right hon. gentleman now declared, that it would be detrimental to the public, and, in fact, be an act of injustice, to produce the evidence taken before that commission. He could not, however, perceive that any mischief was likely to be produced by placing that evidence fairly before the public. The inquiry was connected with the general administration of justice in this country. In the courts of equity, the expense of procuring justice was much greater than in any other court; it therefore was proper, that the House and the public should get possession of every circumstance which could guide them to a remedy for so serious an evil. The first thing which ought to be placed in their hands was not the report of the commission, which appeared to him to be of no importance, but the evidence taken before the commissioners. That evidence ought to be produced immediately. So far from delay being advisable, much mischief would be inflicted on the public by withholding the information which he now moved for. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. gentleman would change his opinion; and, if there were not some great inconvenience consequent on the production of these papers, he relied on the good sense of the House in supporting this motion for making the evidence public.

Mr. Hurst said, that his family had long been engaged in a suit which they had at length recovered; but out of every 10l. the expense of obtaining it through the court of Chancery had been 8l. 17s. 6d. A court that could countenance such an expense as that, was a burthen on the country; and he wished health and happiness to every man that was desirous of promoting an investigation into the sys

tem

Mr. W. Smith complained of the practice of the court of Chancery from his own experience. His father had called him to him on his death-bed, and told him, that he was happy to inform him that, in the course of that week, a very long law-suit that he had had, had come to a termination by the death of his opponent. This suit, be it observed, had lasted two and-thirty-years [hear!].

Mr. Secretary Peel said, he would willingly lay before the House a copy of the commission, by which the hon. baronet would at once see the extent of its powers, and the variety of matters which it had to inquire into. He hoped, thereVOL. XIII.

fore, that the hon. baronet would consent to withdraw his motion. Ere long, he trusted a report would be made which would give all the information required. Should it not be made, if the hon. baronet renewed his motion early in the next session, he would not oppose it. He had no desire to perpetuate abuses of any kind. A clearer proof of this he could not adduce, than the fact of his having that evening introduced a bill for putting a stop to a very great abuse that of procuring frivolous writs of error.

It

Mr. Denman observed, that the circumstance to which the right hon. gentleman had last alluded was, in fact, favourable to the present motion. The bill of which he had spoken was not founded on the report of any commission, but was brought in on account of the notoriousness of the evil which it was meant to correct. Now, those who supported the present motion, knew that the evils of the existing system in Chancery were notorious, and they wished, independent of that notoriety, to have formal evidence of the fact before them, without waiting for a report. The right hon. gentleman was willing to favour the House with the terms in which the commission was appointed. The commissioners were to inquire into the practice and the process of the court of Chancery. Of these terms he complained, because they were not sufficiently explicit. might be true, that no such proceeding as that now submitted by his hon. friend, had ever before been resorted to in that House: but, the question was, whether the circumstances did not fully justify it? Was there ever a case, when the practice of the court of Chancery was touched, which did not induce gentlemen to start up and charge that court with delay and ruinous malversation? An hon. member had stated, that he had been charged nearly 8l. 17s. 6d. for the recovery of 10l.; and when last this subject was before the House, two or three gentlemen had told him, that they could adduce many cases in which severe oppression was the consequence of the existing system. They related to him cases of annuitants as to whose right to recover certain sums of money no doubt existed, but who were unable to procure that to which they were entitled, until several of them joined to defray the expenses of an amicable suit. Many of those persons might die before a decree could be obtained; but, at all events, such delay must be created, as

3 Z

Lightened country. In the city, if an individual had a claim upon a small quantity of stock, placed in the Bank, although there might be no doubt as to the right which the individual claiming had to it, still the answer regularly was, "We cannot pay it, until you have instituted a suit in equity." In many of these cases the attornies said, "Don't move in such a suit, for the costs will carry away all the money." These were matters of motoriety; and certain he was, that they would never be rectified, unless members applied their minds to the subject, and took the matter into their own hands. In the year 1823, the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. J. Williams) turned his attention to this subject. The friends of the lord chancellor opposed his motion, and the question was lost. In the following year the motion was renewed, and it was then defeated by the right hon. Secretary of State, who proposed that a commission should be appointed to carry into effect the object which his learned friend had in view. Commissioners were appointed; but, up to this period, they had made no report; and, in his opinion, they were not likely to make one for some time. It appeared that they had sat for 70 days, and had examined 45 persons. They must, in such a period, and from so great a number of persons, have elicited much information which it was desirable the House should be possessed of. But they were told that some difficulty existed with respect to getting it through the press in He, however, believed, that the evidence might be printed in three or four days. It had already been lithographed, and any person might have it. In fact, it was public, and he should be very sorry if it were otherwise. But this sort of publicity was not like placing it formally before that House. He would just quote a short extract from the evidence given before that commission by a barrister, which would show of what immense importance that evidence was. The barrister was asked "Whether he had ever seen the misery and sufferings of those who had been obliged to embark in Chancery suits, and whose hopes had been delayed and disappointed?" He answered "No; I see no such things. The solicitor passes between me and the client. I can only speak of the probability of misery being created by those delays. But this I know, that, after long litigation, the order

