The SOLICITOR GENERALrose to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the relief of the Suitors in the Court of Chancery. He was aware that some apology was required for prefacing by any remarks the introduction of a Bill which was not likely to meet with any objection; but he was anxious to take the first opportunity of stating briefly to the House the course of measures which it was in the contemplation of the Government to take for the amendment of those abuses and grievances which had for a long time existed in the Court of Chancery, in which, he was happy to say, so much interest of late years had been taken by that House, and to which such pointed allusion was made by the lion. Baronet who moved the Address in reply to Her Majesty's gracious Speech from the Throne. The hon. Baronet was, perhaps, somewhat carried away by the warmth of his own feelings in respect to the case, in which, although not a party concerned, he was still deeply interested; but of that warmth he (the Solicitor General) was not disposed to complain, because he took it to be only a mark of that general discomfort and dissatisfaction which must be felt by a great proportion of the suitors of that Court with respect to the heavy expenses and long delays to which they were subjected. He thought, however, that he had a right to complain of the hon. Baronet's remark, that he had little hope that the numerous lawyers who occupied seats in that House would take steps for reforming the Court of Chancery, because it was not likely that those 202 who benefited so largely by the profession would be willing to reform its abuses. Now he must say that that remark was unworthy the talents and character of the hon. Baronet, and he trusted that on reflection he would think that he was scarcely justified in making such an observation, for he was sure that it was not from any want of anxiety on the part of the members of the profession that the Court of Chancery had not long since been reformed. Every step that had been made towards its reform had been taken—as it almost necessarily must be—by members of the profession. He need not remind the House how long the names of Mackintosh and Romilly were associated with those legal reforms which they attempted from time to time without result, owing to the determined inertia of the House. Lord Brougham afterwards took the same cause in hand, and succeeded in effecting considerable reform; and since that time a number of Committees had been appointed on the motion of members of the profession in that House for the investigation of grievances connected with the administration of the law; and the Bill to which he now wished to call the attention of the House was founded upon the Report of a Committee of that House, appointed to consider the whole subject of the fees of the Courts of Law and Equity. This was the first of the Bills that were to be brought forward to remove the abuses of the Court of Chancery—it was but the first—and had been prepared under the direction of the Lord Chancellor, to carry into full effect the recommendations of that Committee; and he believed that its result would be a most material relief to the suitors, not merely from the actual expense, but from the annoyance attendant upon the payment of the numerous fees now levied in that Court. This Bill would be followed by another, of a still move efficient character, founded on the Report of the Commissioners appointed by Her Majesty to inquire into the whole subject of the Court of Chancery, which was laid upon the table on the first day of this Session; and he trusted that it would be found to afford very efficient relief—he did not say complete relief, for that could hardly be expected in the present state of the proceedings—but a very large and effective benefit and relief to all those who had the misfortune to be involved in litigation in that Court. It would be remembered that a Committee was appointed in 1846, on the Motion of his learned Friend, 203 Mr. Watson, then Member for Kinsale, to inquire into the subject of fees in the Courts of Law and Equity; and that Committee made a Report, upon which considerable reforms were adopted with respect to the system of fees in the Courts of Common Law. That Committee was renewed in 1847, in the present Parliament, upon the Motion of the present Master of the Rolls, and it had made two Reports; one of the evidence taken in 1848, and the other upon the remedies to be applied to remove existing abuses, in 1849. During the year 1850 it was in contemplation to bring in a Bill to carry into effect the recommendations contained in the Report, and the subject then occupied much of the attention of Lord Cottenham; but his unfortunate illness prevented his completing the work, which was therefore delayed until the appointment of the present Lord Chancellor. In consequence, however, of the arrear of business which had accumulated during the illness of Lord Cottenham, and of the numerous Bills which required attention during the last Session, the Lord Chancellor was not then able to turn his attention to the subject of the present Bill. During the recess, however, he had gone carefully through the Report of the Committee, the recommendations of which, with one unimportant exception (in which he thought the Lord Chancellor rightly differed from the Committee), were to be carried into effect by the present Bill, which would also contain some most important provisions not included in the Report. The suitors in the Court of Chancery complained of the whole fee system as being highly objectionable; and it had long since been strongly recommended by Committees of that House that the officers in the courts of justice should be paid by salaries and not by fees. Fees occasioned no inconsiderable trouble in the collection, besides the temptation which they offered