Lords Sitting of 6 May 1856

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Drainage (Private Advances) Act Amendment.
2a County Courts Acts Amendment; Joint Stock Companies Winding-up Acts Amendment.

COUNTY COURTS ACTS AMENDMENTS BILL.
ORDER of the day for the Second Reading, read.
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that in asking their Lordships to give a second reading to this Bill, he would briefly state its principal objects. The local courts had become part of the confirmed jurisdiction of the country, and their establishment was so rooted and they had become so useful, that any attempt to impair their efficiency would be very improper and injudicious. Three years ago he issued a Commission to inquire into the working of these courts—for it was naturally to be supposed that sixty different tribunals, some of them administering justice in eight or ten places, must fall into inconsistencies if not into errors in dealing with the subjects that were brought before them, and it was therefore important that the whole system, should
2
be revised. Last year the Commissioners made their first report, and they pointed out a great number of trifling errors in the existing law, and mistakes of practice which had crept in and which required remedying, and this Bill had been framed with the view of carrying their suggestions into effect. With regard to the details of the Bill, it consisted of some forty or fifty independent proposals, the object of which was to remedy evils each separately being of a minute character. There was one point connected with this subject to which his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) had frequently called their Lordships' attention, and which had always called up in him something like a feeling of shame—habent confitentem reum—that whereas the richer class of suitors who applied for justice to the superior tribunals, had the advantage of judges and court-houses provided for them by the State, the poorer class of suitors in the County Courts had to pay for their own judges and for the places in which they sat to administer justice, because the object of the fees levied in the County Courts was to render those courts self-supporting. It was undoubtedly the first duty of every Government to provide for the administration of justice; but he was

3
not one of those who would look at the question with so scrupulous an eye as to say that the suitors should pay nothing towards the expenses of judicial tribunals. The object ought to be to relieve the man who had suffered the wrong, and throw the costs on him who had committed it. The country provided tribunals, and the suitor not only recovered his fair amount of damages but also his expenses, or had to pay them if he lost his cause; and therefore if the wrong-doer in all cases paid the expenses it might be right that the expenses should be paid by the suitors. But unfortunately that could not be always the case, and sometimes the debtor against whom judgment went was not able to pay. Therefore it was that the Government was bound to provide Judges and tribunals. That reasoning did not apply to those courts which, though nominally courts of justice, were in fact institutions for the administration of property. That principle did not, however, fairly apply to the County Courts, in which the rights of those who had been wronged were enforced; and yet those tribunals had originally been made self-supporting, and the consequence was that an amount of fees was levied in them which, in comparison with the amounts recovered, could hardly be justified. Those fees were divided under two heads—first, a fund for providing court houses, and next, one out of which all other expenses were defrayed. The amount levied in 1854, under the latter category, was £230,000; and under the former between £40,000 and £50,000; making an aggregate raised in fees of about £278,000. Of this, the salaries for the Judges, at £1,200, took £72,000. The Government, therefore, now proposed to pay the salaries of the Judges, and to provide court houses from the Consolidated Fund, and to levy in fees only about one-half of the £278,000 now so raised. That was, perhaps, the main object of the Bill; but, being financial, it could not be effected under their Lordships' authority. It would, however, be submitted to the other House with the sanction of the Government. At present, the County Court Judges were paid salaries of not less than £1,200 nor more than £1,500, at the discretion of the Treasury. This was a most objectionable mode of remuneration, and one that would not be tolerated for an instant in regard to the Judges of the higher courts. He remembered that when the late Lord Denman was appointed Lord
4
Chief Justice, it was arranged that he should receive only £8,000 instead of £10,000, as heretofore; but he retained a legal right to have the larger sum. That state of things led to much animadversion; for it was said to be most improper that it should rest with the Government whether they should pay the Lord Chief Justice £8,000 or £10,000 a year, at their own discretion. In selecting the Judges of the County Courts, who should receive the extra £300 (the source for paying which was the surplus arising from fees) the Treasury proceeded upon the best statistical data it could obtain, and decided with as much impartiality as possible to award the legal increase to twenty out of the whole number, eighteen of whom were paid £300 additional, and the other two £150. Those whose salaries remained at £1,200 were—not unnaturally perhaps—dissatisfied with this arrangement, and many applications were made to the Government to induce it to fix them all at £1,500. In allotting salaries to judgeships, they ought to consider, first, what it was necessary to pay in order to obtain competent men; and, secondly, what would be sufficient to enable them to fill that position in society which the discharge of