JB/109/099/001

Click Here To Edit

4

He would take the amount received by the Patentee at from £6,000 to
£7,000 a year. It was fit that the man entrusted with the great
Seal should be largely and liberally remunerated; but he ought not
to be recompensed for business that he had not power to perform.
If this question was carried against him this Evening, the question
should not rest here. He should try it in every possible way. (hear.)
He wished Ministers themselves would take the subject up. Many
cases had been before the Court of Chancery for six, seven, eight
or ten years, without a decision. Causes were two years in hand before
they were set down in the Chancellor's Paper. Suppose, in the
first instance that a case was brought before the Vice-Chancellor,
it was two years before it could come on for a hearing; an appeal
might then be lodged with the Chancellor; with him it remained
for two years more; if an appeal from him was carried to the
House of Lords, two or three years more were spent; so that it was
six years before it was finally decided. He had known a case in
Chancery concerning the beneficial interest of two women in a
lease which had 12 years to run. It was there 13 years before it was
decided, and both the claimants were then dead. In the question, thence
of what part of his business the Lord Chancellor should be relieved?
It was known that the Bankruptcy business was entirely distinct; that
it was originally a part of the business of the Great Seal. – What then
was the harm of now separating it from it? Many professional men
could be found competent to decide in the matter of Bankruptcy; and if
the Noble Lord who now held the Seals were the person in the country
the most fit to decide those questions, yet the Country might be at any
time deprived of his services. Another expedient might be resorted to which
would not only give the Lord Chancellor time to attend to the peculiar
business, and would improve the Judicial System of the Country.
As the Judicial business at the House of Lords was at present
managed, there were many Suitors in this Country to an immense
amount, who had in fact no appeal from the primary Court.
There was an Appeal from the Chancery of Ireland; there was an Appeal
from the Court of Sessions of Scotland; but from the Chancery
of England there was in fact, no appeal, but from the Chancellor
in Chancery, to the Chancellor in the House of Lords. The constant
advice therefore of all Gentlemen at the Bar to suitors
was, not to appeal to the House of Lords, as it was only an

Identifier: | JB/109/099/001 "JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 109.
Date_1		Marginal Summary Numbering
Box	109	Main Headings	Parliamentary Reform
Folio number	099	Info in main headings field
Image	001	Titles
Category	Collectanea	Number of Pages	1
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering	E4
Penner		Watermarks	JOHN DICKINSON & C<…> 1813
Marginals		Paper Producer	A. Levy
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year	1813
Notes public		ID Number	35754
Box Contents