to those who collected them, if they received them for their own use, to multiply the various forms on which they were payable; and, on the other hand, if they did not receive them, but paid them into a fee fund, there was serious temptation in connection with the accounting for them. Fees too were always an obstruction to reform, because at every step there was a "vested interest" to be encountered. The Committee, on investigating the fees payable in the Court of Chancery, arrived at this startling result—that the number of fees paid in the various offices had amounted 204 in the course of a year (on a rough calculation) to 333,000, each entailing the annoyance and trouble of a separate payment, in addition to the expense. Some of these fees, indeed, were of such a minute character that in one instance 298l. had been paid for fees in no fewer than 392 payments. There were ninety officers in receipt of these fees, and therefore that number of persons to be applied to for the purpose of making payments, and of these only forty accounted on affidavit for fees received by them, the fees received by the other fifty being merely accounted for by their superior officers, who stated that they had received a return from the inferior officer, which they believed to be correct. The Committee were of opinion that the whole of this system should be abolished, that all the officers should be paid by salary, and that some system should be instituted by which, instead of receiving these fees at various offices, the whole might be more economically collected in one payment, by which more effectual security might be obtained against any possible irregularities in the accounting for them. According to this Bill, the officers would in future be paid by salaries, and the fees would be levied by stamps, which would be issued to parties requiring them, and would obviously leave no room for fraud, and would not subject the parties to the necessity of applying at so many various offices to pay fees. The Committee found that the tax on suitors by fees amounted to no less than 150,000l. per annum, or, including the further sum they had to pay for office copies, to 180,000l. But the grievance did not rest here. The House must have heard several times of the "suitors' fund," of which the report of 1849 gave a full account, and which was formed in the following manner:—A large quantity of cash is at all times standing to the credit of the Accountant General in Chancery, which is not required at the particular moment to be invested in stock for the purposes of the cause out of which the deposit may have arisen: in fact, it very much represented the cash deposited by customers with a bank, and of which they had not required investment. The money was liable to be paid out by the Accountant General at any moment when demanded in the proper course of proceedings in the Court; but still the various transactions of the Court must always leave a large sum of money in his hands, not requiring to be invested. In 205 the reign of Geo. II. an Act was passed authorising the Accountant General to invest 32,000l. of this floating cash, in order that a profit might be made of it to be applied to the payment of the officers of the Court; and Acts had since been passed at various times by which this floating cash, standing to what he might call the first account, amounted to 2,590,000l., chiefly invested in the Three per Cent Consols, and the remainder in the Three-and-a-Quarter per Cents. In 1792, however, another Act was passed for the investment of a further sum of money, being the accumulated surplus dividends (after paying the officers of the Court) of the former fund, under the title of the "suitors' surplus fund." This second fund now amounted to 1,240,000l. so that the two funds together gave a total of 3,800,000l., or nearly 4,000,000l., arising from the money of the suitors so deposited in Court. Now, the income of this fund, amounting to about 112,000l. a year, was applied for the payment of the various officers of the Court, and amongst others for the payment of that part of the Lord Chancellor's salary which he received independently of his office as Speaker of the House of Lords, and for the payment of the salaries of the two Lords Justices, and of the Vice-Chancellors created by the Act of 1841; so that the suitors supported the Judges who had to administer justice in the Court, and who, upon every principle, ought to be provided at the public expense to administer justice to all whose rights were disputed; it was contrary to all principle to tax the suitors with the maintenance of the Court, to oblige those who had the misfortune to be involved in litigation to maintain the judicial system. In criminal matters it was not attempted to make the man robbed on the highway pay a fee to the Judge. The principle was intelligible enough upon which such a fund might be properly applicable to the support of what he might call the administrative jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, which was exercised in consequence of a large number of persons desiring the Court to administer their property, and, in fact, making the Court their trustee. Now, it was but reasonable that these persons should contribute (as they did largely) to the expenses incurred in the management of the trust. The following, however, were the sums now paid to the Judges out of this fund: The Lord Chancellor, 6,000 (in addition to 4,000l. received as Speaker of 206 the House of Lords); the Lords Justices (6,000l. each), 12,000l.; and the Vice-Chancellors appointed under the Act of 1841 (5,000l. each), 10,000l.; making a total of 28,000l. Now, when the Bill for the appointment of the Lords Justices was under discussion last year, a question was asked whether it would not be better to make their salaries payable out of the