As both James Oldham and Joshua Getzler show in their perceptive and helpful comments, much work remains to be done on the history of both the nineteenth-century Chancery and the wider law reform movement. My discussion of the inconclusive nature of the political debate about Eldon's arrears leads Oldham to ask whether the Chancellor was really overburdened and whether the appointment of the Vice Chancellor was as counterproductive as many contemporaries claimed. On the first of these issues, the data show that while Eldon was in general able to deal with the caseload before him, it was in the 1810s—when “by a series of most important decisions, [he] systematized the law of bankruptcy”—that a dramatic arrear in appeals developed (see Figure 5), which contributed to the political pressure on him in the following decade. Oldham shows from a survey of his notebooks that Eldon heard roughly fifty cases a year from 1801–13; while according to official returns, in the 1820s, he heard more than forty appeals each year. But between 1813 and 1819, the number fell to about twelve cases a year. On the second issue, the data show that the creation of a Vice Chancellor did have an impact, but a relatively modest one. Lacking the distractions of the Great Seal, he could hear more original business; and cases set down and heard in Chancery increased by about 40 percent in the decade and a half after his appointment. While the number of appeals also increased, both numerically and proportionally, they remained at manageable levels.
The Narrowing of the Gender Wealth Gap across the Nineteenth-Century United States