§ Earl Greysaid, that he should propose to-morrow that the House should adjourn from that day till Tuesday, the 12th of April, then to re-assemble for public business. At the suggestion of his learned friend on the Woolsack, he would propose that the House should continue to sit for private business until Monday next.
Lord Kenyonwished to know what reason there would be for the House sitting, even for private business, on Easter-eve and Easter Monday?
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he should most willingly state the reason why it was proposed that the House should not adjourn, except for public business, until Monday next. Undoubtedly, the usual course had been, to commence the adjournment, both for private and public business before Good Friday; but he did not see any thing improper in the House continuing to sit for the discharge of its judicial functions until Easter Monday. The reason why he proposed that the House should continue to sit for that purpose was, in order, if possible, to get rid of the arrear of appeals. His great object, ever since he had come into his present office, had been to get rid of that arrear, and he hoped to be able to boast at the end of the Session, that he had disposed of not only all the appeals lying over from the former Session, but of all the appeals which had 1131 been entered previous to Easter. That was the reason why he intended to sit until Easter Monday, and the mention of that arrangement would in itself be calculated to prevent new appeals from coming in. He had no objection to sacrifice his holidays, and instead of going out of town, as he might do (for the Court of Chancery had risen that day), to sit hearing appeals till Easter Monday. He should hear only Scotch appeals in that period. With regard to a precedent for Courts of Justice sitting on Easter-eve and Easter Monday, the thing was constantly done on circuit in the country, where the Courts sat upon Easter-eve and upon Easter Monday, and on Good Friday also, with the exception of the two hours spent in church. There was, therefore, nothing contrary to precedent, nor against decorum, in the arrangement which he proposed.