their duties required—for it would be a very low and vulgar mode of regarding the question to look upon judgeships as things that might be put up, as it were, by auction for the lowest bidder. His own idea was that though it would be impossible to say that £1,500 would be an improper sum, yet, seeing how many able and fit men there were ready to fill the office for £1,200 he did not feel warranted in recommending an indiscriminate rate of £1,500 for all County Court Judges. His Bill, therefore, only secured the salaries as they now existed, of course without depriving those who had already received the additional allowance of their right to have it continued. Such was the best decision on this point at which, after viewing it in all its bearings, he could arrive. It was a point, however, over which their Lordships had no real jurisdiction; and it would now rest with Parliament to pronounce its own judgment on the matter. The Commissioners recommended a variety of smaller changes of detail relating to the position of the deputies and clerks of the Judges. For instance, it would dispose of the doubts which had arisen with regard to the legality of acts done by a deputy when the judge, clerk, or bailiff

5
appointing him had died. The Bill would settle those points. The question of the precise amount of costs which a suitor should he entitled to recover had engaged the attention of the Commissioners. By the law as it at present stood, if an action for debt was proved in a superior court, and the amount recovered was not more than could have been recovered in the County Court, the plaintiff did not get costs unless the Judge certified that it was a proper action to bring in the superior court; and if a person sued in a local court, having concurrent jurisdiction with the County Court, the costs were larger than in the County Court. What ought to be enacted should be, that if the action was not tried in the County Court no more costs should be recovered than would have been recovered in the County Court. The recommendations of the Commissioners, however, differed in this respect from the views that had been advocated by other competent persons. The only pledge he could give was that the subject should receive his careful consideration. Mr. Pitt Taylor, an eminent County Court Judge, who dissented in some particulars from the other Commissioners, had recommended that, whereas the County Courts had at present exclusive jurisdiction in actions for debt under £20 and in those for wrong under £5, their jurisdiction should for the future be equal in both cases. The reasoning by which Mr. Taylor had supported this view appeared so cogent that he (the Lord Chancellor) had embodied the recommendation in the Bill. It was for their Lordships, however, to decide whether it should be retained or expunged. In conclusion, he moved that the Bill be now read a second time, on the understanding that it should be committed proformâ on Thursday, and resumed after the holidays. It had been suggested to him that the Passage Courts at Liverpool and at Bristol were very useful courts, and he did not propose to interfere with them.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
LORD CAMPBELL, while cheerfully admitting that the Bill had much merit, expressed his regret that the Lord Chancellor should not have adhered more closely to the recommendations of the Commissioners—able and zealous men, who had applied themselves most sedulously to the task of improving the County Court system. Although two of the Commissioners were learned and able colleagues of his on the bench—Mr. Justice Erle and Mr. Justice
6
Crompton—the noble and learned Lord preferred to commit himself to the guidance of Mr. Pitt Taylor, a Gentleman whom he (Lord Campbell) had the privilege to call his friend, and for whose talents he had the highest respect, but of whom he must also observe that in many of his views and opinions he was by no means prepared to concur. Mr. Taylor seemed ambitious to make himself a second Chief Justice of England. Even though he should succeed in that object, he (Lord Campbell) would not entertain for him a diminished regard, for his abilities would adorn any position however eminent, and qualify him for any task however arduous. But it would be unreasonable to suppose that similar praise could with propriety be awarded to his fifty colleagues in the County Courts. They were, no doubt, in the main, zealous and efficient magistrates, and they discharged their duties in an exemplary manner; but it might be questioned whether it would be desirable to intrust them with the decision of all manner of cases, however dissimilar and complicated. The County Courts were excellent tribunals, and must now be regarded as permanent institutions of the country, but they had been founded for the express purpose of determining small cases which did not require the same amount of skill and learning that was demanded in the superior courts at Westminster Hall. The vast majority of the County Court Judges were satisfied with their present powers; but Mr. Taylor would revolutionise the whole system and give them an unlimited jurisdiction. The Bill of his noble and learned Friend proposed to depart entirely from the recommendation of the Commissioners, and to place the management of this matter in the hands of his (Lord Campbell's) friend, Mr. Pitt Taylor. An example of the tendency of the Bill might be given in the provision, that if a person bringing an action for malicious prosecution, libel, assault, &c., in one of the superior courts did not recover more than £20 damages he should have no costs. This would effectually shut the doors of Westminster Hall against suitors who wished to resort to it for the vindication of their characters. No plaintiff in such an action can be sure of recovering a larger sum; and henceforth all personal actions must be brought in the County Court, before a Judge who may be incompetent, from, whom there is no appeal except with his

