conducted with an
anxious desire on the part of the members who com-
posed it to remedy whatever abuses or delays might
be found to exist in the practice of the Court of Chan-
cery. Here it was important to consider what had
been thrown out on this subject as to a more extensive
reform. Some there were who held that the jurisdiction
of the Court of Chancery ought to be entirely abolished,
as being an encroachment upon the Common Law of
the country. Now if this opinion were well founded, the
labours of the Commissioners had been altogether ma'.
sir ected, and instead of inquiring into the abuses which
prevailed, and applying appropriate remedies, their
business simply was to abolish the whole jurisdiction.
Now, he put it to the House, whether it was nut
impossible to get rid of the jurisdiction of that Court
in the existing state of society ; and in illustration
of the necessity of its existence, he would but briefly
allude to those points to which that juristliction ap-
plied. First, there was much of the real property
of the country vested in trusts, and much also of
the personal property confided to trustees. Now must
riot there be a jurisdiction competent to enforce the
management and due administration of these trusts?
Cases in which so many complicated and conflict-
wg interests were concerned, and so much property
involved. The Common Law Courts had no jurisdic•
Lion over such cases. The first consideration then was,
whether the Court of Chancery was necessary to the
adjudication of them? There was the case of copyright
property ; if the Chancery Court had no jurisdiction in
that, what remedy had the plala,iff? An appeal to the
Courts of Law. Suppose he sought an immediate re-
medy in them? The suit might last from Term to Term
and the injured plaintiff remain a year without his re-
medy ; aye, and still longer, if there were not a Court of
Chancery to give him instantaneous redress. Next, as to
the specific performance of contracts, the Courts of Com-
monLa w had no power to enforce the fulfilment of a con-
tract ; they could only give the plaintiff damages for the
non-performing it ; and if the damages were not paid,
they might send the defendant to gaol. But the Court
of Chancery alone possessed authority to grant an im-
mediate and direct remedy, by compelling the plaintiff
to perform the conditions of his contract. The next

point which presented itself was the settlement of ac

counts between partners: on this important matter a
Court of Equity alone could afford a remedy.. The
next cl.iss vvas that of fraudulent transactions—ln the

correction of which the Common Law Courts could not

decide; they were the peculiar objects of an equity
• jurisdiction. Then there was the administration of the
concerns of infants and married women, which also
required the superintendence of that Court. In brief,

the consideration of these several cases would spew

that the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery was
. necessary to a satisfactory transaction of the public
busi►►ess, a►ul that it could not be abolished.—
The quest on now presented itself, by what Courts
that jurisd►ctio ought to be exercised. It was plain
that the jurisdiction must either continue to reside as
heretofore in a separate Court, or it must be engrafted
on the Courts of Common Law. If the latter course
were to be preferred, according to the suggestions of
some, they must necessarily double the number of
Common Law Courts to meet the consequent increase
of business, and those Courts should alternately hear
equity causes one day, and common causes another ;
so that even then the jurisdictions though nominally
the same would be really distinct. Again it should
be considered that great attention must be paid to the
Common Law in order to the due administration of

justice. No less attention was necessary for a proper
discharge of duty in the Courts of Equity, the admi-
nistration of which was quite different from the former,
and if they united the systems, could it be expected
that the Judges could possess the same extensive
information which they did while the jurisdictions
• were separate. Pursuing the suggestion thrown out by
an Hon. Friend near him, he would advert to an in-
: -stance of the united jurisdiction, as it existed in the Court
of Exchequer—not indeed in its present state, but as it
• was constituted up to the close of the last century.—
Now while that Court possessed a double jurisdiction,
every one who was concerned in a common law case

wished to have it tried in the Court of King's Bench'
rather than in the Exchequer; and the suitors in Equity
cadets gave a similar preference to She Court of Chan;
eery. The inconvenience arising from the mixture of
the two systems was-so great that an Hon. Member on
the other side of the House once brought in a Bill, the
object of which vas to separate the jurisdictions; and
the consequence eventually was an arrangement to
which the Chief Baron held the Equitable Jurisdiction
in a separate Court, while the other Barons in another
Court presided only in cases of common law. Now to what
points was it necessary, that the attention of the Commis-
sioners should be directed ? It was impossible for them to
suppose the jurisdictions should not be held in separate
Courts, or that the proceedings should not commence
'by bill and answer. Laying this down as a principle,
they directed their attention to those which had the
strongest claim upon it. When they found complaints
of expence and delay, they rationally said " let us
examine the proceedings from the beginning to the end
of a suit, and correct the defects as they present them-
selves." They began with the subpoena. The complaint
against this was, that it conveyed no certain informa-
tion to unlettered men, to whom it might happen to be
directed. This objection the Commissioners obviated,
by rendering the language of the sobpsna clear and
intelligible, so as to explain the precise object which it
was designed to effect. The time allowed for entering
an appearance formed another ground of complaint.—
In a town cause, the prescribed time was short, but in
a country one it was long. In the latter case, they cor-
rected the evil by abridging the time; and parties were
bound to appear, sot indeed so speedily as in a town
muse, but on a day specified. According to the present
practice, when a defendant neglected to appear, an
attachment issued, and being committed thereupon, he
Was brought op to the Court by habeas corpus. If he
still refused to appear, an appearance was entered for
,
'him. The Commissioners, however, deeming the habeas
amps an unnecessary proceeding, lessened the expence
and delay by entering an appearance for the defendant
immediately on his being taken into custody. After
the appearance was entered, it was highly important that
a fair time should be allowed for putting in an answer.
It was right that this time should be neither too little
'nor too great, and the regulation accordingly made
limited the period to ten weeks in a country cause, and
eight weeks in a town cause. Hitherto, when a party
refused to answer, he was attached ; a habeas corpus
then issued, upon which he was brought np. If he still
refused to answer, he was committed to the Fleet. An
Alias writ was then served upon him, and in cases of
his persisting to refuse, then a Pluries, and finally, an
Alias Pluries; and then if no answer were filed, the
Bill was taken pro confeuo. But it was evident, that
also these proceedings were quite unnecessary ; for
when the defendant was once in custody, why should
occasions be afforded him to repeat his disobedience ?
The Commissioners therefore considered the shortest time
which ought to be allowed the detendant for filing his
answer, after he was brought up, and on his neglecting
to put it in, the Bill was then to be taken pro confesso.—
Again, supposing the attachment not be executed, and
the return of the Sheriff to be non est inventus, after
various intermediate proceeding:, a Commission of Re-
bellion was issued, and finally, a seques'ration. Now all
these complicated details were removed by the Commis-
sioners. As to the case of an answer filed, every one kne w
that answers in equity %sere frequently evasive iu their
character, and it was of course necessary that there should
be a power to compel a clear one. In order to 'hew
what the Commissioners had done, he was bound to
state the practice of the Court as it existed. From the
Vice Chancellor's decision an appeal lay to the Lord
Chancellor; and that the party appealieg might, if he
pleased, resort to the House of Lords, and when a year
and a ha:f elapsed, their Lordships might finally decide
that the defendant's answer was not sufficient, and the
only consequence was, that he was then obliged to file
another answer. For this purpose he had the same
time which was allowed for his first answer ; and after
;all his second ;mower might ultimately be decided to
be insufficient. Not until the same decision was passed
upon his third answer was it imperative on him to put
in a sufficient one. In each successive case, the same
round of delay remained to be gone through in appeals
from the Master to. the Vice Chancelor, from the
Vice Chancellor to the Lord Chancellor, and from
him eventually to the House of Lords. It was only
after three times, and on filing his fourth answer,
that the defendant was bound to put in a good and
sufficient answer, on pain of being taken into custody.
He did not say that all defendants availed themselves
of these delays ; but it was competent for any one who
pleased to do so, according to a state of practice which
existed in the time of Lnrd Chancellors Bacon, Notting-
ham, Somers, Cambden, Hardwicke, and which con-
tinued up to the present day. The question of Excep-
tions was one of extreme importance, and by the re-
gulation of the Commissioners the decision of the Mas-
ter was to be final. Moreover, on deciding, he was to
-.ribe the time within which the defendant was

