§ Against the Third Reading.
§
DISSENTIENT:
1. Because in Clause 2. the division of the so-called High Court of Justice for the convenient despatch of business into five divisional courts, to be styled respectively the Court of Chancery, the Court of Queen's Bench, the Court of Common
320
Pleas, the Court of Exchequer, and the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Court (excluding the name of the Rolls Court), and the uncertainty caused by the words in the third line of the second page, 'or to be otherwise styled in such manner as Her Majesty may, by Order in Council, from time to time determine, 'and' each of the said courts shall be presided over by a Lord President,' is no improvement on the well known division of business now relied upon by suitors; whilst the grouping together of judges, several of whom at present sit alone, is a waste of power which is unnecessary, and because the names of the heads of each court are now well known, and their duties defined, the transfer of equity jurisdiction to them may induce the framers of rules to introduce the system of Bill and Answer into courts in which the pleadings have become every year less complicated, and in such case the alteration of the system of our ancient courts will cause great delay and uncertainty.
2. Because some such improvement as the procedure in petitions of right (simplified by Lord Westbury) is needful to be known by the public before a sweeping change in Common Law Procedure is hastily projected.
3. Because if only one judge sit at all times to try civil causes, and only one judge for criminal causes at all times of the year, with the exception of legal vacations, there will be danger of having a divided bar, unless great care be taken to prevent the clashing with circuits.
4. Because the Report of the Commission upon which this Bill was founded was considered by the Law Amendment Society as the production more of a small cabinet of lawyers than of representatives of the general feelings of the Bench, the Bar, and the Legal Profession.
5. Because the Incorporated Law Society, in their last petition, attach great importance to the formation of a code which should inform the profession what course should be adopted in procedure, and do not desire indefinite improvement.
6. Because also the Incorporated Law Society have just fears of the provision for compulsory arbitration, especially by men unacquainted with the law, whose awards may not be made in a binding form; and the temptation to refer causes being very great, some check should be imposed, if not equal to the present right by either side to refuse his consent to a reference, yet sufficient to prevent the plaintiff from wishing in vain to withdraw his record, and the defendant from submitting to injustice rather than incur the expense and delay of arbitration.
§ "DENMAN."