Sitting of 26 May 1830

MINUTES.
The Four-per-Cent Dissentients Bill was read 3 third time and passed.
Petitions presented. For a protecting Duty on the Importation of Foreign Lead, by Lord W. POWLETT, from Sum-hope, Wolsingham, Dufton, Hilton, and Merton:—By Sir E. LLOYD, from the Miners of the County of Flint, For Measures to give Security to Ireland, by Mr. G. MOORE, from Sir Harcourt Lees. Against the Scotch and Irish Paupers Removal Bill, by Mr. C. CALVERT. from the Overseers of St. Saviour, Southwark:—By Mr. DENISON, from the Overseers of St. Mary, Newington:—By Mr. BYNG, from St. Leonard, Shoreditch. Against the Select Vestries Bill, by Mr. BYNG, from the Inhabitants of Paddington. Against Poor-Laws for Ireland, by Colonel BERNARD, from the Freeholders of King's County. For a revision of the Friendly Societies Act, by Sir W. GUISE, from John Garlick Ball. Against an increase of Stamp Duties (Ireland), by Colonel BRUEN from Carlow. Against the increase of Duty on Corn Spirits, by Mr. R. GRANT, from the Freeholders of the County of Elgin; and from the same Persons, against the Inventory Duty. Against the Administration of Justice Bill, by Mr. E. DAVENPORT, from the Freeholders of the County Palatine of Chester; and from the Inhabitants of Sandback. For the Abolition of the Punishment of Death in cases of Forgery, by Mr. LAWLEY, from the Inhabitants of Rugby. By Mr. C. W. WYNN, from Mr. Dixon, of Dumbarton, complaining of the Votes of the Committee of the House of Commons, on the Clyde Navigation Bill, and praying that the matter might be referred to a Select Committee of Seven Members of the House, agreeable to a Standing Order lately made by the House.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. BROWN LOW, amount of Duties collected on Glass in Ireland during the last Ten Years:—On the Motion of Sir M. S. STEWART, Copies of all Acts of Sederunt, regulating the Fees of the Writers to the Signet (Scotland):—On the Motion of Mr. HUME, the Number of Persons convicted of Forgery in Scotland, from 1791 to 1829:—On the Motion of Mr. KENNEDY, the number of Causes decided in the different Sheriffs' Courts (Scotland), since the passing of the 6th of Geo. IV.:—On the Motion of Mr. LAWLEY, expense incurred by the Manufactory of Small Arms at Enfield, including Pensions, &c since Jan. 1st, 1812.

LIABILITIES OF STAGE COACH PROPRIETORS.
Sir T. D. Acland Sir T. D. Acland moved for leave to bring in a Bill to protect Stage Coach Proprietors from their present liabilities in respect of Parcels sent by their Coaches, where undue concealment was

1129
practised by the parties sending them. He was willing that they should be made generally liable in all cases to the amount of 20 l. without special notice. Wherever the value was above 20 l. the burthen of giving notice should rest upon the parties sending the parcel.
Motion, after a few words from Sir T. Freemantle and Mr. N. Calvert, agreed to.