bound to put in a further answer. If the second answer
were not sufficient, the Master again was to decide;
and on the insufficiency of the third answer, the party
was to be committed to custody. On this point the
Commissioners conceived that the Master ought to de-
cide, unless in such cases as he thought too important,
and wh ch be would therefore refer to a higher tribunal.
Here it was observable how greatly the Commissioners
abridged the usual course of proceedings. In some in-
stances it happened, that after an answer was filed, the
plaintiff couldto no further, the answer being full, and
decisive of the whole cause. But even in such a case
the bill could not be dismissed for less than three quar-
ters of a year, and the defendant during all that time
was left unrelieved. And if then the plaintiff took a
mere formal step by filing a replication, the suit endured
for three quarters of a year longer withetit any further
proceeding. Even then, if the plaintiff came forward
and said, " I undertake to speed the cause," be thereby
gained an additional term ; atter the lapse of which he
had only to say, " I now undertake to speed the cause
with effect," and another term a as granted him for the
purpose. Surely this called for a remedy .—(Hear 1)
The Commissioners abridged all that unnecessary time
to a single term. In common law there were generally
but few issues; but in Equity •ery many issues con-
stantly arose between the various parties, who were
necessarily included ; and therefore no just comparison
could be instituted between the duration of a suit in
both jurisdictions. Another evil was, that almost in
the last stage, and on the eve of a Bill being dismissed,
a party might say," I am advised to amend," and then
on his paying nominal costs of a few shillings, the cause
began de novo with all its complicated proceedings.
Now, here the Commissioners said to such party," You
shall not amend after a certain stage, nor more thah
,once• unless for good and substantial reasons." Another

