Lords Sitting of 22 June 1858

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Leases and Sales of Settled Estates Act Amendment; Durham County Palatine Jurisdiction; Joint Stock Companies Acts Amendment; Public Grounds and Playgrounds.
3a Probates and Letters of Administration Act Amendment; Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act Amendment; Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act Continuance.

OATHS SUBSTITUTION BILL.—JEWS BILL.
  SECOND READING PUT OFF.

    OATHS BILL.
    COMMITTEE TO PREPARE REASONS.
    THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he proposed to move for a Committee to draw up Reasons for their Lordships adhering to the Amendments they had made on the Oaths Bill, and he would propose that those Reasons should be sent down to their Lordships on Thursday next. And he would take the opportunity of asking his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) if he would consent, in consequence of the absence of his noble Friend at the head of the Government, to postpone his Motion for the second reading of his Bill on Jewish Disabilities until Thursday week.
    LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, he was sorry for the cause, and could not but acquiesce in the request made to him. It was im-

    155
    possible to discuss this Bill in the absence of the noble Earl at the head of the Government, and he would, therefore, with their Lordships' consent, postpone his Bill until Thursday week.
    THE EARL OF LUCANsaid, he would postpone the Motion for the second reading of his Bill till the same day.
    LORD CAMPBELLwas understood to object to any further delay. He did not see why they should not take either the Bill of his noble and learned Friend, or the Bill of the gallant Earl, to whom they were so much indebted for the course he had taken, and proceed with either the one or the other of them in this House.
    THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, the Bills were separate and distinct measures, but as they referred to the same subject it would be desirable that they should be considered on the same night.
    LORD BROUGHAMthought it was not likely that the House of Commons, on receiving these Reasons, would proceed immediately with the consideration of them, but would wait till they saw the fate of the two new Bills that had been introduced to their Lordships' House.
    EARL GREYsaid, that as the House had by a majority resolved to adhere to their Amendments, it was necessary that a Committee should be appointed to draw up their Reasons. That was the ordinary and proper course. But it would be quite inconsistent to ask those who were in the minority to agree in those Reasons; he would content himself, however, with entering his dissent from the propositions. He hoped the Reasons would be printed and placed in the hands of their Lordships, in order that they might know what they were, before they were called on to consider them.
    EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he understood that the postponement of the two Bills was solely on the ground of the illness of the noble Earl at the head of the Government. The noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Lyndhurst) did not think there would be any inconvenience in sending the Reasons down to the House of Commons to be dealt with in the meanwhile.
    Second Reading (which stands appointed for Friday next) put off to Thursday the 1st of July next.
    Committee appointed to prepare Reasons to be offered to the Commons for the Lords insisting on their Amendments to the Bill to which the Commons disagree, named; to meet immediately. The Committee report-
    156
    ed Reasons prepared by them. Said Reasons to be printed; and to be taken into Consideration on Thursday next. Which Reasons are as follow:—

    "1. Because, although the words 'on the true faith of a Christian' were originally introduced into the oath for the immediate purpose of binding certain Roman Catholics, it is unreasonable to assume that the Parliament which so introduced them did not intend that the profession of Christianity should be a necessary qualification for admission to the Legislature when they enacted that a declaration of that faith should form part of the oath required to be taken by every Member of both Houses.

    "2. Because the constant intention of the Legislature may be further inferred from the fact that, neither at the time of the introduction of these words were the Jews admissible, nor have they at any subsequent period been admitted to sit and vote in either House of Parliament.

    "3. Because exclusion from seats in Parliament and offices of the State on the ground of religious opinion, and for other reasons when the general good of the State appears to require it, is a principle recognized in the settlement of the succession to the Crown, and in other cases; and has moreover been further and recently sanctioned by the House of Commons in some of the provisions of the present Bill.

    "4. Because in the prayers with which both Houses daily commence their proceedings they implore in Christ's name the divine assistance and guidance in all their undertakings, professing themselves His unworthy servants; and this act of worship will become a mockery when among those who are therein declared to be gathered together in His name are numbered some who deny Him through whose merits alone those prayers can be acceptable.

