diction, that actions, which involve accounts, end for the most part only in one way-in the parties being compelled, after going through all the expense of litigation, to refer the matters in dispute between them to arbitration. On the contrary, nothing is too complex for the court of Chancery. Its duty is, to deal with human transactions as it finds them; from this duty it does not shrink: it does not substitute for realities narrow definitions, but examines all their details, looks at every circumstance connected with them, and judges of them by the application of a system of principles, which have been built up by a long succession of the ablest and wisest men that ever adorned any public station, and in no specific part of which has even the wildest prater ever ventured to suggest any improvement. The most ordinary and simple species of suit in equity-a suit for the administration of the estate of a deceased trader-will often do more than could be done by an hundred actions at law.

The court of Chancery exercises, likewise, functions very different from the mere determination of litigated rights. From the mode in which property comes to be limited in a refined state of society, partial interests come successively into existence throughout a long period; and forty, or fifty, or sixty years may elapse, before there exists an absolute owner. During all this interval the court of Chancery administers the property, and secures it for the person ultimately entitled to it: and the functions which this jurisdiction silently and without noise exercises in thus administering and preserving funds, especially where

infants and married women are concerned, surpass probably, in utility, any other branch of the judicial civil administration. The greater the amount of the funds thus administered, and the longer the period during which there exists no person entitled to the absolute ownership of any given fund, the greater, obviously, is the utility of the interference of the Court: yet, strange to say, such is the sagacity of most of those who have held themselves forth as instructors of their brethren on this subject, that the very circumstances which prove the utility of the court of Chancery, have been made use of as topics of reproach against it. It has been accused loudly, because the funds which it administers amount to nearly 40 millions: and the mere circumstance that a suit may exist for half a century has been thought to carry condemnation along with it as if the continuance of a suit for 40 or 50 years proved any thing more, than that during that time there was no person who was entitled to the absolute possession of the fund which was the subject of it. A testator, perhaps, leaves 20,000l. to be enjoyed by his infant daughter during her life in a specified manner; and, after her death, to be divided among such of her children as shall attain twenty-one years of age. The parties choose to place this fund out of the risk of accident from the mistakes, misfortunes, or misconduct of any trustee, or executor. For this purpose a bill is filed in Chancery: the money is invested in 3 per cent stock in the name of the Accountant-general: the daughter lives perhaps 50 years, receiving the dividends regularly, and dies, leaving several children, of whom some are under

age: at length the youngest attains 21, and the 20,000l. is then paid out of Court to the individuals entitled to receive it. From the commencement to the end of such a suit, sixty years or more will elapse: and during the whole of that time the 20,000l. will stand in the name of the Accountant-general.

Looking at the vast variety, and the very complicated nature, of the transactions with which the court of Chancery deals, and at the enlarged principles on which it proceeds, it would be wonderful indeed, if, in so vast a system, there was not much which might be capable of improvement; and if any set of men, from pure motives, and with adequate knowledge of the subject, had devoted themselves to the task of ascertaining what alterations might be advantageously and prudently made in the mode of administering the equitable jurisdiction, they would have merited thanks as public benefactors. Unfortunately, however, the subject fell into the hands of some rash nisi prius lawyers who were profoundly ignorant of it, and of every thing connected with it, and who seemed to be actuated merely by personal hostility to the lord chancellor, for not having conferred on them certain professional honours to which they deemed themselves entitled-not by professional eminence but in their political capacities. That great and venerable judge was to be assailed. In himself, however, he was unassailable; for his judicial failings (if such he had) arose from his very virtues; from his apprehension of wrong; from his distrust of a judgment of which he alone was diffident; from his anxious and painful scrutiny of every matter that came before him. In learning, in saga

city, in comprehensiveness of legal views, in patient investigation, in impartial equanimity, he was admitted to be the greatest of that splendid race of sages, who have held the great seals of England: nor was there any one who could venture to deny, that lord Eldon was the judge, before whom every suitor, who believed himself to be in the right, was anxious to have his cause heard. But that which could not be done directly, might be accomplished indirectly. They might wound the feelings of the Chancellor by degrading the Court in which he had spent his life and earned so pure a fame: and gradually the degradation of the Court in public opinion would tend to lower the personal reputation of the Judge. On this system they had acted during several sessions of parliament; and it was not abandoned in the present. The commission which had been appointed in 1824, and which had not yet made its report, did not produce even a suspension of hostilities: on the contrary, it became in its turn a theme of abuse.

