side of the House. The noble marquis concluded by declaring, that if he were not the friend but the political opponent of the learned lord, he would lay his hand upon his heart and say, that he could not vote for the motion. perly conducted, his learned friend took | Mr. Lockhart concurred with the noble marquis in thinking that there was nothing in the conduct of the lord advocate which could touch his character as a gentleman; but when he was told that there was nothing to affect him as a constitutional lawyer, he must object to that opinion. After a short reply from Mr. Abercromby, the House divided: Ayes, 95; Noes, 120. List of the Minority. Allen, J. H. * MARRIAGE ACT AMENDMENT:BILL.] The report of this bill being brought up, The Lord Chancellor expressed his approbation of the provisions introduced, with a view prospectively to prevent improper marriage, upon the principle, that a marriage once contracted ought to be indissoluble. He thought the retrospective enactments had no connection with the prospective clauses, and that they ought to form a separate bill. These retrospective enactments went to make valid, with certain exceptions, all marriages that had taken place by licence since 1754, the date of the Marriage act, which would otherwise, under the operation of that act be deemed null and void. But their lordships should be aware, that whilst these enactments went, generally speaking, to legalise the marriages of the superior classes of society that had taken place by licence, they took no notice whatever of the other classes who had been married by banns, and who, in the case of fraudulent banns, were left to all the consequences of void marriages, and the bastardising of issue. He stated several cases in which the retrospective enactments would operate most injuriously with regard to the rights of parties now entitled to property, in consequence of the invalidity of marriages, which would now be rendered valid, and concluded by reading several amendments, which he should propose in a subsequent stage. The principal objects of these amendments were to declare all those marriages invalid which had been decided to be so in actions or suits in courts of law or equity, and to enact that the rendering marriages valid as proposed, should not affect any deeds or instruments respecting property settled or sold, under the belief that such marriages were null and void. sequence of the operation of the Marriage act. And he was satisfied that the adopting the indissolubility of marriage as the principle of our law, would be conducive to the happiness and morality of society. The Lord Chancellor moved, that the retrospective clause be left out, merely to put his opinion upon record. The Earl of Harrowby said, the retrospective clause was calculated to quiet the apprehensions of families, but at the same time affected the property of others, who, as the noble and learned lord stated, were not in the situation of having violated the existing laws. After a short conversation, the retrospective clause, as amended by the Committee, was agreed to. The Earl of Liverpool moved, as an amendment to the first proviso, that this act do not extend to any marriage, with respect to the validity of which any suit is now pending. The Marquis of Lansdown said, that if there was a class of persons entitled to the protection of their lordships, it was those who had contracted marriages, under an ignorance of the operation of one of the most mischievous and immoral laws that had ever disgraced the legisla ture of the country. He was prepared to go back to every case where no actual possession had been created by the sentence of a court of law, and he should therefore oppose the amendment. The Earl of Westmorland said, there were two classes of persons who would be affected by this measure, one class who were seeking to avoid, and the other to confirm, their contracts, by resorting to a court of law, and the effect of the amendment would be to deprive the latter class of the power of carrying into effect the honourable intention of confirming existing engagements. The House divided on the amendment HOUSE OF COMMONS. Wedesday, June 26. VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.] Mr. Lord Ellenborough said, he could see M. A. Taylor said, he was encouraged, no reason for a separation of the pro-in bringing this important subject under spective and retrospective parts of the bill. He did not believe that, under the operation of these retrospective enactments, evils would arise in any degree equal to those which had arisen, in con the view of the House, by the result of a similar proposition of his in the last session, which had been negatived by only four votes. He trusted that on the present occasion, the House would agree say, with him in believing there was something fundamentally wrong in the system of the Court of Chancery and the appellant jurisdiction, as far as regarded the expence and delay to which suitors were subjected. The consequence was, that those in affluent circumstances alone could stand the expence, while those who had not opulent resources were seriously injured or altogether ruined. The delay also was grinding and oppressive; indeed, the oppression to which matters of equity were liable, was enough to exhaust any moderate patience, and destroy any moderate fortune! He might be asked, why, when the evils were so great, there were not numerous petitions before the House to that effect; and why he was the only person who came forward on the subject? To the latter question he would state, he did not stand alone; for, in 1811, he had carried his motion for an inquiry; and as to the former, he could that whatever were the complaints made by suitors and their solicitors, he found it very difficult to persuade them to come forward, and state to that House their grievances. He had received various information relative to this question, some of which he would briefly mention. He then stated an instance of a writ of error in the Court of Chancery, which was instituted in 1814, and was still on the paper. It arose out of a decree pronounced by the Master of the Rolls in 1812. He could not say whether judgment had been yet pronounced. He could, if necessary, state from twenty to forty instances of a similar kind. There