1826.] Chancery Report. 457 



all the mass and multitude of distinct, dissimilar, discordant business' 

 what think we is to be withdrawn ? 1. Api)lications for commissions to 

 examine evidence in foreign countries, if intended to be used in actions 

 at law — one might wonder, by the way, how they got within the jurisdic- 

 tion of an equity-court at all — but where a discovert/ is intended, as 

 exclusively matter of equity, the right is of course still reserved. 2. 

 Benefit or Friendly Societies assigned to the Chancery by Acts of Par- 

 liament — of course with the concurrence of Chancellors themselves — to 

 be transferred to the Exchequer. But further, 3. the Chancellor is 

 to be empowered, in times of great pressure of business, to make writs of 

 Habeas, awarded by him, returnable before a judge at common-law. 

 Why should an Equitj^-court have any thing to do with Habeas es ? The 

 grand measures, 4 and 5, however, for cutting away business, is the 

 empowering the Chancellor to appoint a Commission of Appeal to sit 

 weekly, and hear appeals from commissioners of bankruptcy acting on 

 the execution of commissions in London ; and placing the Vice-Chan- 

 cellor on the same independent footing as the Master of the Rolls ; 

 reserving, of course, appeals to the Chancellor himself. 



And this is the sum! This is all the Commissioners could muster 

 resolution to suggest; and even this is done with manifest struggle; and 

 doubt and distrust of any ultimate advantage. As if conscious of the 

 complete mibeclllty of this part of their labours, the title of the Refwrt 

 itself is very properly confined to the practice of Chancery. . These 

 suggestions, we affirm, will do little or nothing towards removing the 

 incumbrances of the court ; the causes and facilities of delay in the 

 practice of the court, innumeraT3i«, and almost ])ast finding out as they 

 are, are yet far inferior to the delays arising from the nmltiplicity and 

 clashing of business — these are more indefinite, and more out of the 

 control of suitors ; and, therefore, surely were the subject of paramount 

 importance. Little of the time of the court is taken up with granting 

 commissions for taking evidence abroad ; and not much with Friendly 

 Societies. The Commission of Appeal will be again appealed from, 

 except on the point of costs, and that, before, was essentially the Master's 

 business. Appeals will still be made from the Vice-Chancellor ; and the 

 court, we suspect, will generally be at leisure, not only to receive appli- 

 cations for writs of Habeas, but to make them returnable at home. 



Nothing, except the Friendly Societies, is really and truly withdrawn. 

 Were the Commissioners awed by the frown of their chief, or restrained 

 by the curb of interest, or dazzled by their admiration for the apparent 

 wisdom of ages, and the real corruption of time ? There is no principle 

 in the suggestions ; no comprehensive view of the subject seems to have 

 struck their minds. Here is a quantity of business to be done by 

 a particular court. This business is not only ill done, but constantly in 

 arrear. The question then is, can this business be better — can it be 

 fully accomplished by this same court, under a different arrangement ? 

 Few will hesitate to say, it can, if the officers of the court are not 

 distracted with other occupations, and can devote the whole of their 

 time to the duties of the office. But the head of this jurisdiction has a 

 multitude of occupations, not at all connected with the appropriate 

 business of his court. Why, then the remedy is obvious. Let another 

 be appointed to the woolsack ; let that elevated personage attend to 

 ' affairs of state, and to matters referred to him by the Secretary of State, 

 and be the supreme legal adviser of the Cabinet; let him carefully 

 examine treaties, conventions, charters, commissions, letters-patent, 

 M.M. Neu) Series.— Vol. 1. No. 2. 3 N 