Consolidated Fund; and the noble Lord at the head of the Government then stated (and his reply was received with general approbation) that he had it under consideration whether all the Judges should not be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. That was the course proposed to be pursued by the present Bill. This Bill would transfer the payment of this 28,000l. from the suitors to the Consolidated Fund. Besides relieving the suitors from the payment of a great variety of fees, this measure would also release them from a variety of payments for "office copies" and otherwise; and it was moreover proposed that they should no longer be compelled to take office copies at all from any of the offices from which they took them under the existing system—a system which led to an unnecessary multiplication of copies, and the payment of "despatch money;" and in future the practice in Chancery would be the same as at common law, where the attorneys mutually exchanged copies of such documents as they required. But it should be here stated that this question had occupied the attention of all the late Chancellors, beginning with Lord Lyndhurst; and by orders of him, and of Lords Brougham and Cottenham, the former charge of 1s. 6d. per folio had been reduced to 4d., effecting a saving of 28,000l. a year. While the Bill for the appointment of Lords Justices was under discussion last year, the Lord Chancellor took into consideration the question whether, having regard to the extent of the suitors' fee fund, which presented annually a considerable surplus, he could not effect a considerable reduction in the fees payable by suitors, and he made orders which it was calculated would give a further relief to suitors to the extent of about 20,000l. by the reduction of fees which he thought no longer necessary for keeping up the fund; and with such nicety had the calculation been made by Mr. Johnson, the able solicitor to the suitors' fee fund, that in the result there was only a deficiency of 1,128l. That deficiency was not of any importance, because there was 207 power to supply any deficiency in the suitors' fee fund from the suitors' fund. Now, the surplus of the suitors' fund amounted annually to 33,000l., and adding to that the 28,000l. to be transferred by this Bill to the Consolidated Fund, there would be a surplus of upwards of 61,000l. or of 60,000l., after making up the deficiency in the suitors' fee fund. That being the case, the Lord Chancellor was prepared, immediately on the passing of this Bill, to make a further remission of 50,000l. in fees to the suitors. The suitors' fund would still be contributing 112,000l. towards the administrative branches of the Court. But further, the Committee which had sat upon this subject had pointed out a variety of offices in the Court of Chancery, in regard to some of which they recommended the abolition, while in other cases they had merely stated the facts connected with the office, leaving it to the Lord Chancellor to consider whether he could not fairly and with propriety dispense with some of them; and his Lordship had, in every such instance, carefully considered whether it would be possible to make any reform, or dispense with the office. The Committee recommended the abolition of the offices of the Master of the Reports, the Clerk of Accounts, and the Affidavit Office, which was to be transferred to that of Records and Writs. It pointed out also a number of offices still paid by fees. It had, amongst other things, been said in that House, that the Lord Chancellor's six Secretaries were much too large a staff even for the business of that important office. Now the first of these Secretaries was his Lordship's Private Secretary, and could not be dispensed with. The Secretaryship of Decrees and Injunctions would be abolished; but this was rather a name to frighten the House withal, than anything more, and no great credit could be taken for abolishing the office, for the saving thereby to be effected was only 50l. There were next two Secretaries not connected with the Court of Chancery—those who undertook the business in connection with the Presentation to Livings, and with the Commission of the Peace. These offices were now full, but it was the intention of his Lordship to consolidate them, when either fell vacant. The next was the Secretary of Lunatics, but though so called, he never performed the functions of a secretary; he was in truth a registrar. He never even signed the petitions pre- 208 sented. He would be continued under his proper name, "Registrar in Lunacy," being absolutely required for the discharge of the duties of that office. The remaining office, the Secretary of Bankrupts, was very justly complained of. He was paid by fees, but by an arrangement with Lord Cottenham he accounted for all that he received above 1,200l., so that it might be taken that he had a salary of 1,200l. There was also a Chief Registrar in Bankruptcy, with 1,200l. That office having fallen vacant, it was proposed in a former Session to make the Secretary in Bankruptcy perform its duties; but a Select Committee appointed to consider the subject, at the instance of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) having reported that neither office was necessary, he had now to state that the Secretary had very honourably, at the instance of the Lord Chancellor, resigned his office without any compensation; and that the office would not be filled up. A saving of 2,400l. would, therefore, be effected by the abolition of these two offices. Then, there were some officers about whom the right hon. Member for Ripon (Sir James Graham) had made anxious inquiries—Chaff-Wax and Deputy Chaff-Wax, the Sealer, and the Patentee of Subpœnas. These offices, by an Act passed early in the reign of Her present Majesty, were directed to be abolished at the