was one instance in particular, in which there was a property of 28 shares, each share being worth 1,200l.: after twelve years, the property was sold under a decree, ordering the shares to be equally divided. A person whom he knew, held one of the shares, and expected 1,200.; but his costs came to 750%.; so that there came into his pockets out of this property but 450l. There were other cases of a like nature, which as strongly affected the character of the appellant jurisdiction, as to the excessive expence and delay attendant on its proceedings. He did not state these matters with the intention of disputing the purity of the Court, but to show the necessity of reforming the system. All his aim was to put the House in possession of the facts, that they might judge whether he was right or wrong in the view which he took of the subject. His only aim was to replace the two courts on the footing upon which they originally stood; that they might again discharge their high functions in the way they ought; and not, as he asserted they had for the last few years done, increase the miseries of litigation by occasioning delay and expence without limit. After the reports of the two committees of the House of Commons, in 1811 and 1812, the abuses in the courts of equity became so apparent, that the House of Lords appointed a committee, who made a report upon it. Out of that report, arose the bill for creating the vice chancellor's court. That bill was strenuously opposed, by the greatest characters in the House of Commons. In particular, sir S. Romilly exerted all his eloquence, to induce the House to reject it. If ever there was an authority on the highest points of equity, to which he would refer in preference to any other, it would be that illustrious individual, whom he would not hesitate to compare to lord Nottingham, or lord Hardwicke. That great person clearly foretold all the evils that had since happened. The present vice chancellor himself opposed every part of the bill. A right hon. gentleman opposite also decidedly opposed the bill. However, the bill passed the House, in an evil hour; for from the passing of that bill he dated the extinction of the right of the suitor to the material privilege of having his cause heard before the great seal. In very few instances before that period had causes been set down before the Master of the Rolls: but so different was the case after the passing of the bill, that the late Master of the rolls (sir W. Grant) had told him be had retired from office, because that bill had broken his back. The principal duty of the great seal was to administer justice to suitors in the court of Chancery as quickly as possible. What would lord Nottingham or lord Hardwicke say if they saw that suitors could scarcely approach the great seal but by the intervention of the vice chancellor's court, its deputy, and that they were thus exposed to a double expence, and a three-fold delay? No one could be more sensible of the many excellent qualities of the eminent individual who presided in the court of Chancery; but, somehow or other, whenever any question, whether of foreign or domestic policy was agitating in the cabinet, the lord chancellor could never regular statement should be made to parliament of the business done by the lord chancellor and his deputy, distinguishing the number of appeals heard by the former.-He would proceed to the consideration of the appellant jurisdiction of the House of Lords, which, to his great surprise, appeared in the discussions on the bill for creating a vice-chancellor's court to be of more importance than the privileges of the suitors in the Court of Chancery. The hon. gentleman here read the preamble of the bill, to show that to give facilities to that jurisdiction was its principal object. Had the result_been satisfactory even in that respect? At first, as all new brooms swept clean, a great deal of work was dispatched in the House of Lords, where there was at the passing of the bill in question an arrear of appeals for 11 years. In the first year after the bill, 60 appeals were decided; in the next year 82; in the next 54; in the next 43; in the next 35; in the next 27; in the next 41; in the next 22; and be easy in that court, but shut up his note-book and went to Carlton House. In fact, the lord chancellor was more a statesman than he ought to be, as his proper sphere was in the court of Chancery. The hon. gentleman here quoted a passage from a pamphlet of sir S. Romilly's, predicting the evils which had ensued from the bill for establishing the vice-chancellor's court. In the last eight years and a half the lord chancellor had not had an opportunity of hearing more than 53 causes; while the vice-chancellor had in that time heard 2,328. Was that the way in which chancery business ought to be done? No doubt the lord chancellor had been fully occupied otherwise; but would any lawyer deny that the lord chancellor's proper place was the court of Chancery? In the last eight years the lord chancellor had heard 157 appeals from the other courts of equity. There were now about 119 to hear; so that, calculating at the rate at which those appeals had hitherto been heard, it would take four years to get through them. So in the next 46. On the 10th of May, that the appellant, after having gone | through all the horrors of the vice-chancellor's, or the master of the rolls' court, must still wait four years before his case could be finally determined! Was that a situation in which a suitor ought to be placed? Could parliament satisfy their consciences if they took no step to remedy the evil? Now, with respect to motions, during the last eight years the lord chancellor had heard 5,155 motions. During the same period the vice-chancellor had heard 14,560,-not motions of course, but actual motions. Many of the motions heard by the lord chancellor were appeals from the vice-chancellor's court, a circumstance which sir S. Romilly had distinctly predicted, The same was the case with exceptions and petitions. When, some years ago, he (Mr. T.) proposed to separate the bankrupt business from the other labours of the lord chancellor, of which it formed a large portion, the learned lord would not hear of such a thing. It now, however, appeared, that the vice-chancellor did a great