Lords Sitting of 3 April 1833

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Privy Council.—Committed:—Juries (Ireland).—Brought up from the Commons:—The Marine Mutiny.
Petitions presented. By Lord SUFFIELD, from a Number of Places, against Slavery.—By the Bishop of St. ASAPH, from two Places in Wales; and by the Duke of ARGYLE, from the Presbytery of Mull, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By the Earl of ROSEBERY, from the Lord Provost and Town Council of Edinburgh, as Patrons of the University, against the Apothecaries (England) Act.

CHANCERY PROCEEDINGS.
The Lord Chancellorlaid upon the Table the Bill for the Regulation of the Proceedings in the Court of Chancery, which he had shortly opened on a former evening. He would not do more than present the Bill at that moment, as there would be abundant opportunities of discussing its details and principles hereafter. He would take that opportunity, however, to supply an omission of which he had been guilty on a former evening, when opening to their Lordships the nature and object of this Bill. It was proposed that the Masters in Chancery should not be remunerated by fees, but by salaries principally; and that the fees for early copies, to which so much objection had been taken, should be abolished altogether. Another material improvement which this Bill would introduce,

71
was connected with the appointment of the Masters in Chancery. It was proposed that they should be no longer appointed by the Lord Chancellor at his will and pleasure, but by the Crown. He admitted, that in making such appointments, the Crown ought to be advised by the Great Seal; but it appeared to him to be more fitting that individuals exercising high judicial functions, as the Masters in Chancery did, should be appointed by the Crown, than by any public functionary, no matter how high his office, rank, and dignity. There was this substantial difference between vesting the appointment in the Crown and vesting it in the Lord Chancellor, which must strike every body at the first blush: it was possible, though it was not likely, that a person, having no control exercised over him either by the Crown or by his colleagues, might be disposed, from private favour and affection, to appoint to these offices persons unfit for them. The effect of the difference would be, that, though the patronage would still substantially be with the Lord Chancellor, the vesting it in the Crown would prevent him from proposing persons for these judicial functions who were unqualified to perform them, and would prevent any person from being wantonly rejected who ought to be proposed. That was an omission of which he had been unintentionally guilty on the former evening. He also begged to be excused for noticing another point. An idea had gone abroad from persons reading imperfectly, or rather from their not reading at all, the existing Bankrupt Act, that the patronage arising out of the appointment of Commissioners in the country was vested in the Great Seal. Hence, a number of applications had been made to him which were extremely distressing. He wished it therefore to be generally understood, that the Lord Chancellor had nothing more to do with the nomination of the country Commissioners than any of their Lordships who had never entered the Court of Chancery. The nomination of these officers was vested in the Judges of Assize, and in them alone. They were requested, on going their respective circuits, to make recommendation of fitting persons for those offices to the Great Seal, and the Lord Chancellor had no power, to nominate any other persons than those the Judges recommended. At east, so long as he had the honour of
72
holding the Great Seal, he would never interfere with the choice of those who alone had the power of making the recommendation.
Bill read a first time.