check to the practice of amendment was that the'
party who hitherto paid only nominal costs was
now bound to pay the full costs of the amendment,
which must tend to prevent an abuse of the power.—
Thus far he hoped for the support of the Hon. Member
for Calne, who on a former occasion said that mach
might be done by a Committee in abridging the course
of a cause from its commencement to its conclusion. As
to the proceedings in Equity, when the plaintiff com-
plained by Bill an answer was filed, it the parties
required it, evidence might then be taken bef. re an
Examiner in writing, and having been s • taken it then
went before the Judge. %%Then pat ties were at issue, it
was the practice of an Examiner to take down the
evidence upon interrogatories previously pi epated, and
there was consequently no viva voce evidence. Indeed
no advantage could follow from viva 'ace testimony,
for the evidence could not be heard by the lodge with-
out new modelling the whole system and doubling or
trebling the number of Judges. So that if the system
should still continue, and a Commissioner be employed,
all the. advantage derivable from viva voce evidence
would be lost, and the cause should be sent to a Jury to
try the issue. The evils attending the change would be an
increase in expense and t he length of the examination.—
He had himself witnessed much confusion in evidence
taken before Commissioners of Bankrupt. It was there-
fore better to adhere to the system, such as it at prese:it
existed, than to resort to another, however plausible in
appearance, yet productive of certain inconvenience.—
It was remarkable, that in the evidence taken before the
Commissioners, one Gentleman of high character (Mr.
Bell) declared that he never knew of dissatisfaction
arising from the desision of a Judge, when he undertook
to decide on a point of fact. This was the answer of one
of the most experienced, intelligent, and acute men in
his profession. (Hear.) It was very remarkable that
this question had been discussed in another place, and
the same decision had been come to. It was perhaps
known to many Gentlemen in the House, that in the
State of New York, no great alteration could be made,
either in the Constitution or in the administration (A.*.
tice by the ordinary Legislature, but that it was necessary
to summon a convocation for the purpose. About four or
five years back a convocation was called for the purpose
of examining the propriety of making alterations in the
administration of justice. In New York, the Common
Law existed now, with few alterations, as it did in Eng-
land. the Court of Chancery also existed there in the
same form as it did in England. A proposition was
made at this convocation to consider the expediency of,
abolishing the Court of Chancery, not the juiisdiction
of the Court, but to vest it in the Courts of Common
Law. The question was discussed at great length, and
it was ultimately agreed, that it was more safe, expe-
dient, and prudent, to continue on the old system. In,
the course of the inquiry, the very question of evidence
now before them was discussed; and, by a strange
coincidence, the Chancellor of that State had expressed
the very same opinion as the eminent individual he had
alluded to. Mr. Kemp, the American Chancellor,
a Gentleman of great experience in his profession,
had said, nearly in the same words with Mr. Bell,
that he had never known an instance in which
the decision of the Judge was not satisfactory.—
It was proposed by the Commissioners, that there should
be no change for the admission of oral evidence ; but on
this head an opportunity would be afforded for the ex-
pression of other opinions. When points arose which
should be referred to a Master, the inquiry before him
could not, from its nature, be short, as in the case of
complicated questions of title of debts, and other sub-
jects of detail. The Commissioners, however, took care,
that no time should be lost. At present the great cause
of delay was with the Master, because he was merely
passive, and sat to decide when the parties came
before him. If it so happened that he decided in
the absence of a party, the latter might apply as of
course for a re-hearing. Now, when the cause of an
evil was found, the remedy, generally speaking, was
easy. So it was in the present case; the evil was re-
moved by arming the hands of the Master, and this
was done by the Commissioners. The decree was
mqde returnable within six weeks before the Master.—
According to the present practice, between an appeal
from the Vice Chancellor to the Chancellor, a cloud of
new affidavits usually intervened, so that the Chancellor
really decided on a new cause. The very nature of
appeal called in question the judgment of the inferior
tribunal ; but from the accidental circumstance of a sup-
posed identity between the Chancellor and the Vice
Chancellor, new mattes was permitted to be introduced
on reheating of a cause, and thence flowed much incon-
venience. He felt sure of the concurrence of the Hon.
Member for Caine, that in future there should be no
appeal but on the same facts before submitted; and its
effect would be to diminish the number of appeals.—
The number of Counsel, too, would be diminished ;
and though he regretted this circumstance for the sake
of the junior part of the profession, he felt convinced
that that public spirited body would submit with
alacrity to a regulation which had the general benefit
for its object. In page one hundred and twenty of the
Report, the number of Counsel in one case, the Bank-
ruptcy of Howard and Gibbs, was stated to be seven
on one side, and five on the other. In another case,
eight Counsel on each side were heard, and some of
them from the King's Bench B sr spoke at great length.
'—The Chaneelor had to read all the affidavits.—
and in the case of " Senior v. Smith," eight Counsel
were heard on one side, and there were 96 affidavits.
The business would really be better managed by two
Counsel, than by a greater number; for where five or
six were employed, each was in the habit of depending
on the other : but two would find it necessary to exert
all their powers, when the interest of their clients en-
tirely depended on them. The junior were, however,
compensated by another arrangement. Until Lord
Mansfield's time each senior Counsel at the King's Bench
Bar made all his /notions b fore his junior was permitted
to make a single one. So it frequently happened that a
whole term passed away without affording the very
junior an opportunity of making a motion at all. By a
regulation introduced at the period to which he alluded,
each Couns .1 was allowed to make only a single motion
until the round of the whole Bar was thus taken. The
original practice of seniors making all their motions
at once continued to this day in the Court of Chancery;
but by the regulation of the Commissioners, the im-
provement of the King's Bench was adopted, and evi-
dealt to the advantage of juniors.—Every Gentleman
in the profession knew the extreme difficulties in giving'
judgment, growing out cf the voluminous documents
and lengthened evidence exhibited in Chancery causes.
He would appeal with confidence, on this point, to a very
competent authority on this head, the Hon. and Learned
Member for Peterborough. In ordet to meet this par-
ticular
inconvenience, it was recommended by the. Re-
port to appoint a Court, consisting of Commissioners,