    "5. Because, when the Commons plead in support of their views, in a matter which equally concerns the constitution of both branches of the Legislature, their repeated recognition of the expediency of removing this disability of the Jews, and admitting them to their councils, the Lords desire to refer to their equally firm adherence to the principle of retaining those privileges which they believe to be peculiarly and inseparably attached to Parliament as an exclusively Christian assembly.

    "6. Because, in regard to the 8th and 9th of the Commons' Reasons, the Lords are advised that the 1st and 3rd clauses of the Bill are not open to the construction which the Commons conceive them to be in consequence of the rejection of the 5th clause, and that the Jews will not be subject to any new disabilities under the Bill as amended by the Lords."

PROBATES AND LETTERS OF ADMINISRATION BILL.

  THIRD READING. BILL PASSED.
  Bill read 3a (according to order.)
  LORD ST. LEONARDS LORD ST. LEONARDS moved the omission of the word "Crown" from the 19th clause, and to substitute in lien thereof the words, "the Judge Ordinary for the time being," as the party in whom property under litigation was to be vested.
  After a few observations from Lord CRANWORTH and Lord ABINGER,
  On Question, Whether the Word proposed to be left out shall stand Part of the Bill? their Lordships divided:—Contents 22; Not-Contents 22.
  And the Numbers being equal, it was (according to ancient Rule), resolved in the negative.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  CONTENTS.

  Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Belper, L.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Campbell, L.

  Somerset, D.

  Cranworth, L.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Lansdowne, M.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Westminster, M.

  Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

  Carlisle, E.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.) [Teller.]

  Clarendon, E.

  Granville, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Grey, E.

  Truro, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Wycombe, L. (E. Shelburne.)

  Wicklow, E.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Cleveland, D.

  Abinger, L.

  Bolton, L.

  Amherst, E.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Belmore, E.

  Clarina, L.

  Desart, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Harrington, E.

  Crofton, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Kingston, L. (E. Kingston.)

  Stradbroke, E. [Teller.]

  Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.) [Teller.]

  De Vesci, V.

  Saint Leonards, L.

  Dungannon, V.

  Talbot De Malahide, L.

  Lifford, V.

  Wynford, L.

DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  THIRD READING.—BILL PASSED.
  On Motion that the Bill be now read 3ª,
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, that on the last occasion when the measure was before their Lordships he ventured to remark upon the extreme rapidity with which certain unopposed causes had been decided in the new Court of Divorce; and he was assured at that time by a member of their Lordships' House that his complaint was unreasonable, and that nothing could be more certain than that clue inquiry with respect to collusion was made in all the cases to which he had referred before the decision of the Court was pronounced. He could assure their Lordships that he had heard since from more than one quarter that serious objection was taken to the manner in which that
  158
  part of the business of the Court was conducted. Nine unopposed causes and one opposed cause were disposed of in one day, one of which only occupied the Court eleven minutes. He was convinced that proper precautions could not be taken against collusion if the proceedings of the Court were conducted in that manner. It was no answer to be told, as he had been, that most of the cases in question were cases of bigamy on the part of the husband. The misconduct of the wife in any one of them might have led to the husband committing bigamy; and he (Lord Redesdale) could not understand any cases more likely to give rise to a just suspicion of collusion than those in which bigamy was charged. If the Court of Divorce was to gain the respect of the public, it must exercise the same caution in the treatment of those unopposed causes as had always been exercised when such causes used to be decided before their Lordships; but if as many as nine were disposed of in a single day, it was impossible that they could receive the same careful investigation; and he trusted that more care would be exercised in future.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he was astonished that the Chairman of their Lordships' Committees should think it his duty to stand up in his place and impeach the conduct of the Judges of the land. He thought that such a course was a very rash and ill-advised one. He had himself had the honour of being one of the Judges of the Divorce Court, and had presided on four or five days, and he would undertake to say that no case that had come before their Lordships had ever been more deliberately considered than those which had been decided by the Court while he was present. Since then Lord Chief Justice Cockburn and Mr. Justice Wightman had attended, than whom no more learned or cautious Judges had ever sat in Westminster Of Lord Chief Justice Cockburn the highest expectations had been entertained; but those expectations had been more than fulfilled by the learning, the caution, and the vigilance which he had uniformily displayed since his elevation to the judicial bench. He felt certain that the cases tried before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn had been as fully sifted as those which had come before him (Lord Campbell). He believed that in the nine cases referred to, the whole facts had been carefully ascertained in each case, and that there was not the slightest ground for the