PAUPERS (SCOTCH AND IRISH) REMOVAL BILL.
Lord Stanley Lord Stanley moved the second reading of the Scotch and Irish Pauper's Removal Bill. He merely wished that it should be read a second time, and submitted to a committee up stairs.
Mr. Sturges Bournedid not mean to oppose the Motion, but he had an objection to one of the clauses of the Bill. He confessed he felt some surprise that such a Bill should have been brought forward in the absence of the Secretary for the Home Department. It made an important alteration in the law, and ought to receive the most mature consideration.
Mr. Hobhousesaid, that the principle of the Bill was monstrous, and he was quite certain that it could not pass in its present form.
Mr. Alderman Woodsaid, that when those poor persons came to the parishes they must be relieved. Now the effect of this Bill would be to refuse them relief, and therefore, against such a Bill he conceived that every sort of opposition was perfectly fair. He had presented several petitions against it, and was resolved to divide the House rather than allow it to pass.
Mr. Denisonsaid, he also had presented petitions against the Bill, and he hoped the worthy Alderman would take the sense of the House upon it.
Mr. N. Calvertsaid, that in the parishes with which he was more immediately connected, they were often put to an expense of several hundreds a year for the removal of these paupers. He did not think the Bill so objectionable as his hon. friends did.
Mr. Littletonsaw no reason why the more distant counties should not have the benefit of the Act—the Bill ought to place all upon the same footing of equality. Perhaps it might be found advantageous to try the experiment of leaving those paupers without any parish relief; if due notice of such a system were given, it would be found that their
1130
numbers would materially diminish. The expense of passing these paupers, which fell on the midland counties, was enormous and could not be borne, particularly as those counties derived no benefit from their labour.
Mr. James Grattanthought, that if a sufficient provision were made for the Irish poor in Ireland, such a Bill as the present would be unnecessary—it was in effect a Bill to deprive England of the benefits of Irish labour.
Mr. Estcourtunderstood the object of the noble Lord to be, to have the Bill read a second time and submit it to a committee, for the purpose of seeing if any measure of relief could be devised. So far he meant to support the Motion.
Sir E. Knatchbullanticipated, that in the course of next Session some provision would be made for the Irish poor, but he thought that the present Bill would have the effect of imposing a heavy burthen upon one part of the country at the expense of another; it might be as well to wait and see what measure the necessities of Ireland can into existence.
Sir T. Freemantleopposed the waiting. Even if they did wait, the counties still might be left without relief.
Mr. Byngsaid, that he looked upon the Bill as so injurious to the metropolis that he should vote against it.
Sir John Wrottesleythought it a very fair proposal of his noble friend, that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. That would pledge the House to nothing further than an examination of the Bill.
Colonel Woodwas convinced, that the large populous parishes of Middlesex had very unnecessarily taken alarm at the Bill; and if it were sent to a committee it might be shown that no such evil would accrue.
Sir R. Inglissupported the Motion. The principle of the Bill might be hereafter discussed should the Select Committee recommend it.
Mr. Maxwellsaid, that though he would not refuse to give his consent to the second reading, yet he was desirous that it should have reference to the kingdom at large rather than to any particular parts.
Mr. A. Dawsonsaid, that they ought to inquire into the cause of the evil: that cause was the want of employment; and by finding employment for the people the evil would be removed. He therefore wished that country gentlemen would give

1131
their support to Government making giants in Scotland and Ireland for the purpose of employing the poor.
Sir C. Burrellfound fault with his brother Magistrates for not putting the Vagrant Act in force; he contended that sending vagrants to the House of Correction, especially in cold weather, was no punishment at all. A little timely rigour sometimes made the blind see, and the lame walk.
Mr. Alderman Woodpersisted in dividing the House, but there not being forty Members present, the House was counted out.

MINUTES.
Earl Pomfret took the Oaths and his Seat. Earl BATHURST laid on the Table the Report of the Committee appointed to search for Precedents respecting a Substitute for the Sign Manual. The Masters in Chancery, the Register of Chancery, and the Criminal Returns' Bills, were read a second time.
Petitions presented. Against Slavery, by Lord CALTHORPE, from certain Dissenters in Yorkshire:—And by the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from Camborne, Cornwall. By Viscount MELBOURNE, from Leeds, against the Punishment of Death for Forgery. By the Duke of GORDON, from Elgin, against the increased Duty on British Spirits. By Lord FARNBOROUGH, from the Miners of Allendale and Alston (Northumberland), complaining of Distress, and praying for an additional Duty on the importation of Foreign Lead. By Lord HOLLAND, against a Clause of the Birmingham Free Grammar School Bill, from the Dissenters of that Town; and from Dublin, against the increased Duty on Stamps in Ireland. By Lord KING, against the Window Tax, from the Parish of St. Luke, Middlesex. By the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from the County of Dublin, against the increased Duty on British Spirits.

