TOPICS OF nu: DAY.
MOCK ntronms IN CHANCERY AND THE GREAT COURT OF APPEAL. THE Chnncellor's own account of the intended ref ems in the Coast of Chancery, and in the Appellate Jurisdieti a 1,1 the I louse of Lords, describes a most nu afluir indeed. Nsbody seems to be pleased with it. The Post, avoiding to give any opinion of its own on Lord ConsNit AM'S exposition, expre•ses a sort of sympathy with the unfavourable opiniens or the Lord, LA NGDA I.F, A BINGER, and Witesroan. The Times roundly abuses the whole scheme. The Chronirte, though it praises the Chancellor's
spa yell, has mot a word to say in favour or his pious. Lawyers end laymen—all with whom we have conversed on the subject— ex press something very like contempt for this mere mockery of reform. The two blls together, as we heard it said in Westminster Hall yesterday, contain only one• provision which look, like an improvemeet of the present absurd system ; and that is of time negative kind. It is proposed that the Judge of the Court of
Chancery shall no more be taken from the. busitioss of his court to act as Speaker Of the House of Lords. All other abuses are to remain untouched. The new Lord Clancellor—the new head of the Court of Appeal, if he should have been raised to that situation from presiding in an inferior court—moy still be the per- son to determine appeals from judgments of his own; and if any other Equity Judge should be created a Peer, or if any Peer should condescend, as Lord LYNDHURST did recently, to become the Judge of an inferior Equity Court, the indeeeney of appeals tell rodent ad Newton will cunt i nue as before. The new head of the Court of Appeal is still to be the political President of a legislative assembly : the present mixture, in short, of the political: judieial functions of the Lord Chancellor in t he I I
_ -011Se of Lords, is to be fully
preserved. The much-complained-of double appeal from the Master of the Rolls or the Vice-Chancellor to the Judge of the Court of Chancery, and then from him to the House of Lords, is also to he preserved. No (Aimee whatever is proposed in the composition of the Great Court of Appeal, except that Equity Judges may be called to advise the Lords upon points of law— but not to speak or vote—just as Common Law Judges are sum- moned at present. The court is still to be composed of the whole Peerage,—clergymen, generals, admirals, and all,—who arc to sit as usual, we suppose, " by rotation," to " assist the Chancel- lor" in theory, but, in general practice, to yawn over a newspaper. Upon occasion too, as has happened before, Lay Lords may be canvassed for the appellant or respondent, and brought down in a crowd to set at nought the deliberate opinion of the Chancellor. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is proposed for diminishing what Lord COTTENH AM himself calls " the perfectly enormous, the frightful expense" of appeals to the House of Lords. The " cases " of the appellant and respondent, even though, as in the cause of SMALL V. Arrwoon, they should contain as many words as thirty-eight octavo volumes, are still to be printed for the convenience of their Lordships' eyes; or rattler flirt the profit of the printer, since not one Lord in the hundred ever looks into a printed case, or any other case. Nor is any other patent invention for robbing the suitors to be infringed. But there is a plan for preventing unnecessary delay. The House of Lords is to sit t ermanently as a Court of Appeal, notwithstanding the prorogation er dissolution of Parliament. The announcement of this notable scheme made the Duke of WELLINGTON exclaim, "What is to become of the House of Lords!" Ay, what is to become of the partridge-shooting in September and time pheasant- shooting in October, and the fox-hunting, and the trips to the Contirent, and all the other " necessary recreations" of noble lords? Are the Lords to be deprived of their present power of adjourns ent ; which they have exercised more than once, we believe, in thvour of Epsom Races ? The giving of Permanency to a well-composed court would be a very great improvement ; but to prolong the sittings of one so wretchedly composed as the House of Lords, could be as useless as it will be found impossible. This is all. In describing what is to be under Lord CorrEsin AM'S measure of Reform, we have had only to recite the well-proved abuses which exist.
It must be allowed, however, that, in his speech, Lord COTTEN- HAM gave a lucid account of these abuses. Some of his most striking illustrations were drawn from what he termed " the most grievous case" of SMALL V. ATTWOOD. Why, then, does he leave ustouched the great abuse which is made so prominent by that case ? When he and Sir L. SitanwEss held the Gicat Seal in commission, they would not hear a single appeal from the judg- ment of either of them in a court below. So far as themselves -were concerned, as Vice-Chancellor and Master of the Rolls, they deprived the Great Seal, whilst they held it, of its appellate juris- diction. Why ?—what could be their motive? Why should not Sir CHARLES PEPYS have" assisted" Sir LAUNCELOT SH A DWELL in hearing an appeal from the judgment of Sir CHARLES Pepvs? —The reason is fully explained by the Courier, in the following account of what is meant by "assistance" in a case of this sort.
" What is meant by assisting ?' Is Lord Lyndhurst to furnish the Chan- cellor with a report of the evidence in the catpe of Small v. Atwood ? Igo; for the evidence was all taken in writing ; the 'case,' which means the whole matter of the cause, has been printed for the use of the House of Lords. Surely the Chancellor can read the printed volumes without Lord Lynch. burst's assistance.' What 'assistance' can the Chancellor require from Lord Lyndhurst in hearing the arguments of coons, ? Surely, the Chancellor ought to hear etonisel with his own ears, not with those of another person. But Lord 1.yildliio‘t will at the jinhzinent as well as the heating; he r. in vole either with or. against the Clumeellor. C innot the Chancellor give jii !sterns without the aid of Lord 1.yialloirst's cote Will it he called assistance to the Claincellor, if Lord Lyndhurst should happen to vote against the Chancel- lor? There is no analogy, we repeat. between a ease in Equity and one at Nisi Pries, wlum the appeal for a new trial is not from the Judge below, but hoot a Jury' who are not called in to ‘:issist ' in heat Mg the appeal, and when the -lodge, attend hy.,; to report the vet hal evitkoce mel to explain the grounds of his directi m to the Jury, 1111V his Inethren. The whole matter of this carne, including Loa l Lyol)oir.C. judgment e Lich is appealed
against, exists in print ; and the tudy assistance,' tit,. which Lord can give to the Taneeldui in .!'tea mining this api,al, is by speaking
and Voting tither for ur against his ow judgment.' "
Such " assistanee" as this, neither Sir Cli ARLES Pl.:1'1'A nor Sir 1.AUNCE Sil Was willing to 10 the other. How strange, then, that !still t'orrs:Nit sot should have made no pro-
vision against receiving such assistance ni L trot LvNIMIURST in " the most grievous ease" of SMA 1.1. r. Skorwoon. This case, it has often hero foretold by lawyers kith a Nigh, will, sooner or later, pisslore a thorough reform of ths Gr. at Court of Appeal. 1)1.011(11'0 indeed must be the state a 1:(loily p...a.!ecdings, which could allow any ease to grow to a bulk whiell renders publicity merely nominal, and just judement a Chance at the best. If, as Lord rMEi itoitinxi: seemed to 1110111 MP, Lund "ex- cessively moderate proposal of improvement were made to suit his amlience, there eau he no Ingle that the Great Court of Appeal will reform itself. God, however—as COMIETT did not say—there is a house of Commons.
Previous page