7
own consent, who has no Bar to control him, and whose proceedings are unnoticed by the public press. On these grounds he would ask his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack to reconsider this measure, but he should not oppose its going through Committee pro formâ—although he would repeat that he regretted that the noble and learned Lord should have departed altogether from the recommendations of the Commissioners—recommendations which a regard to the due administration of justice required that the Legislature should adopt.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that his noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell) had really conjured up a phantom, he would not say of his brain, but of his imagination, with respect to Mr. Pitt Taylor, whom he appeared disposed to look upon somewhat as a rival. He seemed to imagine that it was intended to give what used to be called "the cushion" of the Court of Queen's Bench, by giving unlimited jurisdiction to the County Courts. With respect to the minority of the Commissioners having been so small as to have been reduced to one, all the Commissioners being on one side, and Mr. Pitt Taylor on the other, he (Lord Brougham) could only say that almost on every point of difference there had been four on one side and three on another. But the question rested on the merits, not on the recommendations of the Commissioners. Would not any one who had heard his noble and learned Friend, the Lord Chief Justice, suppose that the question raised by this Bill, instead of being confined to £50 in cases of debt, and £5 in cases of tort, was to give jurisdiction to any amount, whether in cases of debt or tort? The object was to make the remedy equal in both these cases, and for this obvious reason—that in the great majority of cases it was impossible to draw the line between the two. His noble and learned Friend had been a little mistaken in his history of the County Court legislation. His (Lord Brougham's) original Bills proposed to give jurisdiction up to £100 in debt, and £50 in tort. Now, by degrees, they were creeping on to the original dimensions of those Bills of 1831 and 1833, for at present the limit had been increased from £20 to £50 in debt and £5 in tort. One very important improvement in the Bill, which he was happy to find that his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack was disposed to adopt, was the improvement of what was called the optional
8
clause. At present both parties by consent in writing had the power of having an action tried in the County Courts to any amount and of any kind. That was the law as it stood, and he hoped that it would be maintained, as the system of local judicature would be, which had taken such firm root that it would never be eradicated from the judicial system of this country. But his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) proposed to give a better form to that optional clause, by providing that the consent should only be required in the first instance of the party who sued—that he should be allowed to bring his action in the County Court, but that where the damages claimed exceeded the amount prescribed by the Act, the other party, if he chose, might stop it, and limit the jurisdiction as it was at present. This would be a great improvement, for it would give effect to the optional clause. There was also another matter to which he must refer—a matter which had long been a subject of controversy between his noble and learned Friend and himself—he meant that system which made the County Court suitors pay for the expense of the administration of public justice. These suitors were left groaning under all the evils of law taxes long after those evils had been remedied in every other court of the kingdom. He believed that before long his noble and learned Friend would come round to his opinion on another point, owing, he (Lord Brougham) would not say to the liberality or generosity, but to the wise justice of the other House of Parliament, in providing a sufficient salary to these Judges. He thought that the salary of £1,500 a year was not too much to be paid as the remuneration for the learned Judges who had to perform these important functions. It was no test of the amount of remuneration to say that one court transacted more business than another. That was the worst test which could be applied; for it might happen that the Judge who tried the smaller number of cases might be required, from the nature of the questions raised, to be a man of superior acquirements to the Judge who tried the greater number of cases. But there was another test which was altogether out of the question—namely, that sometimes referred to by his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack, who said he should find no difficulty in obtaining the services of respectable men at the lower amount of salary. Would his noble

9
and learned Friend permit him (Lord Brougham) to say, with all possible courtesy and respect, that he dreaded, from the application of such a test, not so much (as the Lord Chief Justice had imagined) that Mr. Pitt Taylor would be his rival in the Lord Chief Justiceship, but he was in a state of alarm for his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack, for he could see many more candidates likely to rival his noble and learned Friend on that principle; in fact, he saw a multitude—a cloud of witnesses—to the falsehood of the test adopted by his noble and learned Friend. Many men, he believed, would be found not equally capable with his noble and learned Friend, but of sufficient capacity to perform well the functions of his noble and learned Friend's high office, and who would be willing to do so for a much less sum. If his noble and learned Friend applied this test, he might be sure that there would be a host of candidates always ready for the office.
LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, that he agreed with his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack with respect to the question of salary. He thought that it would be impossible to lower the salary of those Judges who now had £1,500 a year during their lives; but, considering the duties which these Judges had to perform, and that they were paid out of the taxes, he considered that the present salary was sufficient. The optional clauses carried the amount too high, but that was a question for the Committee. In other respects he supported the Bill, which he thought would accomplish the object for which it had been introduced.
LORD BERNERSrecommended that the County Court Judges should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next.

CHANCERY REFORM.
LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, that in putting the Question of which he had given notice to his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack—whether he intended to introduce any measure founded on the last Report of the Chancery Commission?—he would take the opportunity of setting right a question of fact—whether the two Acts for abolishing the Masters' Offices, and for amending the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery passed in 1852, had been framed—as they had undoubtedly
10
been brought in and carried—by the Government of which his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) was the head, or by the Government of Lord John Russell. Their Lordships had heard several times the great anxiety with which Lord John Russell's Government had claimed whatever merit might belong to those who laboured to carry those important measures through Parliament. Now, what were the facts? On the 3rd of February, Her Majesty, in Her Speech from the Throne, stated that she had directed Bills to be prepared for the reform of the Court of Chancery, founded on the report of the Chancery Commissioners; and, on the same day, Mr. Hayter announced that the Solicitor General would, on the 16th, move for leave to introduce a Bill respecting the Court of Chancery. But, in answer to a question put in that House two days afterwards, it was stated that no Bill had been framed, the Lord Chancellor not having had time to consider the Report. And the next evening, in reply to an observation of Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Truro, (then Lord Chancellor) said he heard with considerable surprise of the notice which had been given of the introduction of a Bill for the reform of the Court of Chancery into the other House of Parliament on the 16th, because he thought that such a Bill, founded on the report of the Commissioners, and embodying certain of their recommendations, would require a very great amount of thought and arrangement in order to make it available for any purpose he, and did not see how a well considered measure could be possibly prepared by that time. On the same day, in the House of Commons, the Solicitor General said that the Bill was not reduced into such a shape that he could entertain any reasonable expectation of being able to offer it on the day named, but there would be no delay. Six days later, that is, on the 12th February, upon the question being again mentioned in that House, the Lord Chancellor (Lord Truro) said—
"He had given to the Report the utmost time he could withdraw from the duties of his office; but he could not pretend that he had been able to make up his mind on every part of it. With regard to a rumour referred to, he stated that he had not expressed disapprobation of any part of the Report. He had expressed doubts whether certain parts of it could he carried out as desired by the Commissioners, not at all being indisposed to adopt their recommendations if they were practicable; as to which he repeated that he had doubts. The notice as to the Bill had been given under some misapprehension, not by

11
the Solicitor General, but by Lord John Russell, upon mistake and misinformation. There was not, he said there could not be, any possibility of the Bill being in such a state as to be presented to the House by the time mentioned. It was a matter of great difficulty, requiring great consideration. It was in the hands of a gentleman well fitted to prepare it; and he (the Lord Chancellor) would do his utmost to expedite the preparation of it, and to adopt so much of it as could be carried out with benefit (though he was not prepared to say that the whole could be); but he was persuaded that the gentleman could scarcely have yet formed, even in his own mind, the shape of the Bill, and that it could not possibly be in a state to be produced to Parliament by the time which had been stated."
He then showed the difficulties in the way of abolishing the Masters' Offices, and that he had not made up his mind on the subject; and he added—
"That he had not anticipated the recommendation for the annihilation of the office of Master in Chancery, and when a vacancy occurred he contemplated filling it up; but having communicated his intention to a Member of the Government, he was asked, 'Are you not aware that the Commissioners are contemplating the abolition of the office?' Whether (he said) those who almost stifled the Report with their commendations were prepared to go the whole length of it, he did not know; but he could at present give no decisive opinion as to the abolition of the office of Master one way or the other, and could only say, that if the advantages anticipated could be secured, he should be well satisfied."