  159
  suspicion of any improper haste in arriving at a decision. In nearly all the cases referred to the parties had been living separate for many years, and there was no possibility of collusion. He believed, too, that the Court would have a most salutary effect in preventing bigamy from being so common in future as was now the case, because there was no doubt that the impossibility of obtaining a dissolution of marriage under the old system had had a direct tendency to produce bigamy amongst the lower orders.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, the noble and learned Lord had read rather an unnecessary lecture to his noble Friend, whose remarks were no more than the utterance of what a large number of people thought both out of doors and in their Lordships' House. He was quite confident that if divorces a vinculo matrimonii were obtained with the rapid facility upon which his noble Friend had animadverted—if nine such divorce cases were to be swept off in a single day, as if they were so many petty sessions cases—then those who still believed in the sacredness of marriage as God's ordinance, and whether they thought it might or might not be set aside for great or high causes of offence, would look with much apprehension upon those decisions. Judges were appointed in order that all care should be taken that that greatest of evils, facility of collusion, might not creep in; and in calling their Lordships' attention to this subject, his noble Friend did not impugn any particular judgment, but simply took the bare fact which stared them in the face—namely, the great rapidity with which decisions had been given and the multitude of cases which had been got through in a single day; and he stated that that fact by itself did alarm the moral and religious feelings of the people of this country.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that while admitting that the noble Lord (Lord Redesdale) had perfect right to bring a question concerning the administration of justice before their Lordships, he thought that it was most undesirable to do so immediately, and without giving the slightest notice of his intention to any of their Lordships. He had not the slightest objection to "speaking out," but as the noble Lord did not complain of any particular judgment, nor find fault with the law itself, it was clear that his remarks were calculated to cast a severe reflection upon the manner in which the law was administered—a
  160
  course which was calculated to lower in the esteem of the people the sacred administration of justice in this country. He trusted that if this course was to be repeated it would only be after due notice to their Lordships' House, and that previously the learned persons whose conduct was impugned should be communicated with, in order that they might have the opportunity of defending themselves.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, he was of opinion that rapidity of decision was an advantage, provided there had not been undue haste, and that proper precautions had been taken to guard against collusion. All such matters were matters of comparison, and he should be glad to know in what it was that the proceedings under the old system afforded any greater security against collusion than existed in the tribunal to which the investigation of these cases was now confided? Under that old system there was no doubt a great deal of parade, and the proceedings were very costly; but did it lead more clearly to the discovery of the truth than the one investigation which was at present instituted before the ordinary judges of the land? What security was there against collusion in the action for crim. con., or in suits which were instituted in the ecclesiastical courts, or in the examinations which were conducted at their Lordships' bar? He protested that in his judgment there was no advantage possessed by that most complicated, dilatory, and costly system, beyond that which was possessed by the present Court. The circumstance of an accumulation of cases chiefly amongst the pauper portion of the community, who had had no opportunity of applying for a divorce before, did not tend to create in Ids mind any doubt whatever with regard to the policy of the measure which their Lordships had so recently passed.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, that the question before their Lordships related not to the state of the law itself, but to the administration of the law; and he took it for granted that everything had been done by his learned friends at the head of that department of justice with the greatest consideration and propriety. He had read with attention the accounts which had appeared of the proceedings in the new Court, and he was of opinion that there was no fault whatever to be found with the manner in which its decisions had been given. He agreed entirely with his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cranworth), that this House

