§ Mr. Casberdrose, in consequence of his notice, to move for leave to bring in a bill to facilitate the progress of business in the court of King's-bench, in Westminster-hall. The present means of transacting the particular business to which his motion referred, were wholly insufficient. Redress of the evil could be obtained only by adopting one of two courses: either by an internal arrangement in the court itself, or by a different distribution of the business. The sort of business transacted in the court 355 might be considered in one of two points of view: either as formal, or as substantial. A priori, it would appear, that the formal business ought to be made to yield to the substantial. The reverse, however, happened to be the case. The putting in and justification of bail, as a matter of necessity, must precede every other business. The hon. and learned gentleman here explained the way in which this took place. The accumulation however of this business delayed, he said, the other proceedings of the court. Without going out of his way to bestow a panegyric on the learned judges of that court, for their anxiety to do all in their power to facilitate the business of the court, he would say, that they had done every thing they could to remedy this particular evil. They had allotted a period out of the vacation, in order to bring up the arrears of the preceding term. This, however, proved an inadequate and an inconvenient proceeding. Inconvenient, as it required the attendance of persons who at that time were wanted elsewhere; inadequate, as no judgment could be given until the ensuing term. Some more efficient remedy was therefore desirable; and that which he wished to propose, appeared to him to be both simple and unobjectionable. He proposed that it should be made competent to one of the judges of that court to sit apart for the purpose of receiving justification of bail: and that during the interval in which he was so engaged, it should be competent to the other judges of the court to sit in banco, and proceed as usual. At present, it was true, that one judge sat in the court to receive justification of bail, but he was considered by the law as the representative of the whole court; and although the other three judges came down to Westminster-hall, they remained during that period in their own room in inactivity and suspense. He was not one of those who thought that the legislature ought to be called on to interfere on trifling occasions. But this was a serious evil. It was one too which was rapidly increasing. In the last twenty years, the justifications of bail had increased threefold in number. In 1795, they were only 700; in the last year they amounted to between two and three thousand; and were any alteration to be made in the insolvent act, that number would in all probability be still further augmented. It was therefore a serious and a permanent evil; loudly calling for a legislative re- 356 medy. If he were asked, if the plan which he had just suggested was the best that in his opinion he could suggest, he was free to admit that he should reply in the negative. Were it not for a consideration which he would presently mention, he would have taken the liberty of recommending, that a power should be vested in the court either to set one of the judges apart in the way he had described, or to appoint a commissioner to receive justifications of bail in the place in which the judges now sat. To this, however, he was aware that an objection would lie. A commissioner so appointed must of course have a salary; and as the expense of that salary must mediately or immediately be defrayed by taxation, it might be said that the present were not times in which it would be wise to increase the public burthens. He might be asked, why he confined his proposition to the court of King's-bench, and why he did not extend it to the courts of Common Pleas and Exchequer. To this he would answer, that he wished clearly to see his way in any measure that he ventured to propose to the House. With the practice of the court of King's-bench experience had rendered him familiar. He knew that the evil there was grievous, and required immediate remedy. Of the practice in the courts of Common Pleas and Exchequer he did not profess to know so much; but he did not believe that the evil was so severely felt, especially in the latter court. If, however, it should appear advisable, it would be very easy to include those courts in the provisions of any act which parliament might think proper to pass on the subject. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded by moving, "That leave be given to bring in a bill, to facilitate the progress of business in the court of King's-bench, in Westminster-hall."
§ Mr. Lockhartallowed the magnitude of the evil which had been described by the hon. and learned gentleman. He doubted, however, whether it was advisable to make the decisions of the court of King's-bench legal, when only three of the judges were sitting. Our ancestors had felt the importance and value of ordaining that there should be four judges in every one of the three courts of law. The hon. and learned gentleman, however, proposed to ratify, by a legislative provision, the absence of one judge. Cases, however, might frequently arise, in which the presence of four judges would be of great consequence 357 to the liberty and property of the subject. At present, when two of the judges disagreed with the other two, no judgment was given. There might be cases of great importance, in which, by the proposition of the hon. and learned gentleman, the decision would be thrown into the hands of two of the judges, when it would be extremely desirable that it should remain in those of the whole four. In his opinion, therefore, the appointment of a commissioner would be the preferable mode of remedying the evil; and the expense of such an appointment could not by any means be weighed in the scale with the benefits that would be derived from leaving all the four judges on the bench.
§ Leave was given to bring in the bill.