cil is not now considerable, notwithstand- | proposition is objectionable in principle, ing the unfortunate illness of the Master of and would not effect our object. Still, if the Rolls; but if another judge, to be we do adopt the suggestion, we must also appointed under this bill, shall be rendered establish a new court of appeal, if we take competent to sit there, it will prevent the the appeals in bankruptcy cases from the occurrence of any arrear of this sort. court of Chancery. Thus there must be Thus it is, my lords, that I have endea- two jurisdictions in these matters; and voured to accomplish these important ob- what advantage, I ask, would this plan jects. This is the outline of my plan: in have over that which I propose for the bringing it forward, I can readily declare, appointment of a new judge? I shall be that I have not been wedded to any par- asked, whether it is the intention of his ticular theory. I wish to facilitate the majesty's government to leave that improgress of causes in equity. I wish to portant part of our jurisdiction-the part have them heard when they shall be ripe relative to bankruptcies-just as it stands? for hearing. If any better plan than that I answer, I do not say that it is—but it which I have proposed can be brought involves a difficult and most complicated forward, I shall be happy to adopt it. I subject: and certainly I shall not recomwill listen patiently to the suggestions of mend any alteration, unless I am satisfied others. All I can say is, I have attended that what it may be proposed to substitute very closely to the subject, considered it for our present practice is evidently better maturely, and adopted the plan which than that which now subsists. Noble lords appears to me to be the most efficacious. should be aware, that as far as relates to I know there are individuals who think the metropolis, commissions of bankruptcy that another course should be adopted. I are directed to gentlemen forming what am aware that some think the same object are called lists, fourteen in number. And can be more easily effected by separating I can assure the House, that this machinery, the bankruptcy jurisdiction from the other after all the inquiries I have been able to powers of the court of Chancery. With institute, appears to me extremely well respect to this, I can only say I have con- adapted for carrying into effect the banksidered the subject deeply; I have read, I rupt laws as they at present stand. At believe, almost all that has been written some moments, from the nature of the upon it; and the result is, that I think the case, there is a great accumulation of proposition liable to great objections I bankruptcy business; while at others there am persuaded that it is impossible to take is little or nothing to do; and it will be from the court of Chancery its appellate found that this machinery is of such a jurisdiction in cases of bankruptcy--cases, nature, as to adapt itself readily and combe it remembered, in which, according to pletely to these emergencies. A great the existing law, there exists no appeal to part of the business of the commissioners this House. From the nature of bank- is purely ministerial-a duty which they ruptcy business itself, there must be an are well able to perform. With respect to appeal to a judge in equity. Under these their other and judicial functions, I will circumstances, I hold it to be altogether take upon myself to say, that the London impossible, consistently with the present commissioners perform their duty admirastate of the bankruptcy laws, to adopt this bly. In the course of the year a number of suggestion, or allow such cases to be de- questions of considerable difficulty, involvtermined without a court of appeal. Even ing points of great nicety, and many entanif we were to separate the jurisdiction in gled and complicated matters, come before cases of bankruptcy from the court of them. Their decisions upon these cases Chancery, it would not be sufficient to are generally correct. It may be fairly afford the requisite relief, nor adequate to presumed, that parties who, no doubt, are • effect the object we have in view. On an disposed to be dissatisfied with many of average the Vice-chancellor sits upon these decisions, would be sufficiently ready bankruptcy cases about sixty or seventy to appeal against them, if there were any days in the year. Supposing this jurisdic- good grounds for doing so; yet there are tion were taken away, that would not be few appeals from them to Chancery in the sufficient to relieve the court of Chancery course of the year, and exceedingly few from the surplus business that oppresses reversals of their decisions, upon the same it, or enable it to take upon itself the evidence and state of the facts as those equity jurisdiction of the Exchequer. The upon which they decided. I am now alluding to the decisions of the London | noble and learned lord concluded by list. I appeal to this list with satisfaction, moving that the bill be read a second time. as affording the best proof that these gen- The Earl of Eldon expressed his wish tlemen perform their important duties to take some short time to consider the faithfully, diligently, laboriously, and well. provisions of the bill before he expressed I have not the same observation to apply his opinion upon it. He confessed he to the country lists. I am sure the noble was somewhat in the dark as to the quesand learned lord (Eldon) will unite with tion. He had never heard that the comme in opinion upon this point. I have mon-law commissioners' report was made carefully read the report of the committee until the day before yesterday. Under appointed by the House of Commons in these circumstances it would be impossible the year 1818, for the purpose of investi- for him to follow all the observations of gating this subject. I have conversed with the noble and learned lord, relative to the the