divide the remnant of the property, not for the benefit of the litigating parties, but in part payment of the solicitor's bill." Surely the House could not be aware of such monstrous cases, without feeling the necessity of speedily applying some effectual remedy. A distinction was attempted to be drawn on this occasion, founded on the circumstance of this inquiry being conducted by commissioners. Now, he could not see what distinction could fairly be drawn between commissioners appointed by the Crown, and a committee nominated by that House. Yet, in the latter instance, the evidence given had been considered a fit subject for legislation, without waiting for any report. Thus it was with respect to the committee on the state of Ireland. Such, he believed, was also the case with reference to the committee on the Combination laws. If evidence had been given before the commission, with respect to subpœnas, or any other process of the court of Chancery, he thought it was quite competent for the House to legislate on that branch of the subject, without waiting for any report. When the report came, it would of course be subject to the revision of that House, and to the scrutiny of public opinion; but, int be mean time, he thought it would be just as well if, pending the production of that report, the House were let a little into the proceedings of the court of Chancery by the publication of the evidence now called for. There was, he knew, a great degree of tenderness manifested towards the individual who presided in the court of Chancery. This proved nothing more than the extent of his influence. No man wished less than he did to give that noble and learned lord offence: but, he could not help alluding to him when he heard gentlemen argue this question on the ground, that no personal fault could be found with the individual who was at the head of the court of Chancery. He did not mean to say that there was any personal fault; but there might be personal fault; and that was a matter which he thought ought to be well considered. One fact alone would show the manner in which the business of the court of Chancery was conducted. In the beginning of last Michaelmas term, forty-five causes were set down in the paper to be heard in the term and on the last day of the term they still remained on the paper. Not one of those causes was touched; and he begged the House to recollect that every one of the parties connected with each cause had to pay 11. for being set down, exclusive of incidental expenses. If there were ten parties plaintiffs, and twenty parties defendants, each of them had to pay twenty shillings for the privilege of not being heard. A great deal of praise had been bestowed on the lord chancellor, because he disposed of much business by way of motion. He would say, so much the worse; because great interests ought not to be so disposed of. If the case were afterwards to be formally adjudicated, the hearing of it by motion tended only to instil prejudices into the mind of the judge; and if it were disposed of at once, it passed by without that solemn consideration which all cases of moment ought to receive. He threw out these observations without meaning any thing disrespectful to the individual; at the same time, God knew, he wished to pay him no unnecessary compliments. On the contrary, he would speak his mind boldly and fearlessly. He wished to show that the system was not altogether to blame, and if so, that those who were at the head of the court ought not to escape all censure on account of some supposed defect in its organization. The lord chancellor had been for twenty-five years a constant witness of all the evils arising from the system, and it was a little surprising that he had made no attempt whatever to remedy those defects of which the public complained. On the contrary, he opposed with all his power every effort which had been made to remove those evils. He supported this motion on the very grounds laid down by the right hon. gentleman. He said, that if the proposition were made next session, he would give it his sanction: but, a motion of this kind, made next year, would be just as unprecedented as the present. Why, then, should he refuse his sanction now? A great degree of distrust had been created throughout the country, in consequence of the way in which the commission had been formed; and he feared that the right hon. gentleman's interview that very day with the lord chancellor would have the effect of rendering that distrust still stronger.

Mr. Peel, in explanation, said, he had only seen the lord chancellor for the purpose of ascertaining the probability of the commissioners making a report at an early period. His lordship had not the

slightest objection to their making a rew port as soon as possible; and thought that it would and ought to be made be fore the next session.