who should, on a view of th'e evidence, decide shat
cases ought or ought not to be beard before the Lot
Chancellor, and
-proceed to determine upon the latter,
so as to save much of the time Of the Lord Chancellor
and Vice-Chancellor. He should endeavour to explain
how this would save time also to suitors. The Vice-
Chancellor now heard all Petitions in the first instance.
The arrears, however, of causes in this Court were,
contrary to the extremely overwrought and exaggerated
statements made again and again in that House, incon-
siderable. Owing to the illness. some time ago of the
Master of the Rolle, there had occurred an arrear of
seven terms: this increase, however, was to be charged
to that Learned Judge's indisposition solely. Eighteen
months, however, had hardly elapsed before the activity
of that Learned Judge had redticed the arrear to that
of four terms, which did not much exceed, if it exceeded
at all, the arrear in the Court of King's Bench—(ffeor).
Ile thought, too, that from the manner in which busi-
ness was transacted and expedited in that Court, thai
the state of the causes in that Court would be (pickle
restored to the same condition as it had been in
viously to the illness of Sir I'. Plower. After the tr..
traordinary statements they had all listened to in that
House, respecting the delays expeTiemed by suitors in
the Lord Chancellor's Court, they would be surprised
to find that the return of the register ma ie out a list of
109 can-es. Now the Report of the Commissioners had
formerly stated, that in the Easter Term of 1822 ti e-e
were 105, so that in 1822, and at the present day, their
numbers were substantively the same. Thee, too,would
shcrtly disappear, were the Lord Chancellor permitted
to devote his attention to this sort of causes alone. And
here he must say he wished the House were acquainted
with the ceaseless assiduity and laborious life of the
Noble Lord presiding in that Court. Whilst occupied,
however, in endeavouring to reduce the causes on the
paper, motions were constantly being made on subjects
which required a suspension of the business of the Court,
and pressed for an immediate hearing, or else the object
of the motion itself would be lost : as in cases of
an appeal against a decree, which decree, if carried
into effect, would be the means of destroying or injuring
the property waiting adjudication. It would be said,
hew was the Lord Chancellor to be guided as to causes
which should have a preference of being heard by
himself instead of by the Commissioners? I'he detortni-
nation of that point would turn on the answer given by
the party to his Lordship, when he appealed to them
-to say how the cause should be determined. If they, as
gentlemen, told him that unless the cause be taken out
of the usual way, injury would arise of a setious nature,
then the cause would be taken up by his Lordship in
the same way as iu cases of injunction, or cases of
lunacy, which required immediate interference. The
subject now brought him to the next head, that of
Bankruptcies, in which there was no arrear, nor WAS
there any arrear in the motions. Indeed there was no
arrear except on the paper of causes, as it was termed.
The House and the Profession, and, above all, the Pub-
lic, were interested in devising a system la hich would
prevent the increase of arrear, and of course the Report
of the Commissioners was not silent on this subject, and
they were all anxious to apply a remedy to the Court
of the Lord Chancellor. All that could be' done in
saving the time of the Court would tend to lessen the
arrear of business, the Commissioners recommended
strongly a diminution of the time now taken up in the
proceedings, and a restriction as to the number of
Counsel permitted to address the Court, as well as
shortening the proceedings in cases of bankruptcy.—
Now when all these might be applied safely by the
Bindle thought something very important might be
effected in reducing the number of cases, and that we
shall get to that much desired point, that a cause shall
be heard, when once set down, within a seasonable
time. Adverting next to the point of abridging the
costs of a suit, much good would result from adopt-
ing the system bf the Commissioners, as well as with
respect to the diminution of arrears. The language
of the Report itself did not promise much, but
was sufficiently guarded ; they did not say we have
done all, but we have done all that we thought to be
expedient. However, all tended to save time and expence
to the suitors in this Court. When the public felt by the
practical working of the system that notwithstanding the
passing of the Bill, there was still something to reform
or correct, the road would be cleared by the present
Bill to introduce further improvement. Hence he was
encouraged to expect the House would not refuse its
assent to permit him to introduce the Bill for effecting
the measures recommended by the Commissioners for
the Reformation of Abuses in the Court of Chancery ?
I, in the course' of what I have said (continued the
Learned Gentleman) have most cautiously abstained
from all personal and party matter; for I consider,that
on the present occasion, we are labouring to get rid of an
existing evil, and to render perfect a defective system.
I have not alluded, except incidentally, to the Noble
Lord who has presided for so many years over the
Court of Chancery with so much learning, patience,
and ability. I abstained from such a course, because I
did not think the proposi:ion involved the conduct or
character of any individual, but the evils and advan-
tages of a system. I.abstained also from another motive
—because I was sensible that I could add nothing to
the praises bestowed upon that Noble Lord, even by his
most strenuous political adversaries. I remember to have
heard from the Honourable Member for Caine,
with that candour; liberality, and love of justice, which
marks him, an eulogium lie point of talent, but not in
point of truth, infinitely transcending any that I could
pronounce. He dwelt upon his profound knowledge of
the laws of his country—upon his patient anxiety to ad-
minister justice to the suitor—upon his correct and dis-
criminating judgment, and upon his retentive and capa.
cious memory. I de not affect to repeat his eloquent
words, but to hint distantly at the scope of the just ap-
plause: he bestowed. I have also read, for I was not I
Member of this House at the time, the eulogium passed
upon the Noble Lord by an individual, well qualified by
bis knowledge in every department, and influenced by
the benignant candour of his nature, though op-
posed, I may almost say, in bitter hostility—Sir Samuel
Romilly. He declared that he had never seen or
heard of a Judge who possessed such an earnest
anxiety to do justice to the suitors of his Court; n
the- Lord Chancellor had any fault, it was, he said,
perhaps an over anxiety in this respect. To such tri-
butes I can add nothing. He has been for fifty years
in the profession, and soon after he entered it obtained
distinction, and was marked out by the eye of the public
for the station he has so long and so ably filled. Not
an hour, nor an act of his life, but has corresponded
with the opinions entertained and the expectations in-
dulged. This is due to the Noble Lord, who has been
a zealous 'member of the Commission, desirous to give
every inforrhation, and to conduct the inquiry in a
manner the most candid and liberal. There is not a

/flan in t►e country more mimes than he is to see the real abases
of his Court reformed, and its supposed abuses explained. He is
most desirous to abridge the delays and to reduce the expellees of
proceedings in Chancery ; and in concurrence with this feeling, I
hope the House will allow me to conclude with moving for leave
to bring in a Bill, to carry into effect the recommendation of the
Commissioners.--(Much cheering.)
Mr. J. WILLIAMS said he should not follow his
Hon. and Learned Friend through the whole of his
statement. It did not appear to him that he had given
sufficient explanation of the immediate object and pur-
pose of the Bill. The fact was, that all the inconvenience
alluded to by the Commissioners, in their Report, might
have been correctcd long ago by a simple order of the
Court, and thus his Hon. and Learned Friend would

have been saved the trouble of bringing in the Bill.
Vor the Hon. Gentleman's eulogium upon the Noble
Lord at the head of the Court of Chancery, and who
had been there certainly for the 'act 25 years, he (Mr.
Williams) could have found in his heart to have cheered