  161
  had no means of detecting collusion under the old system which were not possessed by the new Court; and, as far as he could form an opinion from merely reading the reports of the cases in question, justice had been properly administered.
  THE EARL OF WICKLOWbegged to state, in reference to the complaint that his noble Friend (Lord Redesdale) had given no notice of his intention to bring the subject under their Lordships' notice that evening, that his noble Friend had only repeated to-day what he had stated to their Lordships a few evenings since, and that it had been in the power of the Lord Chief Justice to have made himself acquainted with the facts referred to in the interval—for it appeared that the noble and learned Lord did not sit in the Court when the nine unopposed cases and one opposed case were despatched in a single day. As one of those who had opposed the Bill in its passage through this House, it was only natural that his noble Friend (Lord Redesdale), as well as himself, should watch with some anxiety and care the working of a measure of this kind. He was glad, therefore, that his noble Friend had brought forward this subject, and he trusted, if many cases of the kind to which he had alluded occurred, that it would lead to a reconsideration of the whole question.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees had given no notice whatever of his intention to bring the subject forward again; there was no reason, therefore, why he (Lord Campbell) should have instituted inquiries into the facts.
  VISCOUNT MELVILLErose to order. The noble and learned Lord had already addressed their Lordships once, and had no right to speak a second time.
  LORD CAMPBELLcontended that he had a perfect right to explain.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORD: But the noble and learned Lord was answering the speech of my noble Friend.
  LORD CAMPBELLhad merely to say, that he had no reason to expect that such complaints as their Lordships had heard that evening would be made against the administration of justice in the Divorce Court. The Chairman of Committees—("Order!")
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he had not in the course of these discussions raised any objections to the state of the law, and had never said he wished the old proceedings—by actions for damages, suits in the
  162
  ecclesiastical courts, and inquiry before their Lordships—should be restored. The present Court might be fully competent to undertake the business, and the law might be amply sufficient to enable it to do so; but there had been great rapidity with regard to certain cases—one of which, as he had already stated, occupied only eleven minutes in despatching—and that rapidity appeared to him to be incompatible with the due consideration of those cases, and the discovery by the Court whether there had been any collusion or not. With respect to the necessity which existed for giving notice of a question of this sort, he should say that any Member of their Lordships' house had a perfect right to animadvert upon statements which appeared in the public papers. He had done so on a former occasion, and the remarks which he then made had been justified by the expression of opinion of gentlemen who practised in the new Court, and who stated that the proceedings to which he alluded had been conducted with undue haste.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, it was not fair that the noble Lord should be allowed that opportunity of making a second speech which had been denied to the noble and learned Lord (Lord Campbell). This was not an explanation, but an additional string of insinuations directed against the administration of the new Court.
  LORD REDESDALE: What he had stated was not by way of accusation, but rather of precaution; and he hoped that the expression of opinion would lead to a little more time being allowed for the consideration of these cases hereafter.
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that what had just taken place could not fail to convey to their Lordships the impression that one degree of license with respect to the privilege of making a second speech was extended to a Chairman of Committees, while a totally different measure was meted out to a Lord Chief Justice.
  Bill read 3a.
  Amendments made.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

COURT OF CHANCERY—THE CHIEF CLERKS' OFFICES.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORin rising, pursuant to notice, to call their Lordships' attention to the Chief Clerks' Offices said, it would be in the recollection of their Lordships that, shortly after he had the honour of taking his seat in that House,