Two discussions of the subject took place in the present session. The first was introduced on the 31st of May by Mr. J. Williams, who, in presenting some petitions complaining of particular proceedings in Chancery, delivered a very long and very smart speech. His oration had however this peculiarity-that it was an attack, not upon the court of Chancery, but upon the whole law of England. The law of real property (of which however he declared himself completely ignorant) was the subject of his peculiar animadversion; and the most important part of his speech, if it meant any thing, went to prove, that courts of

viously been allowed to dispose of for money. At first it was proposed to allow the puisne judges 6,000l. a-year but the scheme ultimately adopted gave to the chief justice of the King's-bench 10,000l. a-year; to the chief justice of the court of Common Pleas 8,000l.; to the chief baron of the court of Exchequer 7,000l.; and to each of the puisne justices of the courts of King's-bench and Common Pleas, and to each of the barons of the Exchequer, the nett annual salary of 5,500l. There was likewise granted an addition of 2001. a-year to the retiring pension of the chief justice of the King's-bench; 3,500l. was fixed as the retiring allowance of the puisne judges; and 3,750l. as that of the chief justice of the Common Pleas, the chief baron, vice-chancellor, and master of the Rolls.

This arrangement met with considerable opposition in its progress. Mr. Hume was of opinion, that the cheapest way of doing the judicial business of the country was the best and Mr. Hobhouse and Mr. Denman, imbued with a spirit of deep philosophy, maintained, that the dignity of a judge depended in no degree on money. Mr. Scarlett contended that this arrangement was improper, because it in fact diminished the emoluments of the office of lord chief justice of England. The fees attached to that office were, he said, incidental to the situation of chief justice, and had existed for centuries. It was from these that he derived the greater portion of his recompense, and of the legitimate reward of his labours. Chief justices had as much a vested right in these fees, as any archbishop of Canterbury could have in the lands of the see which he had not yet become

absolutely possessed of. If it were proposed, for instance, to make an alteration in the leases of that see, and to give the present possessor a smaller sum in lieu of the loss he might sustain, how much would it excite the disapprobation of that sacred profession? If an alteration were intended, there should at least be a fair average of the loss sustained by it, and compensation to that amount. But, what was now proposed? To increase the salaries of the puisne judges from 4, to 5,500l. a-year; and while on the average of the last thirty or forty years, the salary and fees of the chief justice amounted to between 14,000 and 15,000l. a-year, to add only 1,000l. to the lowest sum he had received during any one of these years. This might be an advantage to the present chief justice, because it would give him a small increase to his present salary, he not being in a situation to participate in all the advantages derived from the disposal of the incidental offices; but he was sure that he was incapable of bartering any of the rights of his successors. It was unjust towards the chief justice to take away from him his fees, in order to create a fund for the payment of the puisne judges. It was an admitted principle, that the chief justiceship of the court of King's-bench ought to be a place of great elevation and dignity. Such was the feeling of the profession. To make it such, it should be a situation of considerable emolument. The profession of the law was like a lottery. Its expenses always exceeded its profits just as the expenses of the tickets exceeded the value of the prizes. To make these situations the object of high spirit and ambition, they should be offices of emolument and

dignity. Any step to degrade the high offices of chancellor or chief justice, was a step towards the degradation of the whole profession. Men of very considerable eminence would not be induced to give up a leading practice at the bar, for a salary barely equal, perhaps inferior, to the profits of their practice. The style of living must also be taken into the account. The profession lived very much together, and were rigorous critics towards each other, as to the rate and style of expense. A man of good practice might live in his own way, and make a very good figure with half his earnings. Not so with the chief justice, who was looked up to not only as head of the common law, but as one possessed of dignities and advantages becoming his high station. A man could accumulate less for his family as chief justice with 10,000l. a-year, than a barrister could with the same sum acquired by practice. He was free to do as he liked in the latter case; in the former, he would be chained to hard labour for life; he would be condemned to tug at an iron oar, or, if that were considered too harsh a description, at a gilded one. There was a period when chancellors and judges held their levees, and maintained their station with the highest splendor. Lord Mansfield invariably held levees; but, if a lord chief justice could be found to ride down to court, or to travel, in a hackneycoach, with his train-bearer then, indeed, some saving might be made out of 10,000l. a-year. Upon these grounds he proposed as an amendment-That the sum of 12,000l. should be inserted, instead of 10,000l., as the salary of the lord chief justice: for he was well informed that the average of the

income of the office had exceeded that sum in times past. This amendment was not adopted.

Mr. Brougham proposed to lop off 500l. a-year from the proposed salary of the puisne judges: but that alteration also was rejected.

A very important bill, introduced by Mr. Peel, for consolidating and amending the laws relating to juries, was passed. Of the alterations made by it in the existing laws, the most important were the regulations with respect to special jurors. It was required, that in all cases where the Crown was either a real or a nominal plaintiff, the special jurors should be selected by ballot: and in all criminal proceedings tried by special juries, the same regulations were to be observed. In civil cases, where there was a consent in writing on both sides (which written consent was to be afterwards received as evidence of the agreement between the parties), special juries might be selected in the same manner as at present.

The bankrupt laws were consolidated into one act, and were in some respects altered. An act was also passed for amending the laws relating to agents and factors.

On the very first night of the session, the lord chancellor announced his intention to introduce a bill for regulating and restraining the prevailing practice of dealing in shares of proposed Jointstock Companies. This bill, he stated on a subsequent occasion, would not apply to companies already constituted, or which might be constituted by charter or act of parliament. But it was not to be endured that before the authority of the Crown or of parliament was given to the formation of a jointstock company, persons should be