The debate on the LORD CH...
The Times, 1824-02-26T00:00:00

The debate on the LoRD CHANCELLOR and hiis notable Court, led to a conclusion which we had partly expected- Mlinisters acquiesced in the appointment (would we might not say selection) of a Commission to inqiuire into the abuses of the Court; and MiTr. WIVLLIAMS'S motion was in consequence withtlrawvn. It was allowed, that so long as twelve years ago, the propriety of introducing some reform into the Court of Clhancery had been felt by the Govern- ment. We might infer from this concession, that the pro- ceedings in the way of rem-nedy were almost as slow as those of the Court itself whicl it was thought required expediting. The mass of businiess was, as usual, alleged for the dilatori- ness of the Court. IVe put it to the world whether this is any justification or palliation whatever. The present CH AN- CELL OR iS not merely a passive Judge, obligedl to take what comes to him in silence, and drudge through it with pa- tielice, he is a politician-a statesman; and, enriched to the degree to which he has been enriched by his country, he should, out of gratitude, either by the introduction of some unostentatious principles of re- form, or by originating legislative propositions, have him- self put an end to a system, which he saw was by its delays confounding right and wrong, and indiscriminately ruininigevery one that camne within itsoperation. Has any thing of this kind ever been done or attempted by the CnAycELLoR ? Of wvhat proposition has he ever been the author, for abbreviating a process, or diminishling an ex- pense ? We repeat now what we have said before, that the Court of Chancery has, at various times, ruined morc innscent families, and( occasioned more suicides, than all the gambling-houses of England put toge- ther. There is, indeed, hardly an opulent house into I which it has not carried mischief. There is hardly a pub- lic charity of which it has not, or does not now absorb some portion of the revenues. And is the nation to be told now, or can it hear with patience, that iWr. PEEL will not suffer the appointment of sucl a Commission as can, by its coinpo- sition, cast any reflection upon the man who, with the power to refo;m, has suffered thcs. procecdings for such a series of years ? But the worst of the mnatter still remains-we fear we canniot haiL the approaching termination of theso evils. Trhe idea of appointitng a noble Lord, who wvas mentioned as the chief or one of the members of the commission, is only not wvholly ridiculous, because it is in some part inso- lent anid provoking. What can be meant by a Commission in Which such a person is to be an operator ? Of course it cani do no good ; but it cannot even impose upon the peo- plc of England for a moment. Such a Commission would only be laughed at from the very beginning of its supposed labours. Far be it from us to mentioni the name of Sir MSILU.IA.zM GRAXT with any other feeling than that of re- spect; he is a person of a very different nature from hiim with whom he was coupled: nor can we conceive any fair motive for uniting two such characters in the same sentence, or designatiing them for the same employment. But how longhasSir VWILLAII GSANT retired from that eminent le- gal station wlhiclh he adorned, in conisequence of his age andl ha-ve ! Tkhe abl5?,eiFul Powers! What a reform ivvnj -I! above seventy, to be investigated by a Copntnission, tlle members of which are of the same age, or older, before they begin their labours. The report . which they shall make must be awful: it cannot be intended for time, but for eternity.