  163
  a noble Lord (Viscount Lifford) called attention to certain complaints of delays which he stated to exist in the Court of Chancery, and mentioned a particular case in which he himself was interested. He (the Lord Chancellor) at the time certainly misapprehended the direction of the noble Lord's complaint, for he was under the impression that he complained of delays that had taken place in the Chief Clerks' Offices. He now understood that the noble Lord's complaint was much more extensive, and he had promised the noble Lord that inquiry should be instituted with the view of ascertaining whether there was ground for the complaint or necessity for applying a remedy. In conducting that inquiry, he had received assistance of a most valuable description. His noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards), to whom the country was so much indebted for his attention to all those subjects, and for various reforms and improvements in the Court of Chancery which he had been the means of introducing, had volunteered the benefit of his experience in instituting an inquiry into the state of the Chief Clerk's Offices. Accordingly, his noble and learned Friend had thoroughly investigated the subject, and would be enabled much better than he (the Lord Chancellor) to give their Lordships information respecting it. With regard to the particular case to which the noble Lord had referred, he (the Lord Chancellor) had also required that a report should be furnished him with respect to the proceedings in the courts. That report he had received, and having examined it, he was bound to say that he thought there was ground for the complaint which the noble Lord had made. That complaint, however, did not attach to the Chief Clerks, or the proceedings of their office; but there certainly had been a most unjustifiable delay in the proceedings of the Court. It appeared that although the matter was referred to a Master in Chancery in March, 1850, no Master's report was obtained until the month of December, 1855, and that for the delay which took place during all that long period not the slightest explanation had been given. One thing, however, to be observed upon that subject was, that it took place under the old system. That system had now been entirely abolished and a new one introduced in its stead; and since the matter reached the office of the Chief Clerk he really did not see
  164
  that there was any ground of complaint on the part of the noble Lord for any improper delay which was attributable to the Chief Clerk himself. He believed the order for inquiry was made in June, 1856, and the inquiries were rather of a complicated description. They were for the purpose of ascertaining what had become of a certain fund which had been paid into Court by a receiver, what was due on settled and what was due on unsettled estates, what encumbrances were upon those estates respectively, what annuities were existing, and what arrears of those annuities still remained to be paid. Now, he found that there were various meetings appointed from time to time by the Chief Clerk, when the parties were not ready with their evidence, and of course adjournments were therefore necessary; but there were only two occasions on which the postponement was attributable to the Chief Clerk, and in each of these instances it was the result of affliction in his family. He confessed, however, that he was astonished by what he had heard from the noble Lord, and which he had not been before aware of. It appeared that among the matters to be inquired into was a question as to whether the annuities were still in existence, and whether there were any arrears of annuities still to be paid. The annuitant, who was entitled to an annuity of three guineas a year, had, he believed, died; but the noble Lord, and those whose interest the noble Lord represented, had no proof of that. They had no direct knowledge of it, and no accurate means of showing it except that which existed in the breasts of their opponents. But the noble Lord told him (the Lord Chancellor) that the solicitor on the other side was perfectly aware of the fact of the death of the annuitant. On hearing that he suggested to the noble Lord that an easy remedy would be to call that solicitor before the Chief Clerk and make him prove the death. The noble Lord, labouring, as he (the Lord Chancellor) believed under a misapprehension, said he had been informed that the Chief Clerk had no power to summon that gentleman. He (the Lord Chancellor) thought there was some mistake as to that point, for the course he had proposed to the noble Lord seemed to him an obvious one to adopt in order to arrive at the truth in this insignificant matter. However, he believed that the case was almost ripe for the Chief Clerk's certificate, which would by ob-

  165
  tained within a few days. At the same time he should in justice say that the noble Lord had not complained without cause. There had been great delay in the case, but he thought the noble Lord would agree with him that that delay was not so much, if at all, attributable to the Chief Clerk, or what took place in the Chief Clerks' Office, as to proceedings which took place under the old system. With regard to the mode of proceeding in the Chief Clerk's offices his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) had made a careful investigation. His noble and learned Friend had, he believed, been on the whole very well satisfied with the manner in which the Chief Clerks conducted their business. He (Lord St. Leonards) had suggested some changes, which he was of opinion might be beneficially introduced into those offices. They were not very considerable; but as be had not himself made a personal investigation into the matter it would perhaps be more satisfactory for their Lordships to hear from his noble and learned Friend what those proposed changes were.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, that the case stated by the noble Lord was one which called for inquiry and explanation. In 1852 much had been done to put an end to prolixity in proceedings such as these. Before that time the Masters in the equity courts constituted a sort of medium Judge; there were repeated references and reports backwards and forwards, all owing to the constitution of the Court that had existed for centuries. It was resolved in 1852 that there should be no Judges but the regular Judge of the Court—that there should be no medium for the discharge of judicial functions. The Masters in Chancery were accordingly abolished; no persons were allowed to act as Judges but the Judges themselves. Some portion of the proceedings, which had formerly been performed by the Masters, were directed to be performed by the Chief Clerks of the Judges; and he (Lord St. Leonards) resisted an attempt to give the officers who were now called Chief Clerks any other title than that which they at present bore. These officers had very important duties to perform—very complicated inquiries to go into; but all they did was done under the direction and supervision of the Judge. It was asked on a former occasion, did the Chief Clerks proceed with business de die in diem? Now, his opinion was that the best mode of getting through business was for a person to
  166
  finish one thing before he entered upon another. The general practice of the Chief Clerks was for them to settle, as well as they could, with the solicitors for the parties how many sittings would be required. They then put down the cases accordingly, fixing the hearings de die in diem, so far as they had ascertained the number of days that would be required. Of course, if the cases were of a very complicated description and required frequent re-examination, much time must be consumed. He had recently gone through the Chief Clerks' offices, and he had been much struck with the competence, the diligence, and the excellent arrangements of all the Chief Clerks he had seen. It was impossible for any men to be more diligent in the discharge of their duties, and they had as much work as they could perform with the closest application. Indeed, he believed that no serious delay or inconvenience was experienced from the mode in which the business of the offices was now administered; but it was necessary that the procedure in the Chief Clerks' offices should be assimilated—at present they were not uniform. One of the principal differences of practice among them occurred in relation to receiverships. Some of the Chief Clerks thought it was not their duty to be active in the case of defaulting receivers. He (Lord St. Leonards), on the other hand, thought it was the duty of the Courts by whom the receivers were appointed to take care that they properly discharged their duties. He would suggest that, at the end of every term, a list should be made out in each of the Chief Clerks' offices of all the receivers who were in default, and who had not delivered their accounts; that such list should be hung up in the court of the Lord Chancellor; and that, if in fourteen days after it was exhibited the defaulting receivers did not come in before the Master or Chief Clerk, the latter should be empowered to employ the solicitor to the Suitors' Fund to compel such receivers to come in and pass their accounts, and to apply to the Court to remove the defaulters and appoint other receivers in their places. One of the greatest evils in the administration of property was the long continuance of estates under the management of receivers, persons who considered themselves masters of the property, but who managed that property very badly. Now, property under the administration of the Court of Chancery ought to be managed in the same manner as every sensi-