Mr. W. Courtenay said, that he was quite ready to admit the importance of the subject now before the House; and his object would be, before he sat down, to state the case as it really existed. In doing that, he was aware that it must be dull and disagreeable to several hon. gentlemen; and he had, therefore, to hope for the usual courtesy, while detailing the course of inquiry confided to the commissioners, from whose exertions he anticipated much greater benefits to flow: than seemed to be calculated upon by hon. gentlemen at the other side of the House. He wished the House to see the matter fairly and impartially, and not to: look at it with prejudiced or jaundiced eyes; and he was sure, that if he could succeed so far, he would be able satisfactorily to state, first, the effects of the inquiry intrusted to the commissioners; secondly, the progress they had already made; and, thirdly, the remedies which they felt themselves called upon to propose. When first these matters were brought before the notice of the House, they heard great complaints of the delays in the House of Lords and the court of Chancery. For himself, he never denied the existence of some abuses in the court of Chancery, although he had resisted the appointment of a committee of that House to inquire into them. But, why had he done so? Because such a mode of inquiry could lead to no useful or beneficial result; and, therefore, he felt it his duty to oppose it. Besides, it had, for a long time, been the fashion, as it were, to look at this question in that confined point of view which lawyers too often adopted, while no one, who fairly and comprehensively viewed the matter, could deny, that the complaints made against the court of Chancery were of such a nature as to show that remedy should rather be applied to particular parts, than to any general alteration of its powers or constitution. Petitioners stated, and they stated very truly, that they were engaged in a suit for many years; that the expenses they incurred were heavy; that they suffered in their pockets and their time; that the forms of proceeding tended to their injury: but it was only of late days that some hon. gentleman broadly stated, not that these

missioners were restricted in their inquiry, but he could say, that there was no one branch of the enquiry which they had not touched upon; they invited information; they sought for evidence; nothing referred to them was shut out from investigation [hear, hear]. If that then were so, what ground was there for representing that no confidence could be placed in such a commission? To whom, he asked, was such an inquiry to be committed? To a committee of the House? Certainly not; but to a committee of practical and experienced persons, to persons conversant with the subject on which inquiry was to be instituted. That abuses existed, that anomalies prevailed in the court of Chancery, he never attempted to deny; but he would deny that any other than practical men could suggest adequate remedies for their cure.He was well aware, that the House did not like to hear long speeches in defence of the court of Chancery; but he hoped he would stand excused, while he read one or two passages from a book, which was said to be of some weight and authority by some hon. and learned gentlemen at the other side of the House. He alluded to the work of Mr. Miller, on the present state of the civil law of England, and he there found this passage:-" It has been already intimated, that the comparatively late period at which courts of equity arose, appears to be one of the chief reasons why the words and phrases used in equitable proceedings are more intelligible than those employed in the courts of common law. To the same circumstance it may be owing, that, until a comparatively recent period, there was no necessity for its written pleadings being so rigidly confined to a precise form as those of the common law were very early required to be. It is true, the multitude of technical rules which the subtlety of practice has now introduced, has destroyed this simplicity; but the main principle of equitable pleading are still entitled to decided commendation." He would not here say whether Mr. Miller was a good authority or not; but, at all events, here was a man of some authority who still stated, that the present system of equity pleading, was not only not bad, but entitled to decided commendation. Now, one of the objects of the commission was, to cut off these technicalities and abuses: and the great object should be, not to overturn the system altogether, but to

abuses should be remedied, but that the whole system adopted in the court of Chancery should be altogether swept away. With reference to the motion made by the learned member for Lincoln, last year, it did not obtain the sanction of that House; not that it was contended, that inquiry was not necessary, but that the proposed method or mode of inquiry could lead to no satisfactory conclusion. But, what followed upon that? Why, that his right hon. friend suggested a plan by which the whole subject of the delays and abuses complained of in the court of Chancery, should be submitted to the investigation of persons, from whose learning and experience, the House and the country might expect the suggestion of appropriate remedies. Did his right hon. friend in doing that, purpose that the inquiry should be placed within narrow bounds? Did he contract or diminish the topics of investigation? Did he wish to preserve abuses, or to retain anomalies? On the contrary, wide, indeed, was the field for inquiry, as the duties of the commissioners would abundantly testify. The commissioners, then, had to inquire whether any, and what, alteration should take place in the practice of the court of Chancery; whether any, and what, change should take place in the mode of conducting all causes and suits in the various courts, and offices of courts, of law and equity. The whole system of proceedings in equity was embraced by the commission, beside the consideration of cases of bankruptcy, to which he begged leave to call the particular attention of the House. This inquiry, let it also be known, was to take place from the first commencement of all suits and proceedings to the end of them: the mode of hearing and deciding cases were also to be inquired into, together with the expense and the time occupied in hearing and deciding the different causes. Such was the field of inquiry laid open to the commissioners; and he was not aware of any words in the English language which could give to any body of commissioners a wider range for investigation. But the commissioners were not to stop here; they were to inquire whether any, and what, part of the business could be usefully withdrawn from the lord chancellor and submitted to some other court; as well as, whether his jurisdiction in bankruptcy cases could not be beneficially transferred. It was said, that the com