it, especially as no Hon. Gentleman had cheered it from
the other side; but what was there to be done by the
Right Hon. Gentleman's Bill, which—and he had a
right to ask this question, especially after such a pane-
gyric had been pronounced—what was to be effected by
this Bill which might not have been done 25 years
ago, by the simple interposition of the authority of the
Noble Lord at the head of the CL-urt himself ? He
spoke now upon the best authority—the best evidence.
Almost every thing which the commission proposed to
do, the Lord Chancellor might, by his own authority,
years ago, have done. Mr. Bell, who had made a large
fortune in the Court of Chancery, and was not likely
to quarrel with the conduct of it; from Mr. Bell's evi-
dence, in page 392 of the Report, it seemed quite extra-
ordinary, that, with all the talent and knowledge of the
Noble Lord at the head of that Court, the practice of it
should have continued so long in its present defective
condition. " Much," this was Mr. Bell's printed evi-
dence, •" should be left to the discretion of the Judges,
who, 1 think, are competent, without legislative assist-
ance, to make most of these. reforms which have been
alluded to, and are best able to do it, as they may
vary and alter their rules as experience demonstrates
the nececssity." And yet, whatever was the neces-
sity, it was certain that nothing had been done.
—Again, for the evidence of Mr. Stratford, which
he (Mr. Williams) would read from the printed report.
"The above resolutions"—these Were some which Mr.
Stratford had prepared—"are respectfully submitted
to the Commissioners; but it is a matter of great regret,
looking to the circumstance that the more material
ordinances heretofore made for the regulation of the
several offices of the Court of Chancery were made by
the Lord High Chancellor for the time being, or persons
holding the great seal, from the time of Lord Bacon
downwards, not forgeting even the time of the Protecto-
rate, and much less the times of Lord Clarendon, and
Lord Nottingham ; and looking also, not only to the
learning, but to the experience and wisdom of the present
Lord High Chancellor, that he has not followed the
example of his great predecessors, and of himself deter-
mined what alterations in the practice of the several offices
of the Court may now be usefully made and ordained ac-
cordingly" It did not appear that all the Commissioners
were agreed in anyone thing recommended in theßeport.
There was a great difference of opinion in the profes-
sion, whether, if the 187 propositions in the Report were
all adopted, they would he productive of more benefit
or mischief ? This vr4s not his own opinion. Much
would be gained by lessening the time a man was kept
in Chancel y ; an hoar gained in this way could not fail
to add many days to his 1 fe. His Honourable and
Learned Friend said that the arms of the Commissioners
were thrown open to all information ; that the whole
of the profession were summoned to appear before
them; and that notice was given of their determination
to refuse information from no quarter. He was in-
formed that Solicitors, and Secretaries of Societies,
received no such notice, and that no person, in fact,
appeared before the Commissioners who was not spe-
cifically summoned. Not a single volunteer appeared.
It was no longer ago than last term, he believed, that in
a suit in which one Vau Sandau was concerned, fourteen
separate answers were put in by fourteen different de-
fendants, and so be-billed was the solicitor in the cause,
that he stated it would cost him not less than 3001. to

get an office copy, in order to go on with the cause.—
The Solicitor• General could set him right, be believed,
if he had mis-stated this particular case. This, how-
ever, was not a singular case.- He had given similar
details to the House, in number, be believed, aspic
ad nauseam, and he merely recurred to the subject
now, to hew that there was blame in high quar-
ters, which the Commissioners of Inquiry found it
not quite so easy or safe to speak of—(Hear, hear.)
There was another point to which the Report had
not paid the least attention. He meant the question
of Contempts. It had fallen to his lot aad that of
several of his Friends, in the discharge of their duty
in that House, to present more th in one petition
from parties actually in custody upon alleged contempts
of the Court of Chancery—not because they were
contumacious, but because poverty prevented them
from taking the requisite steps. He should not
object to imprisonment so long as contumacy was
evinced, but it was otherwise under the circum-
stances he had mentioned. His Honourable Friend,
the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) in the course
of the present Session, had presented a Petition from
a person of the name of Richardson, stating that
he was in custody for a contempt, under circum-
stances for which it was not in his power to pro-
vide a remedy. In that Petition he confessed there
were circumstances detailed which set his mind against
the truth of the complaint. Those circumstances, which
were without doubt in the recollection of the House,
related to the imprisonment of a child of the age of
seven or eight years, along with his step-father. He
was induced to write to the Governor of York Castle,
and from him be received an answer, stating, that in
consequence of an attachment issued against some land,
in which this child was interested, to which he did
not appear by himself or his nearest friend or guardian,
he was, together with his step-father, committed, in the
month of Oct. last, for a breach of the rules of the Court.
Tht terms of the commitment ran thus—" Herewith,
by virtue of a writ, I command you, in the name of his
Majesty, to take charge of the bodies of James Richard.
son and his boy, and that you receive them into your
safe keeping, there to answer to his said Majesty, for
contempt to the High Court if Chancery." What were
the facts of this case? The boy had no father, he was
confined a prisoner with Richardson, who was his father
in lain. Tte child, it seemed, had a title to a portion
of an estate in right of his father ; and so, because it
was said that the child had an intetest in the property,
a subpusna was issued against the child; and because
he had no one to stand up for him, the child was impri-
soned from the month of October to the present hour.