  167
  ble man would manage his own property. In the cases of sales of estates, they, under the present system, remained in the courts for a long period, sometimes as long as six or seven years. The Chief Clerks did not conceive themselves in a position to drive on the parties in their litigation, and therefore delays existed which ought not to be permitted; but he thought Orders might be framed which would bring these matters within a narrower compass. The evil of the unsuitable chambers in which the Chief Clerks had to transact business ought to be immediately corrected, and it was well worthy the consideration of the Government whether it was not advisable to erect new courts with chambers attached—so that there might be constant communication between the Judge and his Chief Clerk and between the Chief Clerk and the clerks under him—on the east side of Stone's Buildings, sending the Registrars and other officers now in the buildings which stood on that site to the Masters' offices, which had become the property of the Crown. He had seen in The Times of that morning a letter very strongly complaining of the delay in winding up Mr. Feargus O'Connor's land scheme, and of the putting up the estates for sale at a reserved price, which ended in their being bought in. He thought the estates should be sold for what they would fetch. It was not a time for the discussion of that matter, and he had no doubt it would receive from the noble Lord on the woolsack the fullest attention.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, be had heard the statement of the noble and learned Lord (Lord St. Leonards) with unmixed satisfaction. His noble Friend had the happiness to have been in the highest degree instrumental in the reform of the Court of Chancery. It was his (Lord Cranworth's) good fortune to become the holder of the Great Seal shortly after his noble and learned Friend's Act passed in 1852. The holder of the Great Seal practically did not come into contact with the Chief Clerks—they were attached to the Master of the Rolls and the Vice Chancellors. But when he became Lord Chancellor he felt that one of the main duties imposed on him was to see that the new system introduced by the Act of 1852 was properly carried into effect; and with that view he followed the course which he ventured to recommend to his successor, of having an interview every term with the Judges, and inquiring of them whether matters were conducted in the mode con-
  168
  templated by the Act, and particularly as to the working of business in the Chief Clerks' offices. It was a universal feeling that every contested matter which was begun should be carried on until it was ended; but, although the theory was correct, it was impossible always to observe it in practice—postponements must necessarily take place, whatever precaution might be taken to have the cases gone through without interruption. For example, the Chief Clerk had to inquire who were the creditors of a person deceased. Advertisements were issued calling upon the creditors to come in by a certain day and prove their debts. On the day appointed it was found there were other creditors who had not heard a word upon the subject—perhaps, too, the deceased was a trader, dealing with persons in Australia or in India, who could not possibly have had notice. There was no blameable delay, but, for the attainment of justice, a postponement was necessary. Then again, it was not always possible to go on with the same case from beginning to end. A case of importance was fixed for Thursday and it was calculated to last until Saturday. But on Saturday it was not finished, and choice had to be made between postponing it until Thursday or Friday in the following week and going on with it on the Monday, to the great inconvenience of persons engaged in the cases previously fixed for that day. It was impossible to lay down any unvarying rule that should never be departed from. A rule had been laid down with his (the Lord Chancellor's) sanction by the Master of the Rolls, that when a case was once commenced it should be proceeded with until it was finished, unless circumstances rendered it impossible or inexpedient; and very early in the working of the new system it was arranged that every day for an hour or two there should be a time fixed for short applications, so that they might be disposed of without interfering with long and heavy cases, and this plan had been found to work remarkably well. He had always felt, however, that the real improvement was not to be effected by legislation, but was, so to speak, mechanical. It would be an advantage beyond price if they could place the Judge in an airy comfortable court, with a superfluity of chambers attached to it, in which the Clerks and junior Clerks could conduct their business in immediate conference with the Judge. It was difficult