chairman (Mr. John Smith), a person different stages of proceedings in Chancery. of great commercial knowledge and expe- He begged for a little delay until he rience with respect to it, and attended should have had an opportunity of consiclosely to his suggestions and recommenda- dering these observations and plans, in all tions, and it appears to me worth inquiry, the various views in which they had been whether they should not be carried into so ably stated by the noble and learned effect; but I beg to be understood as not lord. In some of the noble and learned intending definitively to pronounce an lord's propositions he could not concur, opinion on the matter, but as merely mean- though he should not trouble the House ing to shew, that the subject is one which or the noble and learned lord with any engages the attention of his majesty's opposition that might not appear reasongovernment, and which will continue to able and well-advised. The noble earl engage it. then proceeded to allude to the remarks. As far as relates to the bill, the second of the Chancellor complimentary of himreading of which I am about to move, I self (lord Eldon), and said, that whatever may observe, that the first object to which might have been the political differences it is directed;-namely, the facilitating existing between him and the noble lord, the hearing of causes,-is one of great and he was not the person unwilling to be reparamount importance; and when that conciled, particularly when it happened end shall have been effected,-when we that much more justice had been done to shall have accelerated the hearing of causes him than he deserved. It was true, that and adopted measures for hearing them while he had held the great seal, he had when ready-we shall have done much to done all he could to administer justice facilitate the administration of justice-and with industry, diligence, and fidelity: accomplish our final object. It will then more he could not do. He quite agreed become the duty of government to consider in the justice of the observation, that it and give effect to such of the recommenda- was the duty of every judge in Chancery tions of the commission as may appear to to decide as much of a cause as he could them practicable. The House and the The House and the on hearing it, and not leave what he could country may be satisfied that we never do himself to be done by others. Whatever will lose sight of that object, but will pro- might be said of delays in the Master'sceed until we shall have accomplished Office, he considered them to be much every thing that appears necessary-all more owing to the conduct of the suitors that the country expects at our hands. themselves, than to the masters. Of With the assistance of your lord- that he was perfectly sure. There was "ships, and with the active and zealous one subject to which he begged to call the co-operation of an enlightened profession, attention of the noble and learned lord I have no doubt we shall ultimately suc- and the House; namely, the infinite imceed in effecting the great object we have portance of the lord Chancellor himself in view that we shall remove all just sitting frequently in the court of Chancery. ground of complaint with respect to the It was his duty to do so. He made this "proceedings and constitution of the courts observation, not for the purpose of inof Equity. Those engaged in the accom- sinuating that the present Chancellor did. "plishment of this object will deserve, and not attend to his duty in this respect, but. are sure to receive, the thanks and grati-in order to remark that it was impossible, tude of their country [cheers]. The consistently with the business of their without injury to their clients in the court of Chancery. Now, causes were impeded through the absence of leading counsel, and replies were made to speeches, not one word of which had been heard by the barrister, who was engaged at the time in another court. Was it likely this could satisfy the conscience of a judge? He was therefore obliged to take the papers home, and thus endeavour to get at the information which it was the duty of the counsel to have given him. The noble lord then reverted to the consi terial one; namely, to see whether some means could not be devised to enable the Chancellor to devote more time to the court of Chancery than it was now possible for him to do; and hinted, that some regulation might be adopted to relieve the person holding that office from the necessity of such constant attendance in their lordships' House. It was extremely desirable that the second reading of the bill should proceed on the understanding, that every opportunity was to be given for the further consideration of the measure in its future [stages. No man could deny that something must be done with respect to the court of Chancery, whatever difficulty there might be in discovering what that something ought to be. lordships' House, as arranged at present, that sufficient time could be given in the court of Chancery by the noble and learned lord. When he first became Chancellor, in 1801, they had few Chancery appeals, few from the Exchequer, and very few from the commonlaw courts. A great deal of business belonging to the Lords was got rid of by the substitution of cases for special verdicts. There were few writs of error, and few appeals from Ireland. Since the Union, however, they had been deluged with appeals from the Irish Chancery and Ex-deration which he pronounced a most machequer. Subsequently, the court of session of Scotland was divided into two parts, and that had almost doubled the appeals. There was a proposition to which he begged their lordships' attention; namely, that the courts in Scotland should be so divided, that there should be a court of error in that country as in this, to review the decisions of the other courts. The opinion of the twelve judges in Westminster-hall generally