And he afterwards added—
"That he had considered that part of the Report which related to the abolition of the Masters Office; he was not satisfied as to the mode in which their places were to be supplied—he could not say that he knew of any plan by which the object of the Commissioners could be accomplished with advantage to the public. ∗ ∗ ∗ He said, he repeated once more that he doubted how far the plan of the Commissioners, as regarded the abolition of the Masters' Office, could be carried out. He was not to be satisfied by mere declamation that this or that plan could be accomplished; he required proof."
This was the last time that Lord Truro spoke on the subject. On the 16th of February, the day named by Lord John Russell for the production of the Bill, of course no Bill was produced, but the Solicitor General stated, that the Lord Chancellor, when in possession of the Report, gave instructions to have a Bill prepared to carry into effect the recommendations of the Commissioners. Thus the matter stood when the change of Government took place; and, on the 12th of March, he (Lord St. Leonards) stated to that House what legal measures the new Government proposed. He gave to the
12
Commissioners the full credit due to them, and he gave also to the then late Government the credit due to them for their intention to carry out the Report. He added that he had understood a Bill had been prepared. He found, however, no trace of such a Bill, but that the work remained to be done. He had, however, he then stated, received within the last two or three days, a sketch already prepared of the heads of so much of the proposed Bill as related to the Masters' Offices, and he then pointed out his objections to the mode in which that was proposed to be carried out. He might now state that he had reason to believe that Lord Truro never saw that sketch. On the 22nd of March the late Solicitor General made a statement in the other House, from which it appeared that the late Lord Chancellor had been desirous that the Commissioners themselves should prepare the Bill, but they thought the Government ought to do so. He referred to the sketch already mentioned, and appeared to have stated that the most material clauses were first sketched out and afterwards fully prepared. Now, he (Lord St. Leonards) had no wish to say anything injurious to the memory of Lord Truro. He regretted he was not present in the House when some observations were justly made in praise of that noble and learned Lord. But, it was but justice to him (Lord Truro) to say that he never during his life claimed to himself the labour involved in the preparation of these Bills. He had already said that when he (Lord St. Leonards) came into office he did not find the least trace of the Bills, as Bills, and he adhered to that statement. A sketch was shown to him, which had been prepared by a draughtsman, of what had been proposed with respect to the Bill for the abolition of the Masters' Office, but it differed fundamentally from the scheme carried into execution by him in regard to the abolition of the Masters' Office. The proposition, in fact, was to make the new clerks, in effect, the successors of the Masters in Chancery. They were to be called Assistants to the Judges, and they were to go back to the Masters' Offices. To both those plans he objected; and they were ultimately abandoned, and his proposal substituted, which he considered a very great point, namely, making these functionaries merely clerks, though men of position and considerable knowledge, and capable of affording assistance to the

13
Judges in the matters which came before them, and not allowing them to go even for a time to the old Masters' Offices. He had never denied the good intentions of Lord John Russell's Administration, and that they had had a sketch prepared of one important branch of the subject; but he said those intentions had never been carried out, though he had no doubt they would have been if the circumstances had proved more favourable. In short, he denied that a single clause of the proposed Bill had ever been framed. To his (Lord St. Leonards) knowledge, the whole work was performed under the Administration of his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby). No one could dispute that the second and larger Bill—that for the improvement of the jurisdiction in Equity—had been prepared after the change of Government. It was not a question between individuals, but one between two Governments; and whatever credit attached to the actual preparation and carrying through of the measures, it was certainly due to his noble Friend's Government, and not to that of Lord J. Russell. No Bills ever underwent greater deliberation or cost more labour, either in their preparation or in their final settlement out of the House, or required more time to be devoted to their consideration. No man's energies in fact were too great to be applied to the subject; and all this time and labour was given without stint by the persons who had to direct the preparation of the measures. Of course, he included himself. There could be no question, therefore, as to whom the merit of the labour belonged. The Master of the Rolls and the three Vice Chancellors afforded him (Lord St. Leonards) their assistance in the final settlement of the Bills, and every word of every clause was read aloud by one of them in the presence of all, and the Bills were afterwards referred to a Select Committee in that House, upon which were all the Law Lords. Lord Truro never set up the claim which was now set up for him. When the Bills reached the House of Commons, so little did Lord John Russell and the present Attorney General think they were Bills belonging to their own Administration, that they charged him (Lord St. Leonards), without the least ceremony, with having mutilated and entirely spoilt the plan of the Commissioners by his alterations. They, of course, did that in ignorance, for neither of them had then read a word of the Bills. If they had looked into them, they