SOVEREIGNTY OF GREECE.
Lord Durhamsaid, he rose to ask the noble

1117
Earl when he would be able to present the whole of the Papers connected with the transactions respecting the affairs of Greece? He was anxious to receive an answer to this question, because a prejudice had gone abroad against an illustrious personage in consequence of the statement made by the noble Earl on a former evening—a prejudice which, he was well convinced, never would have been created, if the whole of the information upon the subject had been at once laid before the House. He was also desirous to correct some errors respecting dates, into which the noble Earl had fallen in his explanation last Monday. The noble Earl had said, that up to Friday last his Majesty's Government were not in possession of any documents, nor had received any information that any events had occurred which might affect the ultimate result of the negotiations then pending. And in answer to a question from a noble Marquis, the noble Earl stated, that the papers would be produced, not in consequence of anything that had fallen from the noble Marquis, but because the time had come when they might be brought forward, since the negotiations were concluded upon all except a few minor points. Now this communication was made on the 18th of May, and the fact was, that on the 16th the noble Earl had received a letter from Prince Leopold, dated the 15th, announcing to him in plain terms, that he might expect his Royal Highness's resignation in consequence of despatches he had received from the senate and people of Greece, declaring that they never would consent to the arrangements attempted to be forced upon them by the Allied Powers. He certainly therefore thought it a little extraordinary that the noble Earl should declare, that up to a late hour on Friday last, neither his Majesty's Government nor the Plenipotentiaries had any idea that his Royal Highness contemplated a resignation. It was high time to put an end to this mystery. It was, in fact, upon grounds of great importance, and not in reference to any pecuniary considerations, that his Royal Highness had acted. Besides, a mistake had gone abroad respecting these pecuniary transactions. It was fancied they affected his Royal Highness personally, while in truth they related entirely to the guarantee of a loan, and the whole subject of discussion between him and his Majesty's Government was this
1118
loan; and when the noble Earl spoke of his Royal Highness's pertinacity in adhering to his demand, it was well to state that the amount of this demand was precisely the same with that required upon the part of Count Capo d'Istrias before his Royal Highness had any communication with the Allied Powers. He thought it right that this question should be brought fairly before the House, and he called upon it and the country to suspend their judgments until all the papers were laid before them.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, nobody could wish more ardently than he wished, that the fullest information should be given to the House upon this subject; and he was persuaded that the more the conduct of the Ministers was examined, the more their Lordships would be satisfied that they had done their duty. He did not propose to enter into a discussion respecting all the papers upon the Table of the House. Those to which the noble Lord had alluded, were Protocols of the Conferences between the three Plenipotentiaries in London; the last of which was held on the 14th of May. On that day the Plenipotentiaries received the assent of the Porte and of the Greek Government to the propositions of the Allies; and on the same day these papers were transmitted to his Royal Highness, the Sovereign Prince of Greece. But on the 15th his Royal Highness sent the Plenipotentiaries three letters received from Count Capo d'Istrias; two of them were dated the 6th of April, and the third on the 22nd of April. Those of the 6th described the state of Greece as one of great apprehension and alarm, and held out no very flattering prospects to his Royal Highness. But the letter of the 22nd contained the adhesion of the Greek Government to the propositions of the Allies, and they of course concluded that the assent of the Greek Government ought to have dissipated all the alarm created by the President's previous letters. These were the feelings of the Plenipotentiaries on the 15th. He then came to explain the mistake into which he thought the noble Baron had fallen. He had not, on the former evening, stated that up to Friday last they had no reason to apprehend any change in his Royal Highness; but what he did say was, that he had not been made acquainted with his determination to resign until 12 o'clock on Friday night. And he had also said, that up to a very