This was the system that was without reproach—the
immaculate unerring Court of Chancery—(Cheers) —1
In the case of " the Attorney General against Brooke,"
six years elapsed from the setting down to the hearing;
and in the case of " the Attorney General against Brown
and De Tastett," it was nine years from the setting
down to the hearing. In cases of motions, some of
them had occupied two or three years before they were
disposed of. Mr. Basil Montagu, the Commissioner of
Bankrupts, had given three instances of prolonged cases
of bankruptcy. One of those had been touched upon
by the Repot t. It appeared that they severally occupied
nine, eight, and seven years, up to the year 1824, and in
1825 two cases out of the three still stood upon the paper.
The House and the country both demanded that soma
thing should be done to expedite the business of a suit
towards its termination. The expence at that time was
enormous. He himself knew of a case in which 10001.
had been expended before judgment was pronounced.
By a reference to page 453 of the Repot [,where the case
of Fitzgerald v. Balfour is quoted, an instance would
be found of ttie incorrect manner in which a minute had
been taken. He would just read the passage. It was the
case of a bill filed for the specific performance of an
agreement entered into in the East Indies, respecting a
debt from the Nabob of the Carnatic. " On the 30th July,
1817, a motion was made before the Chancellor that the
defendant might be directed to pay into Court the amount
of the debt in question, with interest thereon at 12 per
cent. (the Indian rate of interest) ; and an oid,
of some kind or another having (as it was supposed)
been made by his Lordship, minutes of such supposed
orders were drawn up by the register according to the
notice, and delivered out to me; but the defendant's
solicitor having alleged that no order was made, or at
least no order to the effect stated in the register's mi-
nutes, and which question the register (not having, as
it afterwards appeared by his book, taken any minutes
of his Lordship's judgment) was unable to deride, a
further application to the Court became necessary ; and
on the 10th of December, 1817, such application was
made, when the Lord Chancellor promised to look into
the papers (which be took home with him for that
purpose), and give his judgment at some future time
thereon. No judgment was given, although repeated
applications were made by Counsel for that purpose.
On the 22d May, 1820, I took the liberty of addressing
a letter to his Lordship on the subject, in answer to
which, he promised to give judgment on the Saturday
following. No judgment was, however, given, and in
the month of November, 1820, I determined to set the
cause down for bearing before the Vice-Chancellor,
who decided that the defendant was bound to pay
the principal debt; and twelve per cent. interest thereon
up to that day; but upon the defendant objecting
to have interest decreed against him at the rate of
twelve per cent. the matter was referred back to
the Lord Chancellor, who decided that he had al-
ready made an order in the case. Se that it ap-
peared that the matter slept for four years, subject to
4001. on one supposition, and 6001. on the other, al-
though the party was in the utmost possible distress and
misery." (Hear. hear). In page 434, of the evidence in
the case of t, Erskine v. Garthshore," the whole business
was obliged to be begun de novo, after an expense al-
ready incurred of at least 1,5004 But those were
imaginary cases of grievance. There was no delay,
no distress. "Oh," said the Hon. and Learned Gen.'
tlemen at the other side, " those are only individual
cases." (Cheers.) In the year 1814, an appeal was made
against a decision of the Vice-Chancellor : from the yeas
1819 to the year 1824, a period of five years, this case
was sometimes at the bottom and sometimes at the
top of the paper, without being heard at all ; and
is July 1825, counsel wrote a letter to the Lord
Chancellor, entreating for judgment. The Lord Chan-
cellor sent him word he would decide it speedily ;
but he had net done so up to the present time.—
The lion. and Learned Member then alluded to the
c ise of Mr. Welling:, the banker, of Ludlow, who had
32,0001. depending upon the issue of a Chancery suit,
and who, after a personal application to the Chancellor,
and promises of immediare decision, had become a
bankrupt in consequence of delay. He mentioned also
the case of a windmill which had tumbled down whilst
his Learned Friend was trying to get a decision. It
was an appeal from the Rolls and after it had been
depending thirteen years and 1,5001. had been expended,
the plaintiff died in the poor house of Kensington, of
which parish he had formerly been a respectable inha-
bitant. The Hon. and Learned Member mentioned one
or two other cases. He had read of a certain King Theo-
doric, to whom a Lady had complained that her cause
had been depending before two of his judges for three
years.—(How unreasonable this Lady must have been,
in complain of a delay of only three years). King
"lheodoric threatened to put the Judges to death, and in
two days they pronounced a decision. He afterwards
called them before him, and inquired how they could
decide so speedily a cause which had already been before
them fur three years ?—and, not being satisfied with
their answer, he _ordered them both to be beheaded.
This, the story wed on to say, put an end to such delays. He had
no wish fur the same kind of severity to be exercised towards the
present Chancellor. He had rather refer him to the kind and milky
Commissioners, he himself being one. From•them he had no such
severity to fear. They would nut touch a feather in the plume of
his power, his patronage, or his dignity. The appropriate motto of
the Noble Lord world be, patronage ever beginning causes, never
coming to au end. Two important points had never been touched
by the Commissioners, and whatever confidence he might have in
his Hon. and Learned Friend, If they were to legislate upon their
present information, It would be legislating in the dark.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he would not
occupy the attention of the House at any length, but,
as one of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into
the practice of the Court of Chancery, he felt himself
bound to say that he had performed his duty; and, al-
though the Hon. Member for Lincoln had brought
charges against that body, it would be easy to meet
them when an opportunity was afforded to examine
them in detail. The Hon. Gentleman had said that
solicitors should have been appointed on the Commis-
sion ; whereas there had been no precedent for such a
practice. He (the Solicitor-General) did not recollect
any instance in which solicitors had been appointed to
such situations. In the case of Lord Hardwicke, no
situations had been appointed in the Commission; they
might be invited to attend the Commissioners, but on
the present occasion they had been examined : in fact no
person was obstructed or prevented from giving informa-
tion. Mr. Lowe had been examined. If any one class had
n excluded bythe Commissioners,they would not have
done their duty. Jut as the Hon. Gentleman had charged
the Commissioners, he hoped they would all answer for
themselves. With respect to the complaints that there had
been delay in giving judgment in the Court of Chancery,
he would merely say that it was impossible to answer each
individual case without some opportunity of collecting
all the information upon it; but he would say, that in
every instance where a complaint had been brought

'Forward against the practices in the Court of Chancery,
there had been a satisfactory answer given. Nor one
of the 186 Resolutions of the Commissioners had been
objected to, and it was fair to infer that those Resolutions

were satisfactory. Another improvement suggested
was to bind the Master to compel the parties 47 go on
with their suit. At present there was no power of con-
trol ; but if any delay took place hereafter the Master

would be answerable. It had been said that the Cum-

missioners had done little ; in his opinion they had done
as much as could be expected. Some thought the
bankruptcy business should become the business of a
new Court; but he could nor concur with them. The
evil was, that the inferior forum did not act. If a new
court were established, would any man ;ay that there

must not Ise as appeal from it. It was known that from fifteen t•

twenty days of tie Chancellor's time were consumed in the course

of the yeti by bankrupts. The improvement should be carried into
effect, in his opinion, as quickly as possible ; and the resolutions of
the Commissioners might be modified, after a little experience. The
Commissioners had taken

up every subject in which improvement
could be made, and their exertions bad Iwo patient and !Amnions.
Mr. M. A. TAYLOR said the Commissioners were
entitled to some praise; but had they not neglected
some materiel parts? Mr. Shadwell was asicei if one
individual could get through the btr,inest of the L r.t
_ _

