of Legal Reform. Indeed the act of 1833 was virulently opposed and much mutilated.

By section 28, vacancies amongst the Six Clerks were not to be filled up, until the number was reduced to two. This salutary provision stopped at least, the future breed of the feemongers of the Six Clerks species.

Although Lord Brougham's Act, of 1833, effected much good, and gave additional facilities to the suitors, and in some cases reduced the expense of proceedings nearly one half, yet far more remained to be done, by cheapening and improving the procedure of the Equity Jurisdiction. Complaints of delays were frequent, and the true source was not exposed, or, if understood, was not made public.

POWER OF REFORM WITHOUT LORD LYNDHURST'S ACT OF 1842.

Most of the evils might have been removed by a reform in the Six Clerks' Office, and by alterations in the mode of procedure.

The Sixty Clerks being only solicitors of the court, with privileges not participated in by the profession generally, might have been removed by an order of the Lord Chancellor, and a reasonable compensation allowed to them; or, the Lord Chancellor might, by an order, have given the same privileges to all the solicitors of the court, who had not "seats" in the Six Clerks' Office, enjoyed by

those who had seats. The monopoly usurped by the Six and Sixty Clerks might have been abolished at far less cost. This, however, would have been an advantage to the solicitor only, and not to the public, unless the amount of the charges had been further reduced.

The Lord Chancellor had, unquestionably, as much right to open the Court to the profession generally, and to break down monopoly, as Lord Keeper Bridgman, in 1688, had to extend the privileges of the Six Clerks to their Under clerks.*

In 1743, Lord Hardwicke, by order, settled a new scale of fees. Lord Erskine, by his order of 1807, increased the fees, which chiefly occasioned the excessive gains. Lord Lyndhurst, by order of 3rd April, 1828, abolished the fee for attendance in court-without compensation. What prevented the Lord Chancellor from undoing, or regulating by order, the acts of his predecessors ?

Mr. Pemberton Leigh, in his speech on the 5th of August, 1840, commenting on the returns of the Six Clerks, (moved for and obtained by Mr.

* In 1668, the privileges of the Six Clerks were extended to their Under Clerks, and from that period they were Solicitors of the Court with seats. This alteration led to a great increase of their number, which fact being brought to the attention of the Court, such number was reduced to sixty. During the Chancellorship of Lord Jefferies, the business of the Court requiring additional Solicitors, their number was again increased to ninety, the Court reserving to itself the power of thereafter reducing or increasing such number.

Aglionby), says, "these returns, I confess, have

filled me with astonishment, and I think will occasion some surprise to the House;" and he further characterised them, as shewing "at once the enormity and iniquity of the tax which is thus levied on the suitor." Nevertheless, we find the enormity and iniquity now fixed on the Suitors' Fund!

The duty of keeping the records might also have been deputed to the Six Clerks, and their sinecures abolished, by restoring their ancient duties. The expensive corps of Record Clerks would thus have been rendered unnecessary. .

Solicitors should also have been compelled to deliver to opposite parties copies of pleadings filed by them, at 4d per folio, and the practice of the Court in this respect, assimilated to that of the Courts of Common Law.

Such latter alteration, would have effected a great saving of time and expense, and suits might have been prosecuted for half, if not a third of the pre

sent cost.

The charge for all copies of documents to the solicitor is now 10d. per folio, which copies are not warranted correct; and if they are examined, 2d. extra per folio!

Solicitors, by such an alteration, would have derived an increased profit, and have been liable for the consequences of any mistake in the copies delivered, and a suit might have been conducted at less than half the present cost, and terminated in

less than half the time of the present average duration of Equity Suits.

Without a partial repeal of Lord Lyndhurst's Act, this is now impossible.

The reforms above suggested, it is presumed, were those contemplated by Lord Cottenham; since, to remove any doubt as to the Lord Chancellor's authority, two Acts of Parliament passed,—one on the 10th of August, 1840, and the other on the 21st of June, 1841, which invested the Great Seal with full authority.

There existed abundant means of information from which Lord Cottenham, if he had continued in office, might have effected his object. The Eleven Masters in Chancery, who are generally gentlemen of competent talent and legal experience, have each a chief clerk (a Solicitor), and who would all have doubtless given practical information and suggestions; but the political changes which took place, prevented Lord Cottenham's accomplishment of the contemplated further reforms. The same means of information were open to Lord Lyndhurst.

It is worthy of remark, that, by Lord Cottenham's Act, 3rd and 4th Victoria, cap. 94, sec. 4, the Lords of the Treasury were empowered to fix the amount of compensation after an examination of the party upon oath; and the same test of pecuniary rights, with the precaution of Treasury check and * 3 & 4 Vic. c. 94. and 4 & 5 Vic. c. 52.

responsibility, was provided in Lord Brougham's Act of 1833.

THE ABOLITION OF THE EQUITY JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER, 1841.

On the 5th of October, 1841, an Act passed* abolishing the Equity jurisdiction of the Court of Exchequer, and transferring it to the Court of Chancery,

By this Act, two new Vice-Chancellors and many additional Officers were appointed, means being provided for a more expeditious hearing of

causes.

The Lords of the Treasury were by that Act, sec. 55, empowered to award compensation to persons whose Exchequer offices might be abolished, and who might not be appointed to any other office under the new Act.

LORD LYNDHURST'S NEW CHANCERY "REFORM" ACT OF 1842.

The Clerks in Court, and fortunate individuals of the Six Clerks' Office, had for years been setting their house in order, under the sagacious apprehension of the approaching suppression of their order.

A material object with them, as before shewn, was to lay the foundation of a goodly compensation. *5 Victoria, cap. 5.