satisfied parties, who rarely appealed from it. A similar provision would be useful in Scotland, and might prevent the accumulation of appeals from that country. The effect of the diminution of appeals would be to enable the Chancellor to be more in his own court. Their lordships would recollect, that in consequence of a measure of the late lord Liverpool, he (the earl of Eldon) was obliged to sit on that woolsack three days in the week to hear appeals to the benefit, it was true, of the appellants, but at the expense of the suitors in Chancery, and to the great detriment--he had almost added to the great scandal-of that court. There was another circumstance, to which he was glad to hear the noble and learned lord allude; namely, the regulation relative to the attendance of counsel in more courts than one. Unless there was such a regulation, the increase in the number of courts would be a great evil instead of a benefit. Perhaps no man could more justly complain of this practice than himself. It had been stated, that he had never decided any thing without looking into all the papers. How was it possible he could, unless the attendance of counsel had been regulated. The noble earl here referred to his own practice and that of sir J. Mansfield, when leaders at the Chancery bar, and stated, that they made it a rule to decline going into the Exchequer, except when they could do so Lord Redesdale said, that the increase of business which oppressed the court of Chancery was attributable to the immense increase of property of late years, to the sub-division of that property, and to the public debt, which occasioned so many trusts, and gave rise to so much litigation. When he considered all these circumstances, he was rather surprised that justice was administered so expeditiously as it was. The bill was then read a second time. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Tuesday, May 12. EAST INDIA TRADE.] Mr. Huskisson said, that although, from a consideration of the paramount importance of the subject to which the petition he was about to present related, and out of courtesy to those hon. members who were most deeply interested in discussions upon the trade between this country and India, he had thought it his duty to give notice yesterday that he should this day present the petition he held in his hand, yet he had not the least intention of anticipating the discussion which, pursuant to notice given by his hon. friend, the member for Bridgenorth, would be brought forward on Thursday. At the same time, he felt that he should not be doing justice to his constituents who had put this petition into his hands, if he did not state the grounds on which they approached this House. It would be in the recollection of many hon. members, that in 1813 the Charter of the East-India Company was renewed. On that occasion a full and extensive inquiry preceded the renewal of the Charter; an inquiry which was called for by petitions from merchants, from manufacturers, and indeed from almost all classes of the community, praying that they might be allowed to participate in the trade with British India, of which trade the East India Company were in the exclusive possession. It was not necessary for him to say much as to the result of that inquiry; and yet he must remind hon. members, that on that occasion those who had spent the greater part of their lives in Indiamen of the greatest intelligence and discernment were called upon to give evidence on the subject. And when he spoke of those who had spent their lives in the service of the East-India Company, let him be allowed to observe, that no service had been more fertile in men of talent than this service had been. In that inquiry the late Mr. C. Grant and sir T. Monroegentlemen whose opinions were entitled to the greatest respect-gave evidence which went to this point; namely, that it would be impossible, whatever freedom of trade might be permitted between this country and India, to produce any extension of trade. These gentlemen stated, that the wants of the people of India were so few and so simple, their habits had been so long formed, and the whole of their private as well as their social existence was so completely controlled by their religious feelings that any attempt to introduce among them those comforts and conveniences which British commerce might afford, would be totally unavailing, and that loss and disappointment must be the inevitable result to those who should make the attempt. It was stated, that the whole history of India confirmed this view of the subject. Those opinions, then, must have had great weight with parliament, coming as they did from the highest living authorities, and seeming also to be supported by the history of past times: but the answer of the merchants and manufacturers of Great Britain to these opinions was-"Let us make the experiment at our own risk; let us try what may be done by a class of the most ingenious, the most industrious, and the most enterprising men, in attempting to overturn the prejudices and habits of this people." The legislature partly listened to this appeal; the trade was partly thrown open, and the experiment, therefore, had been partially made. Many serious difficulties, however, were thrown in the way of these parties, who knew nothing of the country,who were allowed to form no establishments there, who had no agents there, and were subject to many other discouraging and troublesome regulations, into the detail of which he would not then enter. It was on the 1st of April, 1814, that the commerce with India was thus partially thrown open; so that we had now the experience of fifteen years by which to judge of this experiment. This was a space of time which, in the life of an individual, hardly terminated the period of infancy, but which, when considered with reference to the commercial intercourse between two great and distant quarters of the world, might