1119
few days before this period all the negociations had turned upon the loan, and the mode in which it should be paid. This was the fact, which would be fully borne out by the papers, when laid before the House. Then as to the letter containing his Royal Highness's resignation, it could not be produced by him alone: he was one of three parties concerned—the French and Russian Ambassadors being equally engaged in the affair. He was not the master of the letter, and even if he were, it could not be expected that he should produce, that alone when by itself it would give a most erroneous view of the transactions, and one altogether different from that which would be presented when all the papers were on their Lordships' Table. He would not enter into the question of the loan to which the noble Lord had referred; he would only say, that although he feared he should not often have the fortune to agree with the noble Lord, yet he hoped that even the noble Lord would have no reason to complain of any want of candour on his part in producing all the papers that could elucidate the transaction. When the whole evidence was before him, he thought even that noble Lord would be compelled to approve of the conduct of Ministers. For his own part he would say, that the more this matter was explained—from its commencement to its close—the more satisfaction it would give to him. If he could take twelve unprejudiced men from that House, or from the body of the people, he should be satisfied to abide by their verdict. In answer to the question of the noble Lord, it only remained for him to state, that he hoped to produce all the papers the day after to-morrow.
The Earl of Malmesburycomplained that the papers had not been distributed. There were only 150 copies, and he was not fortunate enough to obtain one. In his view any discussion on them must be premature. Entertaining a very high opinion of Prince Leopold, he should be very slow to form any suspicions derogatory to his integrity, and would wait till all the information was before him to make up his mind on the subject.
Earl Greycontended, that the noble Earl had introduced a premature discussion of the question founded on an ex-parte statement. It appeared that in a communication of the 15th of May, Prince Leopold stated, not only that there were inconveniencies to be apprehended, but
1120
that there were positive objections to his assumption of the Sovereignty of Greece, because there were countries to be given up according to the arrangements of the Allies, in which there were Greeks who would be driven from them by force of arms. As to the Prince's letter, and the noble Earl's assertion that he would be willing to be judged by twelve impartial men, whose decision must be in his favour, and that this letter gave an erroneous view of the transaction, he begged to observe, that his opinion was directly contrary to the noble Earl's. The assent of the Greek Government was described as a full and complete assent by the noble Earl; but the fact was, that upon the very face of it, it directed that a representation should be made to Prince Leopold, and a memorial presented from the Senate touching their dissatisfaction at the arrangements proposed by the Allies. He complained that the subject had been brought before their Lordships very incompletely, and so as to give a false colour to the whole proceeding.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, it was not in his power to produce all the papers alluded to by the noble Earl. He had no authority to produce papers and confidential letters addressed to Prince Leopold by Count Capo d'Istrias. They were not official documents connected with the conferences. He had produced to the last syllabic all that had been transacted at the conferences. The noble Earl then repeated that he had never denied having received from Prince Leopold an announcement that he was likely to abdicate; but that announcement was founded upon the letters of Capo d'Istrias, dated before the assent of the Greek Government. The assent entirely changed the character of those letters, and that was the reason which induced him to think that his Royal Highness, either would or ought to have changed the intention which he had formed in consequence of the letters.
Earl Greysaid, he did not complain that the noble Earl had not produced the papers to which he had referred, but only that he had produced the others without them. Why were not the papers produced which accompanied the assent of the Greek Government?
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, he could not have produced those papers, because Prince Leopold had not thought proper to give them to him until after he had sent in his resignation. It would, perhaps,