death of their then holders; but it was proposed by this Bill to abolish them at once, paying compensation to the parties holding them. The following offices were also to be abolished: The Lord Chancellor had two Gentlemen of the Chamber, at 700l. a-year each; one of these offices only was full; but the Lord Chancellor had appointed to that office a gentleman who was of the utmost assistance to him, and really much required by him in the discharge of his manifold duties—amongst others, in looking into the various cases referred to, and matters of that kind. He knew as a matter of fact that that gentleman was actually employed until one o'clock to two o'clock in the morning in his duties. The office of the other Gentleman of the Chamber it was proposed to abolish, and to reduce the salary of the remaining Gentleman from 700l. to 500l., which would not be more than sufficient to remunerate him for the performance of his duties. The office of Deputy Sealer, who had a salary of 289l., was to be abolished. It was also proposed to abolish the Clerk 209 of Affidavits at 1,000l. a year, the Assistant Clerk at 800l., and the Second Clerk at 400l. The Clerk of Reports had an income of 600l., arising from fees, and 200l. arising from salary, and his office was to be abolished, which would make a saving of 860l. a-year, subject, however, to a payment of 400l. to be made to the person who would undertake the duties which that gentleman had really to perform, so that the saving thus made would in fact amount to 460l. a year. The office of doorkeeper of the Court of Chancery—salary 347l.—was to be abolished; the usher of the Court, with 300l. salary and 127l. fees, making together 427l., was to be abolished; so that the offices which were for the first time to be abolished by this Act would produce a saving of 4,881l. a year, or in round numbers about 5,000l. a year, subject, of course, to compensation to some parties. The saving that would be effected in the other offices to be abolished by this Act, which would terminate with the lives of the present holders, amounted to 1,838l. a year, making a total of 6,900l., or nearly 7,000l. a year. But besides that, the Committee had recommended another important reduction. The Accountant General of the Court of Chancery was paid in perhaps not altogether a satisfactory manner. He received a salary of 1,500l. a year, 400l. of which was paid to him as a Master in Chancery, and the remainder as Accountant General in Chancery. He performed the duties of Messenger to the House of Lords, as the other Masters did, and conveyed their messages to the House of Commons; but, besides that salary, the Accountant General of Chancery, by an arrangement with the brokers of the Court, received three-fifths of the whole brokerage charged to suitors in respect of various transactions in stock to the Court of Chancery. The brokerage was one-eighth per cent; and of that one-eighth per cent, the broker only received two-fifths, and the Accountant General three-fifths. That was a system that had existed for more than a hundred years; it was not recently introduced by the present Accountant General; and the result of the payments so made to the Accountant General was somewhere about 3,700l. a year, making a total income of about 5,270l. a year. It was proposed at once that an arrangement should be made with the present Accountant General—that, instead of being paid by the present system of brokerage, he 210 should be paid by salary; and that, on a vacancy occurring in the office, the future income of the Accountant General should be 3,000l. a year, thus effecting a saving to the suitors of over 2,000l. a year. That income would not be found excessive, when they looked to the vast quantity of transactions that took place in the Accountant General's office. In the course of a year there were nearly 46,000 cash transactions going on in the Accountant General's office, whereby his constant attendance there was required; and it was thought that his salary should be fixed at the amount just stated. The total of all these savings would be 8,900l., or, in round numbers, 9,000l. a year; so that, in addition to the 50,000l. a year already mentioned, from which they would be able at once to relieve the suitors, they would be able, when those changes were effected, to relieve the suitors from the payment of about 10,000l. a year more. Further than that, the suitor was burdened now because the fee fund was charged with a high amount of compensation by the reduction of the "Six Clerks." That compensation amounted to about 47,000l. a year; the entire amount of compensation was about 48,000l. or 49,000l. a year. When that compensation expired, there would be in addition to the 50,000l. a year, and to the 10,000l. a year before mentioned a reduction of over 40,000l. a year more, making altogether about 100,000l. a year. He hoped the ultimate result of the arrangements would be carried so far, that the suitor would be relieved entirely from all payments for fees of court, and that the only contribution he would have to make would be that derived from the investment of his own money, of which he could scarcely complain, as he was making the Court of Chancery his banker and trustee; and the Court of Chancery only received the profit that an ordinary banker should receive whilst defraying the expenses of the trust, and carrying it into effect for the benefit of the parties. It would be seen from that statement that the Bill might well be termed "A Bill for the Relief of Suitors in the High Court of Chancery." There was, however, an exception in its provisions from the recommendations in the Report on which the Bill was founded: the office of Clerks of the Accounts and that of the Master of Reports was not to be abolished. The reason why the Committee recommended the abolition of the office