Chancellor ; his reply was, that three ants*-k could not
do it. (A laugh). Had the Contmitt, e recommended
the appointment of three angels ? Why had they not ?
Because Mr. Shadsvell advised that the b mkruptcy
business should be separated ; but Lord Eldon would
rather part with life than with Bankrup.cy Petitions.
Sir Samuel Romilly-thought smite step should be taken
to rid the Court of bankruptcy busines, The Chan-
cellor ought not to be distracted by other political duties.
They sere told tbat the abuses were fancied abuses ;
and one part of the Report said a suit might beneficially
lost for half a century. Sir S imuel ltomilly was once
applied to by a Member of the House to expedite his
suit. lie asked him how it was he had not voted with

him for an inquiry into such delays? He should do
his duty (he added) in his cause, but he wished never
to see his face at his chambers again. It was a libel
on the profe.sion to assert that there were not three
fit individuals to discharge part of the duties which
devolved on the Chancellor. Why not go to one of
the Judges? Surely the Chief Baron of the Exchequer
was a fit person. The Judges of England were a most
laborious class, and had less time on hand than any other
description of persons in the country. If it were asked
what was gained by the Report, he would admit that the
Commissioners were entitled to gi eat merit for what they
had done, but they had not gone far enough, and had
omitted to notice that important part of their duty,which
was to inquire whether the Court of Chancery was com-
petent to discharge all the duties which attached to it. The
same course as that which was now pursued had been go-
ing on for 20 years, and yet no attempt to rectify abuser
had been made. Surely the Government which neg-
lected to inquire into so glaring a matter, when the
Newspapers so constantly mentioned it, was to blame

for the neglect. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman (the Solicitor.
General) had alluded to several Lord Chancellors, and might have '
adverted to many more, in whose time the same system Wa► pur-
sued. But the real reason why the abuse lead been allowed to pro-
ceed for so many years without correction was, that the reform had
originally been suggested at that (the Opposition) side lathe House,
which was considered a prescribed place, but at last it was found
necessary to adopt the suggestion.
Mr. Secretary PEEL said, that as he was mainly
responsible for the advice which had been given for the
appointment of those Commissioners, he was unwilling
to lose the opportunity of saying a few words with re-
spect to it. He should also, in the first instance, express
his satisfaction at the tone in which the question had
been discussed, and at the forbearance exhibited by the
Hon. Member for Lincoln, in his intention not to press
his intended motion on the same subject. The present
motion was one, simply to bring in a Bill, grounded
upon the Report of the Chancery Commission, and
hare it printed. He agreed that the present was not
precisely the time for discussion, as the Session was now
too short for the purpose. The time for that would be,
when the House had it under their consideration, and
when their minds were enlightened by those publications
which were promised by the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man (Mr. J. Williams). He should, however, say, that
his lion. Friend who spoke last had not dealt fairly
with the Report of the Commissioners, nor with the
candour which he usually exhibited. He bad to com-
plain of this in two instances, and although he was not
a professional man, yet having felt it hiaduty to read the
Repot t, he thought he should be able to bring the House
over to his opinion. His Hon. Friend had said that the
Report spoke very slightingly of the delays in Chan-
cery, and that a suit might last beneficially for fifty
years. The Report simply said, that there was a popular
misunderstanding upon the subject of delay. That re-
ferred solely to cases of Trusts, in which the Court of
Chancery exercised a beneficial control for a long period.
Such were the cases of infants of one or two years old,
where that controul must necessarily exist for twenty
years. And its property could by law be made inalien-
able for any number of lives in existence, and for 21
years after, so long as a trust remained unexecuted, it
must remain subject to the Court of Chancery, and all
that the Report alleged was, that those,and similar cases,
afforded no grounds for reflection on that Court on the
score of delay. His Hon. Friend had not treated that
part of the Report fairly, by only giving the fact with-
out the reasons which accompanied it. Also, with re-
spect to bankruptcy, the Hon. Gentleman had brought
forward certainly an highly respectable evidence, Mr.
Shadwell, but he had not stated that every other wit-
ness who was examined had given a contrary opinion.
Even Mr. Shadwell had proposed, that in taking the
power they now had from the Commissoners. other
Judges should be appointed in their stead. The Corn-
miss•oners stated, that the business of the bankruptcy was
not sufficient to occupy the time of one Judge, and there-
fore they proposed that an experiment should be made, in
order, it possible, without a change of the whole system,
to produce the effect of distributing justice to all par ties ;
and to this proposition all of them, with the exception
of Mr. Shadwell, had coincided. It was moreover
strange to observe the variance of opinion between
different persons on the subject of this Report. Some
maintained that the Commissioners had not gone far
enough, others that they had gone too far. In the
publication to which allusion had been made, those
contradictory propositions had been advanced. To
what course ought the House, therefore, proceed? To
that most assuredly which slowly and cautiously steered
between the two extremes. Of the tone in which the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman had stated his observations
on the subject of the Lord Chancellor, not even the
warmest friend of that Learned Judge could complain.
Yet, in the course of his speech, instead of the 180,000
propositions, of which he made such a parade on a for-
mer occasion, they were reduced to IS7—aet he was
loot satisfied, as he contended that some important posits
had been omitted—such as that of conveyancing, as

well as that of contempt. It was stranger that though
the bulk of the Report was declared to be so great as
almost to render the perusal of it impossible, those im-
portant subjects were not included. To what truth did

those Honourable and Learned Gentlemen desire that
it should be extended ? Before he concluded his ob-
servations, he was desirous of calling the attention of
the House to one point, the cl• lay of which the L'rd
Chancellor was accused, in the delivery of his judg-
ments. On this subject he wished to ref.-r to one pant
of the evidence which was printed in the Report. Mr.
Bazil Montagu, a Gentleman with whom he had not
the pleasure to be acquainted, slid, that no two men
could possibly differ on political subjects more than dia
he and the Lord Chancellor.. He stated that his feel.