1121
have been better not to have laid any portion of the papers on the Table until the whole could have been produced, and it was only because he had promised to have the papers ready on Monday that he had done so.
Lord Durhamsaid, that the reason why Prince Leopold did not send in the papers referred to until after his resignation was, that he did not receive them from the French Ambassador until after Friday. With respect to the letters from Count Capo d'Istrias, the latter of which, the noble Lord said, ought to have changed his Royal Highness's determination, that letter announced indeed the acquiescence of the Greek government, but added, that the determination of the Allies was received by the Senate in deep silence. His Royal Highness had, therefore, no reason to suppose from that letter, that his government would be popular, and he was justified in resigning.
Lord Ellenboroughthought it was impossible to read the papers without coming to the conclusion that the Greek government, as a government dealing with another government, and not appealing to the universal suffrage of the people which created them, but acting on their own responsibility, distinctly acquiesced in the proposals of the Allies. He could not understand the whole of those documents in any other light than that of making Prince Leopold Sovereign of Greece, and of showing that he acquiesced in that arrangement. Noble Lords had, unwisely he thought, discussed this question, as if it were one of personal consideration to Prince Leopold and his Majesty's Government.
Earl Greyprotested that there was no desire on his part to make the personal conduct of Prince Leopold the subject of discussion; and if it had been made so, it was entirely owing to the noble Lords opposite, who had brought forward such a case against Prince Leopold as made it necessary for his friends to remove forthwith the impression that might make, by contrary declarations. Whatever inconvenience had arisen upon this subject was owing to the incomplete manner in which these papers had been laid upon the Table.
The Duke of Wellingtonentreated their Lordships to suspend their judgments until they had the other papers before them, and had read those which were already on the Table. This discussion had arisen out of a recent practice—very irre-
1122
gular, by the bye,—of noble Lords asking questions of his Majesty's Ministers, and then making speeches upon those questions. The speeches so made must be replied to; for if they were left unanswered, they might produce impressions prejudicial to his Majesty's Government. He contended that the line of conduct adopted by his noble friend on a former evening was perfectly justifiable. On Tuesday, the 18th, his noble friend thought that he could lay these papers on the following Monday in a complete state before the House, and having made a promise to that effect to their Lordships, he had felt himself bound to perform it, by placing them on the Table upon that day. It was on the intervening Friday that his noble friend received Prince Leopold's letter of resignation. It appeared from the papers already printed, that the Prince had departed from a similar intention before; and when his noble friend made his declaration in that House, he did not know that the Prince might not recede from it again. He had therefore laid the papers on the Table on Monday night, without that letter. He could assure their Lordships that this last transaction was completely distinct from all the rest, as they would see when they read the papers. Indeed, from what had occurred that evening, he much doubted whether any of their Lordships had read the first set of these papers.
Lord Hollandadmitted that the practice of asking questions of the Ministry might be inconvenient to the noble Lords who composed it: at the same time he felt it necessary to remind them, that it was an inconvenience to which all their noble predecessors had submitted. If he were called upon to select any period when there had been an uncommon forbearance of the practice of asking these questions, he would say that it was during the administration of the noble Duke. Indeed, the noble Earl had thanked their Lordships for the forbearance which they had displayed upon this very subject, and had said that it had proved very conducive to the settlement of the question. What he complained of was, that the noble Earl should have laid papers enough upon the Table to create an unjust impression against Prince Leopold, and should have withheld those which were calculated to remove it. Those noble Lords who had such a horror of ex-parte statements, when made by Prince Leopold, appeared to

1123
have no horror of ex-parte statements when made against him. It appeared to him (Lord Holland) to be essentially necessary that the House should be put in possession of all these documents. He did not intend to express any opinion upon them at present,—indeed he had formed none,—for he had not even read the voluminous papers already presented to their Lordships. He must say. that the noble Lord at the head of the Board of Control was much mistaken if he supposed, because this conversation had occurred about the omission of papers relating to Prince Leopold, that noble Lords on his(Lord Holland's)side of the House intended only to discuss the personal objections of Prince Leopold, and not the conduct of the Government, over which the noble Lord had hung a panoply which he considered spotless. He could assure the noble Lord that he was mistaken if he supposed that the conduct of Government was to pass off with such impunity. He thought that there never was a government which had placed itself in a situation more ludicrous in the eye of the world, and more injurious to the country, than his Majesty's present Government, not merely on this part, but on every part, of their foreign policy. He knew that the noble Lord (Ellenborough) was fond of discussion; and he could assure him, that before the close of the Session he should have abundant opportunities of showing his ingenuity in defending the conduct of himself and his colleagues upon this particular subject.
Lord Ellenboroughobserved, that the mere fact of the noble Baron's having condemned the conduct of Government without having read the papers in explanation of it, was sufficient to show the fairness with which he would form his opinion upon it after he had perused them.

