374 Court of Chancery. [Ocr. 
costliness of the court effectually shut its doors upon crowds, who would 
otherwise rush to it for justice. ‘‘ Not a day passes,” says Mr. Cooper, 
« that the Chancery barrister, in the honest discharge of his duty, does 
not advise his client to sacrifice hundreds rather than embark in an equity 
suit—a vessel in which few have sailed long without being wrecked.” 
Indeed, if proof were required, it would be found in the disproportionate 
increase of that specie of business—injunction cases—which, if any thing 
in that court can be called urgent, wears most the semblance of urgency, 
relatively to business of all other descriptions. ; 
The methods for giving effective strength to the court will, for the 
most part, be found either in a better distribution of the subjects of its 
jurisdiction, an amelioration of its internal organization, or in securing 
additional power in its functionaries. 
In the front of the first is the separation of bankruptcy from the great 
seal. We approach to the consideration of this measure with one striking 
presumption in its favour—the utter imbecility with which the jurisdic- 
tion has been administered during the period of its union. The whole 
bankrupt jurisdiction originated with a statute of Henry the Eighth, 
which gave to the Chancellor, together with certain other state and judi- 
cial dignitaries, the power of seizure over the persons and property of 
debtors, “ suddenly fleeing to parts unknown, or keeping their houses 
and not minding to pay their debts.” This was followed by the 13th of 
Elizabeth, which introduced such considerable alterations in the former, 
as virtually to supersede it ; and the latter may now accordingly be con- 
sidered as the foundation of the present bankrupt code. It was under 
this that the power given to the dignitaries pointed out in the statute of 
Henry became vested in such “ wise, honest, and discreet” commissioners 
as it might please the Chancellor to direct such commission to ; and, as 
the office of assignee was unknown until the reign of Anne, the whole 
ministerial as well as judicial department was at first administered by 
the commissioners. Saving a discretionary power in their selection, the 
Chancellor appears, for a long time, to have had no other control over 
their actions. They constituted a supreme court in themselves, though 
in the habit of obtaining the advice of the common law judges, when 
embarrassed in the exercise of their functions ; neither were they at first 
accustomed to pay the Chancellor the compliment of consulting him; nor 
did he, until repeatedly pressed for his interference in their proceedings, 
at length reluctantly consent, in particular emergencies, to extend it ; so 
that his present jurisdiction is the mere growth of disjointed legislative 
enactments and gradual encroachments. Originally, the number of 
commissioners varied with the importance of the commission ; and their 
selection was, in almost every instance, made in obedience to the nomina-~ 
tion of the creditors. With the view, however, of a better regulation of 
the London commissioners, Lord Harcourt first established the London 
lists ; but as the ministers who compose these were in their origin, so 
they still continue removable at the Chancellor’s pleasure, and their 
numbers have varied at different times according to his caprice. Indeed, 
standing commissioners, after the fashion of the London lists, have at 
times been appointed for some of the more populous of the provincial 
districts ; but, with Lord Eldon’s dynasty, these have fallen into disuse; 
and the nomination of the country commissioners still rests with the par- 
ties making application for the commission. 
The London commissioners constitute a body of seventy individuals, 