was this 211 —they found that the gentleman who filled the office of Master of Reports had ceased to attend the office, and the Committee naturally concluded that when he did not attend the office, it did not require his attention. The Clerks of Accounts checked the Accounts of the Accountant General's Office. They went through the whole of the accounts, of which they had a transcript corresponding with the transcript in the Accountant General's Office; and before a check was issued from the Accountant General's Office it was passed through the office of the Clerks of Accounts, and thus they were able to correct, if necessary, any cheques that were drawn to the credit of the parties. The cheque was then taken to the Bank of England to be cashed. The Bank of England had also a book of their own, and it seemed to the Committee that if the Bank of England had a book, and the Accountant General had a book, there could be no chance of a mistake by overdrawing the account, and therefore that the intermediate check might be dispensed with. The Committee had no reason to know what took place in the Account Office. Unfortunately the Master of Reports was unable to attend his office from infirmity; they only got their evidence, therefore, from the Accountant General's Office, and did not examine any of the clerks of the Account Office. The Lord Chancellor saw the recommendation of the Committee, but did not think there was sufficient evidence to satisfy his mind that the office should be abolished. Therefore, he called for the Clerks of Accounts and examined them, and asked the result of the check they exercised, and if it were an efficient one; and he (the Solicitor General) was bound to say that from the evidence which the Lord Chancellor so obtained, he was obliged to come to the conviction that, as Members of the Committee, they were all somewhat hasty in coming to the conclusion they did. He held in his hand a list of errors discovered in that office—he would not fatigue the House by going into a detail of them—but he might say these were all instances of accounts being overdrawn. There was one instance where the amount was 634l., in another instance 346l., in another 900l., in another 293l., and in another 128l. The list was a tolerably long one, and the sums were in the aggregate of considerable amount. The evil resulting from these errors being undiscovered would be this—the parties getting the cheque would no doubt be 212 refused payment at the Bank if his account were discovered to be overdrawn; but he might very easily get money from anybody on the cheque—he might get it cashed by anybody to whom he applied, and the party who cashed it, on going to the Bank of England, would not be paid. It would be some discredit also to the Court of Chancery if its cheques were overdrawn; the Accountant General could not well be blamed, for they must recollect that he had to deal with accounts 46,000 or 47,000 in number; and it was desirable that there should be some existing check to prevent it. It was on these grounds that the Lord Chancellor considered that this office could not be abolished. He had gone through the recommendations of the Committee, and had stated the mode in which they proposed to carry them out as regarded the Court of Chancery, but he had not yet touched upon lunacy. With reference to the mode of raising fees, there was a great discussion in the Committee as to the best mode of raising them. They desired ultimately entirely to abolish them; but in the meantime it was a great object to consolidate them, and have them paid at fixed stages of the case, and put an end to the numerous and ridiculous small payments now required. The Lord Chancellor proposed to take a power to fix and regulate those fees, as they could not be regulated at once by the Act, because it required judgment and consideration to do so. The Committee had recommended, that, if necessary, a per centage should be allowed out of the monies paid into Court to raise one-half of the fees which it might be requisite should be paid; and he (the Solicitor General) admitted that that point was not carried as unanimously as other points in the Report. He then saw an hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) who objected to it; it was also objected to by the Vice-Chancellor Turner, who then represented the city of Coventry; but there was a majority of the Committee in its favour. The Lord Chancellor, seeing that, proposed to take a power to raise the funds required for the purpose; but it might not be necessary for him to exercise that power, because it was thought that the different fees, when properly adjusted, would meet any demands for the purpose. In lunacy, however, he thought the best mode of raising the fund would be by this very per centage. There was no objection to it in lunacy, because the business was not contentious, but merely the administration of an estate by 213 the Lord Chancellor as a trust. The property was vested in the Crown upon the commission finding the party lunatic, and the Crown held it upon trust to administer it. There was no reason why the estate to be administered should not be at the expense of administering it, but there was reason why the present system of fees should not be continued, because by the present system every estate, large and small, paid equally. He would give the House two instances to explain the monstrous hardship which was thus inflicted upon persons having a small estate. One was the case of a lunatic who had been clerk to a solicitor, and who had realised by his savings about 1,500l. That was his whole property. The expense in respect to that commission amounted to 216l., and of that, 216l., 55l. 2s. 6d. were the actual fees which his estate had to pay into Court. So that in that small estate the party had to pay 55l. 2s. 6d. into