ings in the Court of Chancery hal been guided by Sr
Samuel Romilly, 'with whim he had been on terms of
friendship, and, of course, t' at he was a favourer of the
opinions of that celebratel man, rather than those of the
Lord Chancellor—yet v hat did Mr. Montagu state
the Lord Chancellor ? That there were three causes w!ty
the Lord Chancellor i'ellyed his judgments; first, that
there was a difference bet v een the practice of the Lor d
Chancellor and that of the other Judges, inasmuch as
the Lord Chancellor sought to make up his mind on
the controverted points. " N w I ask (exclaimed Mr.
Peel), is there any man who will venture to condemn a

Judge undertaking to di,pense unbiassed justice, and
labouring to make himself master of the true circum-
stances of the cafe, in ord r that he may find grounds
for giving his decision with security ?" Second. The
second cause of the delay was, because, as there was no
appeal. from the decision of the Lord Chancellor, in
cases of Bankruptcy, the Lord Chancellor thought him-
self bound to investigate fully the subject, particularly
in cases bf appeal from the Vice• Chancellor. To the
propriety of such a line of conduct there was no person
who heard him, who could for a moment object. Third.
The third cause, as stated by Mr. Montagu, arose from
the particular constitution of the Lord Chancellor's mind.
And his great anxiety to do justice to all parties. " If,"
(continued Mr. Peel), " the House will take into its
view, a man who devoted twelve hours out of twenty-
four to a patient and laborious investigation of the
facts of each case, as well as of the principles of
justice applicable to its decision ; if it reviews the
causes which a practitioner in that very Court as-
serts to have occasioned the delays ; if it examines
the decisions pronounced during the long period of
twenty years, of the justice of which not eves the
greatest enemy of the Lord Chancellor had ventured to
breathe a doubt, surely it will pass over with a light
hand the venial faults which owe their origin (accord-
ing to the words of Mr. Montagu), to anxiety to do
justice to all parties." In corroboration of those state-
ments, he would ad dace from Mr. Montagu's evidence
two circumstances which tended to corroborate this
view of the Lord Chancellor's conduct. The first related
to the case of an individual, named Blackburn, which
Mr. Montagu had argued before the Lord Chancellor,
and in which he had contended for judgment, on
grounds which seemed to him undeniable. To the de-
lay occasioned by the Lord Chancellor, Mr. Montagu
had felt the highest repugnance, and his surprise had
been excited on hearing the Lord Chancellor state—
" Mr. Montagu, I spent several hours last night in the
examination of that case, and there is one point on which
I should like yet to hear some arguments from you."
Mr. Montagu re-argued the case, and the result was,
that Mr. Montagth• as stated in the Report, declared
himself convinced, that if the Lord Chancellor had
given judgment on the first hearing of the case, that the
greatest injustice would have been done. The next cir-
cumstance related to a case of a wsut of Habeas Corpus
issued by the L-rd Chancellor. A man had been ci,n-
fined in prison by order of the Court of King's Botch,
on the oath of an individual who swore that the de-
fendant owed him 10,0001. Mr. Montagu made ap-
plication for the writ to the Lord Chancellor, and the
Chancellor had a conference with the Lord Chief
Justice of the King's Bench, after which the man was
liberated, otherwise he would have continued, in all
probability, in prison to the present hour. If Mr.
Montagu, as an individual, adduced those two instances,
did it not follow that there were others of which no
mention had been made? or rather, if any injustice had
been done, would not a declaration have been made, if
injustice had been committed? Under thote circum-
, stancas, he would put it to the House. if the conduct
of the Lord Chancellor was not worthy of lasting ho-
nour ? If the time of the Lord Chancellor had not been
occupied in the investigation and adjudication of each
ease. that excellent Judge might, perhaps, have turned
his attention towards the faults of his course, in order
to devise means of remedying the evils which were
complained of. But, when occupied in other details of
equal importance, it became a duty to attehd to the
facts of the dispensation of justice, and not to the mode.
Did not the ready acquiescence of the Lord Chancellor
to the Report, prove his willingness to remove those
evils ? It did—and it, as well as the other conduct of
'the Lord Chancellor, conferred OR him the most lasting
honour. He was unwilling to introduce into the dis-
classier: any words calculated to excite asperity in the minds of any
persons; but he thought that the Lord Chancellor could, on the
present occasion, look back with delight on his former decisions,
which proved that they had been received by the country as having
been dictated by justice—for not one voice was raised to impugn
them, and not even once had it been said that the Lord Chancellor
had wasted the time which he owed to the country in anything
like frivolous amusements.
Dr. LUSHINGTON observed, it had been stated
that there bad been no enquiry as to whether any delay
occurred bet wren the setting down of a cause and the
hearing, or shether any delay occurred between the
hearing and the final judgment. Those were the very
two points on which the processional conduct of the
Chancellor had been blamed, and they were therefore

the very first points to which the Commissioners had
directed their attention, and if they had not attended to
that inquiry, the most important subject of the case
would have been left untouched. As to the conduct of
the Lord Chancellor during the progress of this Com-
mission, he did but discharge the debt of justice, when
he said that throughout the whole of this investigation
he afforded the most material assistance, g.ve to the
Commissioners all their best information, and did not
attempt to deliver his opinions as dogmas not to be
disputed, but allowed those who were not satisfied
with them to endeavour to overturn them if they could.
As to mallets of bankruptcy, it appeared to him that
of all the systems that ever yet welt established, the
present system relating to the Ctimmissioners of Bank-
rupts was the mo.t ruiiiiitis to the suitor and the country
at large. When he saw seventy Commissioners costing
the country upwards ul 20,0001. a year, several of whom
were quite incompetent to act; when he saw the bank-
rupts estate not administered as it might to be,—when
he considered all these facts, and rei.ollected that this
was one of the circum-tanceb for which blame was im-
puted to the Lord Chancellor, he recommended as