SUITS IN EQUITY BILL.
The Lord Chancellorhaving moved according to the Order of the Day the third reading of the Suits in Equity Bill.
Lord Eldonbegged leave to trouble the House with a few remarks on the subject. It. appeared to him that it would be advisable to be more deliberate on the present question, in consideration of the great changes which it was understood were projected in the Administration of Justice in England and Wales. It appeared to be in contemplation to appoint an additional Judge in the Court of King's
1124
Bench, an additional Judge in the Court of Common Pleas, and an additional Baron in the Court of Exchequer. Now, he was of opinion, that according to the present constitution of the Court of Chancery, even if the changes to which he alluded were not carried into effect, an additional Judge in the Court of Chancery would not be necessary; but that if they were carried into effect, and there were four Puisne Barons in the Court of the Exchequer, then an additional Judge in the Court of Chancery would be absolutely unnecessary. Having been nearly five-and-twenty years at the head of the Court of Chancery, he had some experience, and might, perhaps, be excused for offering his opinion on the subject. When he had first the honour of a seat on the Woolsack, Appeals were made to the Court of Chancery, on Writs of Error from the Courts of Common Law, and the Chancellor had the benefit of the advice of the Judges. Before the Union with Ireland, the only appeal to the Court of Chancery from Courts of Equity were from Courts of Equity in England: but the Union brought to the Court of Chancery Appeals from Courts of Equity in Ireland. Those appeals came also in the shape which rendered it difficult for an English Chancellor to hear them, unless he had had some previous experience on the subject. In addition to this, there was a great accumulation of appeals to the House of Lords. In the year 1807 or 1808 a change was made in the jurisdiction of Scotland. The Court of Session was divided; which added to the business of the Court of Chancery, as there were then appeals from two Courts of Session instead of one. Now this might be a good provision for the lieges of Scotland, but it was the cause of much delay and inconvenience to the suitors in the English Court of Chancery.—For some years after the appointment of a Vice Chancellor, the appeals -from his Court added considerably to the business of the Court of Chancery. There seemed to be a general indisposition at that time to be satisfied with the decisions of the Vice Chancellor; and yet there was no man more eminent for legal knowledge than Sir Thomas Plomer. He was happy to hear, however, that that was not the case at present.; and that the indisposition to be satisfied with the decisions of the Vice Chancellor had greatly abated. At the same time it was well known to every intelligent man at the bar, that the ap-