  169
  and inconvenient, for example, for a Clerk to leave his chambers and walk 100 or 150 yards off to consult the Judge. At one time he thought that the benchers of Lincoln's Inn were disposed to give up a large portion of their inn for the purpose of building new courts there. Difficulties however presented themselves, but he was sure that the erection of good courts, with chambers for the clerks, would be of greater service than any regulation or orders that could be made.
  LORD CAMPBELLexpressed his great satisfaction at the explanations he had heard. They had heard of delays in Chancery from time immemorial, but he believed that those delays were not the fault of the Lord Chancellor, or the Master of the Rolls so much as of the Masters' offices; but he thought that there had been reformations effected in the Court of Chancery which would work well, and be highly advantageous.
  VISCOUNT LIFFORDwas of opinion that the inquiries that had been made, and the results that had attended the labours of the noble and learned Lord, would be of essential service to the unfortunate suitors of the Court of Chancery. The complaints that had been made were not so much against the Judges of the Court of Chancery, as from the existence of a feeling on the part of the public that there was no adequate check upon useless expense or means adopted for the prevention of frivolous and vexatious proceedings.

CHURCH RATES.—PETITIONS.
THE EARL OF CARLISLE, in presenting a petition relative to church rates from the Society of Friends, of which he had given notice, said it was not his intention to originate a discussion on this subject, or to express his individual opinion on the subject before he heard whether Her Majesty's Ministers had any suggestion to make with respect to the mode of dealing with this important and long-vexed question. His object in giving the notice, and in presenting the petition, was mainly to mark his own respect, which he was sure would be shared in by their Lordships, for the character and position of the respectable body from whom it emanated. It styled itself "the petition of the undersigned members at a meeting representing the Religious Society of Friends of Great Britain." It was, in fact, adopted at the annual meeting of the Society of Friends, and conveyed, he believed, the unanimous
170
sentiments of every member of that body. They stated their views with great brevity and force of language, and set forth that for more than two centuries, apart from all party or political considerations, they had steadfastly maintained those great principles which they believed to be founded on the Gospel—namely, that man was responsible to God alone in matters of religion; and that all legislative interference with the rights of conscience is not only impolitic, but contrary to the true spirit of the Christian religion. Influenced by these considerations, they were of opinion that they ought not to be assessed in church rates, and that it was not in accordance with the spiritual nature of the Christian religion. To this exposition of their views he had nothing to add. For upwards of two centuries the Society of Friends had stood steadfast and consistent in their principles, and their general good qualities and great services to the cause of humanity and philanthropy needed no testimony from him; and he believed that at a cost occasionally of great hardship and oppression, of large pecuniary damage, and at all times of considerable personal inconvenience, they had borne witness to the principles which they asked their Lordships to adopt. It was, of course, only fair and candid that he should admit that the principles and opinions of the body would be equally opposed to the payment of tithes.
The noble Earl having handed in the petition, it was pointed out by the Clerk that it was informal, and could not be received, the word "humble" being omitted from the description.
House adjourned at a quarter to Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.