ABOLITION OF IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT, ETC.
WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837
In the preceding session a bill for the abolition of imprisonment for debt had passed the commons; but from the lateness of the session it was not possible for the lords when they received it to take it into consideration. The lord-chancellor took up the subject himself in this session, and a bill similar to that passed by the commons was read a first time in the lords on the 30th of June. It is unnecessary to give the details of the measure as it was not permitted to pass. Indeed the house of lords seemed determined to avenge itself upon the ministry which carried the reform bill, by rejecting every measure it introduced, except where the feeling of the country was too strongly in favour of such measure. On the second reading, the Duke of Wellington objected to taking up at that late stage of the session a measure involving such extensive interests, and introducing a new system of law. His grace moved, that the bill should be read a second time that day three months; and his motion was supported by Lords Abinger and Wynford, who considered it not as rejecting any measure founded on the principle of the bill, but only as postponing the subject till they could give it due consideration. Lord Melbourne agreed that the weight of business pressing on the house was great; but he did not see anything in it to deter them from proceeding with the bill. The proposed delay, he said, would only carry them to the 1st of August; and there was no probability that parliament would be prorogued by that time. On a division, however, the amendment was carried; and, although the session continued till the 20th of August, the subject was not again brought forward.
In his speech from the throne the king had recommended to parliament “to consider whether better provision may not be made for the speedy and satisfactory administration of justice in some of the departments of law, and more particularly in the court of chancery.” These words had been used in reference to an intention entertained by government of dividing the office of lord-high-chancellor, distributing his functions between two judges, one of whom should be devoted to legal duties, and be irremovable; while the other should retain the patronage and political functions of the office, and should be liable to be dismissed with the ministry who appointed him. On the 28th of April, the lord-chancellor brought forward the measures by which this great change was to be effected; and he founded the necessity of such measures on the increase of business which had taken place in the court of chancery, both in its original and appellate jurisdictions. On the second reading, Lord Lyndhurst objected to these bills in point of principle. The necessary effect of the measure would be, he said, to divide the office of chancellor, and to disqualify him from exercising that very appellate jurisdiction to which he was devoted. This separation was most mischievous; and he, therefore, moved that the bill should be read that day six months. On the other hand, Lord Langdale did not consider that the bill went far enough. He held it, he said, to be indispensable that the judicial functions of the chancellor should be separated from those which were not judicial: and that the appellate jurisdiction of the house of lords ought to be placed under the superintendence of a judge having no connexion with politics. Lord Abinger and the Duke of Wellington supported the amendment; the latter remarking that it was important that the most eminent lawyer in the country should occupy such a position in the councils of his majesty as would give those councils substantial benefit from his assistance. Lord Melbourne contended that the house could do no wrong in going into committee on the bill; but on a division the amendment was carried by a majority of ninety-four to twenty-nine.