1125
pointment of that subordinate Judge had increased the number of appeals made to the Chancellor. What was the judicial constitution of the Court of Chancery at the present moment? The Master of the Rolls now sat five mornings in the week—an arrangement highly advantageous. The Vice Chancellor, he was told, used great despatch in the business of his Court, though he did not use the word despatch in any offensive sense. The Lord Chancellor had the power also to avail himself of a Commission of Assistance, composed of two Masters in Chancery and a Puisne Baron of the Exchequer. Lord Thurlow had called in the aid of such a commission. Although the Masters in Chancery were not treated as high judicial characters, yet it was well known they disposed of more important questions in the course of the year than any of the Puisne Barons. In his opinion, therefore, with reference to all these considerations, notwithstanding the increase of business, he thought the Court of Chancery might go on very well without an additional Judge. In his humble opinion also, if a fourth Puisne Judge were appointed in the Court of Exchequer, he ought to be a man conversant, not merely with Common Law, but with Equity; in order that he might decide in what was called the outer Court, in cases not between King and subject, but between subject and subject. The history of the Court of Exchequer proved the advantages which would result from such a measure; and it would render still less necessary the appointment of an additional Judge in the Court of Chancery. The popular notion he believed was, that by the new measure, the Court of Exchequer would take an equal share of business with the Court of King's Bench and Common Pleas, but that he was afraid would not come to pass, till long after he had departed out of the world. At the same time the reformation of that Court would render the appointment of another Equity Judge less necessary. He would not say, that he finally objected to that appointment; but he thought the appointment, when it was not yet decided whether there should be nine or twelve Puisne Judges in other courts, premature: and for that reason he should move, as an Amendment that the Bill be read a third time on that day fortnight.
The Lord Chancellorregretted that the noble and learned Lord had not been able
1126
to attend when this Bill had been read a first time, nor at any of its subsequent stages, and that the statement of his objections to it had been reserved until it had. reached its present and last stage. When he introduced the Bill, he took occasion to state, minutely and in detail, the grounds upon which he proposed the measure, and he was sorry that in consequence of the course taken by the noble and learned Lord, it was necessary for him to trouble them with a short recapitulation of the reasons which, in his opinion, justified the introduction of this measure again this Session, after a corresponding measure had already met with the sanction of their Lordships in the last Session of Parliament. The noble and learned Lord then gave a general recapitulation of the grounds which he had formerly mentioned in proof of the necessity of a measure of this description. He was ready to acknowledge that there was no individual in the country to whose authority in all matters connected with the Courts of Equity, he would so readily defer as to that of the noble and learned Lord, but he must say, that his objection to the present Bill seemed not based upon any solid foundation whatever. For 200 years before the noble Lord held the Great Seal, constant complaints had been made of the delay of hearing cases in the Court of Chancery; and while the noble and learned Lord himself sat in the Court of Chancery, without any blame being attributable to him, these complaints were loud and frequent. He was sure that no man who was acquainted with the administration of justice in Equity would consider the Court of Chancery, as at present constituted, adequate for that purpose. The returns which he had procured to be made of the arrear of business, were quite sufficient to prove that fact. As an instance of the delay in hearing cases, the noble Lord mentioned a case which commenced in 1812—a case in which there was no evidence, but only a bill and an answer. It first came before Sir Thomas Plomer: it was afterwards successively before the late Lord Gilford, and the present Master of the Rolls; and for the fourth time, it was heard before him (the Lord Chancellor) who finally decided it, after eighteen years had been employed in hearing it. It was time to put an end to such a system, and to afford to the people of this country an opportunity of having their cases heard when

1127
they were ready for hearing. Another instance had lately occurred, which he would mention. While he was sitting in their Lordships' House the other day, he received a letter from a young man on the bunks of the Mississippi, which stated that thirty-three years ago the writer's father came over to this country to recover a legacy to which he was indisputably entitled. The executor, for his own protection, applied to the Court of Chancery; an amicable suit (as it was called) was instituted, and at the end of seven years the father quitted this country, the suit having then had no result. On his return to America he married; the writer of the letter was born, the father died, and the son wrote to know whether he had now any chance of getting the money to which he was indisputably entitled. Such instances he was afraid might again occur, unless our system was improved, and if the noble and learned Lord objected to the present measure for the purpose of improving the Courts of Equity, he was bound to suggest a better remedy.—His noble friend had recommended a Commission of Assistance for the Chancellor; but as that Commission must be composed of a Common-law Judge and two Masters in Chancery, the Court of Common-law would suffer from the loss of his services, and the Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench had that day told him (the Chancellor) that that Court had no hope of getting through its business. The Common Pleas could not do more than it now did, and the only hope was in new modifying the Court of Exchequer, by completing it as a Court of Common-law, and separating Equity business from it. The addition of another Judge to the Court of Equity, the measure he now proposed with regard to the Master's Office, and the new regulations regarding the Registrars, were the only things he at present saw capable of relieving the country from the evils of the existing system. He had proposed them in accordance with the Commissioners' Report, and he trusted the House would adopt them.
The Earl of Eldonexplained, and added that he understood the opinion of the Vice-Chancellor to be, that no new Judge was necessary in Equity.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that it was very strange that the Vice-Chancellor should have expressed such an opinion without intimating it to him. When the
1128
Vice-Chancellor was before the Commissioners, he was asked whether three Judges were sufficient for performing the business of the Court of Equity? His answer, now existing in his own handwriting, was, "Not three angels."
The Earl of Eldonanswered, that he had received a letter from the Master of the Rolls, stating that he and the Vice-Chancellor thought a new Judge in Equity was not necessary.
Their Lordships divided on the amendment that the Bill be read a third time that day fortnight:—Contents 4; Not-Contents 11;—Majority against Lord Eldon's Amendment 7.