Court, being the same amount that another lunatic possessing 14,000. or 15,000l. a year, would have to pay. There was another instance, where the party had originally filled the situation of a lady's maid, and had saved 800l. The expenses amounted to 183l., and the fees paid into Court amounted to 58l. 9s. 2d. for that small estate. It was proposed, with reference to lunacy, that the fees required, which amounted altogether to 6,000l. or 7,000l. a year, should be raised by a per centage on the estate of the person whose estate was to be administered. He thought he had stated to the House the principal features of the Bill. There were minor details with which he would not trouble the House, because they would see them as soon as the Bill was printed. He would state one circumstance with reference to this Bill which would lead him to make a remark upon the other measures that were contemplated. This Bill as originally framed contained some clauses with reference to the Clerks' and Masters' Offices. These clauses had been withdrawn from the draft of the Bill for this reason: a Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the proceedings of the Court of Chancery, had been presented and laid upon the table of the House on the first day of the Session. [Parliamentary Paper, No. [1437] Session 1852.] He was not then going to enter into the various subjects contained in the Report; but one of the recommendations contained in it was, that in future a large proportion of the business of the Masters' 214 Office, consisting of the taking of accounts and other business, now solely performed by the chief clerk, should be performed by some officer of a similar character; that the litigious business of the Masters' Office should be performed by the Judges giving their opinion on the cases that arise at the Masters' Office; and that the third class of business, namely, business requiring discussion with reference to the property of infants, the appointment of guardians, &c., should be transacted by the Judge himself sitting in chambers. And he was happy to say that, having had on that Commission the advantage of the presence of three Judges of the Court, the Master of the Rolls, Vice-Chancellor Turner, and Vice-Chancellor Parker, the Commission found them not only concurring in all these propositions, but expressing their entire readiness to perform the additional labours that would be cast upon them by undertaking the transaction of this business in chamber. And the result would be, that if those various recommendations were carried out by the Legislature, it might be in the power of the Legislature to dispense with the office of Master in Chancery altogether; and they would have it in their power to obviate all those delays which were so often complained of—though the delays were perhaps somewhat exaggerated—by substituting a different mode of proceeding altogether from that of proceeding in the Masters' Office. All the clauses, therefore, which had reference to the Masters' Office were wholly omitted in the framing of this particular Bill that was now about to be laid before the House. But before he sat down, he could not help stating to the House the great satisfaction he felt in finding that it was in the power of Her Majesty's Government, in consequence of the exertions of the Commission (which had been made to enable some immediate action to be taken in the present Parliament), to bring forward a Bill that would go further towards the permanent relief of the suitors in the Court of Chancery than this present Bill, which simply relieved them from a certain amount (not inconsiderable) of pecuniary payments. They trusted to be able to introduce such a new system in the management of the Court of Chancery that the delays, which occasioned so much suffering and anxiety, and which wore often felt as a far greater grievance than the expense of the suit itself, would be brought within such compass, that in all cases, except cases of ad- 215 ministration, where the parties accepted the assistance of the Court, justice would be done in a period not exceeding the extent of a single year—that parties would be able to obtain speedy justice, and in such a shape that it would not only be speedy but much more cheap than in the mode in which it was hitherto had to be sought, and far more complete and effective when it is rendered. They would then be enabled to prevent parties from being bandied about from court to court; the business appropriate to other courts would be handed over to those courts; such business as the Court of Chancery undertook they would transact in a manner worthy of the highest court of equitable jurisdiction in this country, instead of conducting it as it had, unfortunately, been too much carried on till the present time, so as to reflect great discredit on the administration of justice. He scarcely hoped so early as on Monday week to bring forward the Bill to which he made reference; because, in consequence of the Report of the Commission having been made only a few days before the meeting of Parliament, the Bill was not reduced to such a shape as that he could entertain any reasonable expectation of being able to offer it on that precise day. But there would be no delay, as far as he was concerned, in doing what lay in his power to meet the most anxious desire of Her Majesty's Government to give effect to many recommendations of that Report; and he concluded by expressing the hope that when those recommendations were carried into effect, they would not be compelled, as before, to listen year after year to complaints of the Court of Chancery as a source of vexation and expense to suitors. The hon. and learned Gentleman moved for leave to bring in the Bill.
§ Motion agreed to. Leave given.
§ Bill to be brought in by Mr. Solicitor General and Sir George Grey.
§ Bill read 1°.