deal of that business. In every point of view, the existing system was an evil which ought to be cured. No one knew how soon he might be dragged through all the horrors of this equity ordeal, which nevertheless he had heard gentlemen, with stoical apathy, call "the merciful court of Chancery." He was very desirous that a VOL. VII. 1822, there remained to be heard of appeals already appointed 122, and of others 33; making a total of 155. On the average dispatch of business of the last nine years, it would take four years to get through those 155 appeals. Was that the state in which the appellant suitor, after all he must previously have undergone in other courts, ought to be left? Could any one say that that was not a striking grievance? One great object of the bill for establishing the vice-chancellor's court had been, to hasten the decision of appeals in the House of Lords; and yet it was now acknowledged, even by the learned lord himself, that unless some plan were adopted for getting rid of the Scotch appeals he could not go on. He (Mr. T.) now expected that it would be proposed to constitute some intermediate tribunal to hear the appeals from Scotland-a measure which was recommended by some of the judges several years ago, but which dropped to the ground. It was not his wish that the vice-chancellor's court should be destroyed at once, for he was desirous that time should be afforded to parliament and to his majesty's government, to consider what it would be advisable to substitute. He would ask gentlemen whether the debt due by those courts to the suitors was truly paid and satisfied? But he was convinced the House would not suffer the 4 T tions. A cause having been decided by the vice-chancellor, or the master of the rolls, the lord chancellor was moved to stay proceedings under the decree, and upon that motion the whole question of appeal was gone into. To compare the business of the lord chancellor with that of the other judges of the court was not fair, because his lordship was occupied during the session of parliament three days a week in hearing appeals. Besides, the cases which came before him were generally of the first importance, and such as were litigated with the greatest anxiety and pertinacity. Those which went before the vice-chancellor and the master of the rolls were comparatively slight. But, to look at the business actually got through by the lord chancellor: subjects of this country to be left in so perilous and distressing a situation. He had been indulged in a variety of conversations with the lord chancellor upon the subject; and had entertained hopes that that noble personage himself, seeing the evil, would have originated some measure as a remedy. In that expectation, however, he had been disappointed. The noble and learned lord spoke of his intention to resign the seals, and said, that he thought it would be more delicate to leave alteration to his successor. He (Mr. T.) did not agree in that feeling, nor in any feeling which was to prolong, even for a day, the existing system. He would therefore move, That this House will resolve itself into a committee of the whole House, to consider of the act of the 53rd Geo. 3, c. 24." It was his in--In 1821, he had heard 8 causes, 6 extention to propose, if he obtained the committee, the abolition of the vicechancellor's court, after a period of two years. ceptions, 5 pleas and demurrers, 57 petitions, 103 bankrupt petitions, 245 lunatic petitions, and 418 motions. In 1821, then, the lord chancellor had disposed of The Attorney General said, he was some- 890 different matters. In 1820 he had thing surprised at the conclusion of the got through 1,015. In 1819, there hon. member. Why had he not moved at were 1,011. The hon. member had once to repeal the act? Why lose his time said, that the establishment of the vicein taking a committee, when the House chancellor's court had not tended to had already before it all the materials ne- the dispatch of business, in the House cessary to its decision? The exertions of Lords. In the ten years running of the lord chancellor were too universally from 1803 to 1813, the lord chancellor acknowledged, to require any descrip- had disposed of 193 appeals. Between tion. The learned lord sat from October in one year, to September in another; and often gave up holidays to the despatch of any pressing business. A little attention to the returns before the House would show that, except as to appeals, there was no material arrear of business before the chancellor. The hon. member had cited an instance of an amicable suit which had lasted 12 years. Now, he would put it to any gentleman conversant with chancery practice, whether such a suit, unless under peculiar circumstances, could endure for 12 years. Since the vice-chancellor's court had been established, the lord chancellor had been a good deal occupied in the hearing of appeals but that must inevitably happen where the power of appeal existed, and where parties were not satisfied. In estimating the quantity of business got through by the lord chancellor, the House ought to look at the number of motions taken before that learned judge. Each motion, in many cases, amounted to the hearing of a cause. Appeals, very frequently, were taken in the shape of mo the year 1813 and the present time, no fewer than 421 appeals had been disposed of; and the advantage of enabling the lord chancellor to proceed with the appeals was prodigious; for many of them were brought merely for the purpose of delay, and consequently disappeared the moment they were pressed upon. He admitted that the appeals (chiefly from Scotland) poured in very fast; and, in fact, the very good of decision brought some evil along with it; as the delay formerly attendant upon appeals had deterred many persons from bringing them, so parties were now encouraged to prosecute them from the expedition with which they were arranged. The whole number of appeals unheard amounted to 101; and in no other branch of chancery business did there remain any arrear worth naming. He would put it to the House, therefore, whether the hon. member had made out any case to call for the measure he had proposed. Mr. John Williams said, that with respect to the dispatch of business in the court of the learned lord, he was com |