side of Lord Brougham's Hades, the provisions
of the Sugden Act, if carried out, would yet
demand an amount of leisure, gratuitously
employed, which the High Court of Chancery
would not probably have the power to
bestow. In January last, a nightmare of
arrears sat upon the Lord Chancellor, of eighty-
two appeals; the Master of the Rolls was
haunted by four undelivered judgments and
one hundred and twenty-five "matters of all
sorts" undisposed of. Five hundred and
twenty-eight "matters of all sorts" in arrears
oppressed Mr. Knight Bruce; whilst Lord
Cranworth came into a residuary legacy
of two hundred and twenty-one "matters of
all sorts" then to be dealt with.* These
arrears go on increasing! The Masters in
Chancery, whose alternate duty it is to
visit the prisons, four times a year, to
investigate each prisoner's case (which has
perhaps lasted through four successive reigns), are
described as working harder than day labourers.
The appointment of two extra Vice-Chancellors,
caused fifty per cent, additional "references
to the master." Yet, no additional masters
were appointed. Subsequently, the working
of the Joint Stock Companies Winding-up
Act was thrown on the same shoulders. It
has, therefore, happened that, with the
ordinary avenues to Chancery justice thus choked
up, the provisions of Sir Edward Sugden's
measure have not been complied with, upon
his own showing, in at least twenty-four cases.
* By "matters of all sorts," is meant causes for original
hearing; causes which having been once heard and referred
to the Master, are to be re-heard upon the Master's Report
on further directions; Exceptions to such Reports,
Exceptions to Answers, Pleas, Demurrers, Petitions, &c.

The case of a gentleman, who attracted
public attention about Christmas, by his
discharge from the Queen's Bench and a
subsequent indulgence in intoxication, explains how
it is that Chancery prisoners become so much
more attached to prison walls than mere
prisoners for debt. Sir Edward Sugden tells
us, that this man was committed in 1835, but
that his contempt was, in effect, purged in
1837. Here, were two years' isolation from
friends and connexions, to the severance of
every tie, to the destruction of every chance
of livelihood without the walls. Meanwhile,
he had found, perhaps, means, by industry
within the walls, to earn money; and objected
to be released. His counsel, in applying, at
last, for his emancipation, said he had remained
in custody so long, "from ignorance, and
the oversight of those who visited the prison
under Sir Edward Sugden's Act." Sir Edward
answers, that it was of no use for the Court
to cause the contempt to be purged, because
there were detainers for debts. Why of no use?
Had the Court discharged the contempt, is it
not possible that the creditors might have
ejected the man under the compulsory clause
of the Insolvent Act, and obtained his assets?
But their answer to such a suggestion would
naturally have been Sir Edward Sugden's
answer to the converse of their case—"No use.
What will it avail us, to make such an
application to the Insolvent Court, against a
prisoner for contempt?" His case was "no
doubt regularly reported fifty-six times,"
says Sir Edward; yet, it appears that the
contempt had been effectually satisfied in
1837, and that the merest form was only
necessary, to discharge its victim any day
afterwards! How searchingly the visitors,
and the court, must have done their duty
under Sir Edward's Act, in their fifty-six
visitations and their fifty-six reports!

Some seventeen years ago, a cavalry ofiicer
drove up to the Fleet Prison in great style.
He was in contempt, and remained so for
five years. During that time, his commission,
his friends, his hopes, his ordinary means of
obtaining an existence "outside" had worn
away. He might have been free; but, having,
meantime, kept life and soul together by
performing menial offices for his fellow-prisoners,
he preferred a sure crust, in gaol, to an uncertain
subsistence out of it. For the last
twelve years, he has made a living by cleaning
boots and shoes!

Some of the "twenty-four" are similar
cases. Even the committals after the passing
of the 1st William IV., c.36, engender the
same kind "fondness" for gaol life. A man in
humble circumstances is thrust into durance
for contempt, and remains long enough, in
spite of the most vigilant visitation, and the
quickest subsequent (Chancery) proceedings,
to be utterly ruined, from mere absence from
his connexions and means of livelihood. Is
not he a Chancery martyr? Is it not special
pleading to urge that, because the whole
duration of his confinement be not due to
Chancery, it was not Chancery that struck
him down, and destroyed him!

But, there are cases in which the old
grievance of "Chancery delays," locks the
door upon the prisoner for years. We
mentioned, in our former article, that an individual
who had been recently discharged, had been
confined, for seventeen years, upon a mistake.
Captain Hudson, the Governor of the Queen's
Prison, informed Sir Edward Sugden, that he
knew of no such case. We will now particularise
the case, as an instance how thoroughly
the intentions of the Sugden Act are defeated
by the mere force of delay.

Mr. George Pyne Andrews, himself a
solicitor in the Court of Chancery, and Notary
Public, residing in Birchin Lane, had a
dispute with the owners of the premises in
which he carried on his business, and filed a
bill in Chancery against them. In June 1831,
the Vice-Chancellor decreed against him, on a
matter of form, with costs: expressing, that
but for such bar, he thought the plaintiff's
agreement with the defendants gave him the
right he sought. Mr. Andrews appealed to
the Lord Chancellor, who also decreed against
him; subsequently, he carried his appeal to
the House of Lords, where it at present
remains, still undecided.