be considered as little more than the hour of birth. What, however, had been the result of this experiment? Why, in 1814, our exports to the countries east of the Cape of Good Hope amounted to something more than 1,600,000l. Last year they amounted to 5,800,000l. So that a commerce had risen, under so many obstacles, from the insignificant sum of 1,600,000l. to 5,800,000Z., which was equal to one-eighth of the whole of the exports of this country to all parts of the world. The experiment had been beneficial also to the shipping interests of the country. In 1813, there were employed in the trade with India twenty-eight thousand tons of British shipping. In 1828 no less than one hundred and nine thousand tons were employed. He thought, therefore, that the views of our merchants and manufacturers had been completely realized. It had been stated, before this period, that the returns from England were habitually made in the precious metals, and that the commerce with India must therefore necessarily be confined, on account of the small amount of the returns we were able to make. This experiment, however, had effected a total tea. By reference to the act of 1745, the House would see what checks and securities had been, provided by the legislature. That act, in order that the quantity of tea might always be sufficient for the consumption of Great Britain, and in order to keep the price of that article on an equality with the price of it in neighbouring countries, made a provision that, in case of such inequality in price being manifest and considerable, the lords of the Treasury should be at liberty to grant a license to any other persons, whom they might think proper, to import tea from the continent of Europe, for the purpose of producing an approximation of the prices. Thus, then, there was a power of keeping down the price of tea; and this provision lasted until 1813, when it was enacted, that no persons other than the East-India Company, or persons having the license of the Company, should be allowed to import tea from any place to the United Kingdom. The result of this had been a considerable change in the price of tea in this country. Tea on the continent sold for little more than half the price it fetched here; and when the lords of the Treasury were called upon to grant a license to others to import tea from the continent, they found that the power was taken away from them, and that the monopoly was exclusively in the Company. In another part of the petition, with respect to the trade with China, there was a very singular complaint. It stated, that all foreign ships, and all subjects of foreign countries, were allowed to carry on trade with China with the productions of this country, and from the ports of this country, and to go from China, with their return cargoes, to any part of the world but Great Britain. Now, the merchants and the ship-owners of this country thought it extremely hard, that they alone should be excluded from a trade in which the Company did not participate, and by their admission to which the Company consequently could not be in the least degree injured. He believed that, in the last year, eleven ships of the United States came into the Thames, were loaded with goods of this country, and carried them to China; where, having made a very profitable market, they went with their return cargoes to any part of the world they pleased-except, of course, this country. It was rather humiliating to our pride and to our good sense, that English ships should be excluded from change. The commerce was not now limited by the small returns we could make, those returns being almost entirely in the precious metals; but the difficulty now was to find returns from India to Europe. A very material consideration, therefore, in the view of this question, now was, how far the trade would not be restrained by the difficulty of procuring returns from India. The petitioners likewise stated, that this extension of commerce had affected not merely our manufactures, but had included the mineral wealth of the kingdom, and that there had been large exports of iron, copper, and of other articles of a similar kind. The petitioners, however, complained of want of returns, and stated that indigo afforded the best return. The petitioners requested the special attention of the House to that part of the trade with the east which was carried on with China. It was obvious, that whatever political reasons might bear upon the intercourse between this country and our possessions in India, there were no such special considerations with respect to our intercourse with China. Except for political reasons, China ought not to be excluded from intercourse with this country. The commerce of China, however, was exclusively monopolized by the East-India Company; and if that monopoly were retained, it must be, not on political considerations, but for some other reasons. The petitioners complained, and he thought with reason, that the House, when in 1813 it greatly relaxed the restrictions on the trade with India, took the same opportunity, whether intentionally or inadvertently, he thought inadvertently, of drawing tighter the company's monopoly of commerce with China. This part of the subject the petitioners wished particularly to be brought before the House, because a remedy might be applied to it before the expiration of the Company's Charter. To make this part of the subject intelligible, he must state, that all the charters granted by the Crown prior to that of king William, contained a clause, that if the trade so monopolized were found to be disadvantageous to the Crown, the Charter might be terminated on two years' notice. Afterwards, when the Charter was granted by parliament, it was granted for periods of twenty or twenty-one years, but there was always some regard paid to the British consumer, and to the people of this country, especially in the article of |