14
would have found that they carried out the general views of the Commissioners fairly and honestly, though not servilely, but with such additions and alterations as, he would take the liberty of saying, his own great experience justified him in making, and those measures having passed into law, had been found to work admirably. The subject had been discussed in that House, and his noble and learned Friend now on the woolsack, in allusion to the charge made in the other House that he (Lord St. Leonards) had mutilated the Bills, said that there must be some misunderstanding as to what had occurred, for that the statement carried with it its own refutation, and that they were clearly his (Lord St. Leonards') own Bills. He then thought there was an end of controversy; but when on a previous evening the merits of Lord Truro were alluded to, the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack said he thought sufficient merit had not been given to Lord Truro in his lifetime for having prepared the Bills in question. When he read the report he took it for granted it was some mistake, and the noble and learned Lord, on having it pointed out to him, said he believed he must have made the statement, but that he would take care to put the matter right; and when he. (Lord St. Leonards) returned to his duties in that House, the noble and learned Lord did put it right. Since that time the controversy had, however, again been raised in a letter signed "A Friend of Lord Truro;" and, although he did not wish to take any credit to which he was not entitled, he thought it right to call their Lordships' attention to the plain facts of the case, in order that this question might once for all he set at rest. He had simply put his question on the paper in order to bring forward the matter in a proper form, and he had no wish to press for an answer. He had read the Report of the Commissioners, and he thought it deserved very great consideration. He hoped the Lord Chancellor would not introduce any measure with regard to damages, as much mischief might be done to the Court of Chancery by a general measure of that sort.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the Third Report of the Chancery Commissioners contained some recommendations which would be carried out without legislation, and with respect to these he had given notice that orders should be prepared by which they would be carried into effect. He had thought it desirable

15
to take time to consider very carefully the character of the measures which it might be desirable to introduce into Parliament to carry out such of the recommendation of the Commissioners as required legislative sanction. With respect to the recommendation as to giving the Court of Chancery power to give damages in certain cases, he thought it was desirable that every court should have the means of carrying out finally its own decisions, and he had ordered a Bill to be framed on this subject, but he could not say whether he should adopt it till he saw what it was like. With respect to the observations he made on a previous occasion, he was sorry he should have said anything that should give rise to discussion; but still he thought he was pretty nearly right when he said that Lord Truro had not had quite justice done to him about his share in the Chancery measures introduced by the Government of Lord Derby. The Commission issued by his noble and learned Friend prepared the Report on which these measures were founded; and the Solicitor General of Lord John Russell's Government had introduced one Bill embodying a very important part of the recommendations of the Commissioners. The only error into which he fell was that he thought Lord Truro had given directions for the drawing of the other Bills which were subsequently introdúced, and that they were in course of preparation when he left office. In so far it appeared that he had been in error, and that he had done injustice to his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards), by whom these Bills had been introduced and carried through.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, it was impossible to over-estimate the merits of his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) in preparing those Bills, which had effected a most beneficial change in the Court of Chancery, by the abolition of the Masters' Offices, and the substitution of the present mode of Judges working out their own decrees, thus saving an immense amount of expense, delay, and uncertainty; and it was beyond question that Lord Truro admitted that he did not at one time approve the fundamental principle of those measures. But it was a near relation of his own, himself a Master in Chancery, who wrote a letter more than ten years previously to Lord Lyndhurst and Lord Langdale, then Master of the Rolls, in which he advised that the Masters should be abolished, and showed how the business
16
might be done without them. It was melancholy to think that so many years had been allowed to elapse, during which the suitors suffered, the profession suffered, and the character of the court itself suffered, before that great improvement was carried into execution.
LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, none of the clauses of either of the Acts was drawn up when Lord Truro was in office. Lord Truro frankly said that he had not made up his mind on the subject, and so little did he think in the first instance that the Masters' Offices were to be abolished, that he actually, a short time before he went out of office, nominated a gentleman to the office of Master. A sketch of one of the Bills did exist, but he (Lord St. Leonards) made, as he had stated, fundamental alterations in the plan.
House adjourned to Thursday next.