§ The following is a more correct report of Mr. Allen's Speech, on the 11th of March, on the Welsh Judicature Bill, than the one given at p. 926.
§ Mr. Allensaid:—I rise, Sir, to object to the present bill, partly because I consider all its provisions trivial, useless, or pernicious; but principally because its main object appears to be, not so much to improve the judicature, as to extinguish a question of far greater importance, the expediency of maintaining or abolishing the Welsh judicature.
This subject has been repeatedly discussed in this House and in committees above stairs. The Welsh judicature has been condemned by Mr. Burke, by Lord Colchester. It was recommended to be abolished by a committee of this House in 1818, and lastly by a report of a committee laid on your table in 1821, which, after condemning the Welsh judicature in every line, concludes with stating, "that though some of its minor defects might be remedied by legislative enactments, yet that others, the removal of which are essential to the due administration of justice, could not without such changes as would virtually amount to an abolition of the judicature."
I shall take the liberty of referring to 1485 this report as a test to try the merits of this bill. I shall examine, in the first instance, whether the defects pointed out by the report are serious impediments to the due administration of justice; and, secondly, whether they are at all remedied by the present bill. The principal defects noticed in the report, relate to the situation of the judges, whose opinions as advocates may be taken in those very cases in which they will afterwards decide as judges. Moreover, in the intervals between the circuits, they must either act as counsel, which may give rise to improper connexions between them and the attorneys who practise in their courts; or they must pass the far greater part of the year unexercised in any legal employment; in which case I perfectly agree in the opinion with a king's counsel examined by the committee, "they would, in a very short time, become totally unfit for the exercise of their important duties." Another great inconvenience arises from the judges never changing their circuits; so that in cases of new trials moved for in consequence of misdirection of judges, the cause must be heard again by the same judges. None of these defects are attempted to be remedied, or even noticed, by the bill now under consideration.
These three are the whole proceedings of the Welsh courts of equity: but, of the present eight Welsh judges one only has had any considerable experience in the high court of chancery. The counsel who attend are generally a few of the junior and unexperienced chancery lawyers—(for the profits of the chancery business in the principality are not sufficient to make it worth while for any man in considerable business to attend)—and the solicitors have no means of learning their profession by the scanty equity practice of the circuit. Yet, in a court so constituted, a gentleman who lives in the principality may be obliged to defend the most important interests of character or fortune. The bill takes no notice of these great and glaring defects.
The report of 1821 notices also the inconvenience arising from the manner in which causes are hurried on to trial, in what are called the new issues: that is, when issue is joined after the judges enter the circuit-town, and when the attornies have only four-and-twenty hours to draw their pleadings, summon witnesses and prepare briefs, and respecting 1486 which they complain, that they have not time to do justice to their clients. This has been sometimes absurdly praised, as part of the commendable expedition of the Welsh circuits. But, there was no subject on which the Welsh attorneys were more unanimous, than in condemning a practice, which obliged them to compromise causes after all expenses incurred, because they had not sufficient time to prepare them properly for trial.
The honourable member also pointed out, at some length, the tendency of the judicature to increase the number of the attorneys, and multiply petty litigation. If (continued the honourable member) to none of these defects which I have enumerated, and which have been pointed out by the report of the committee of 1821, the present bill affords any remedy, what are, it may be asked, its provisions? It calls upon the court of Exchequer to summon its witnesses and to punish contempt of its authority. As far as these provisions are calculated to give activity to the equity proceedings of courts so constituted as the Welsh courts of chancery, their operation will be pernicious. Those courts are only tolerable, because they are inefficient and inactive, and by connecting them with the court of Exchequer, you will only add to their prolixity and expense. The bill also provides, that the judges should make rules and orders in the intervals between the circuits, but provides no place for their meeting. The only clause in the bill which has given it any popularity, is that provision which ordains, that the sums paid for fines and recoveries should be the same in Wales as in England; and yet, so confused is that enactment, that I cannot understand the grammatical construction of the words, whilst an act for the same purpose, the 31st Henry 8th, clearly and intelligibly provides, that the king's silver and other fees shall be paid, as is used in the Common Pleas of Westminster." I have no doubt, therefore, if the inhabitants of the principality are compelled to defend their property from the rapacity of the king's revenue officers, they will rely upon the intelligible words of the bill of Henry 8th, and not on the "proportions and similitudes" of the bill now under consideration.
It may be, Sir, necessary here also to notice, that this bill admits the inferiority of the Welsh judicature, as compared 1487 with the English, by leaving open the courts of the English circuit for the trial of all important causes. Are, then, the Welsh to be perpetually condemned to suffer from a less perfect administration of justice than that which prevails in England? Is a judicature stigmatized as this is, by the report of the committee of 1821, to continue without any attempt to improve its constitution? When it has so recently been proclaimed, on the part of his majesty's governments that beneficial changes are to take place to lessen the expense and prolixity of proceedings in the courts of Westminster hall, are the inhabitants of the Principality alone, to be refused any participation in those desireable arrangements?
I know, Sir, that it may be required of me, within these walls, as it has often been without, to present to the House some intelligible and practicable plan of reform. If we cannot have a full participation in all the benefits of the British constitution, we may approach very near it, by an alleviation of our present system, to which I cannot foresee any solid objection. The outline of the plan I would propose is, to let the records proceed from Westminster hall, to be tried on the Welch, as they are now on the English circuits: to reduce our circuits to two, one for north, and one for south Wales: to let our judges sit under the same commissions as the English judges do, and reduce their number to four; 1488 and to divide among the four judges, the salaries now distributed to the eight. This would allow about 2,400l. per annum to each of the judges; and such a salary would command some of the best abilities in Westminster hall, particularly if the Welsh judgeships were, as in that case they necessarily would be, the first step to the English bench. We should, in that case, immediately get rid of our vagrant courts of chancery; our judges would change their circuits; and, in cases of new trials, there would be different judges to re-hear the causes. The whole system would be under the superintendance of Westminster hall, in which, applications for new trials would be heard and determined; and the Welsh would be exactly on the same footing as the English, with respect to the administration of their laws, except the rank of their judges. The attornies must, in that case, be admitted in the courts of Westminster, and the increased expense would gradually diminish their number, and lessen petty litigation.
If gentlemen will look to the report of 1821, they will see, that this plan remedies all the defects of the Welsh judicature pointed out by the committee; whereas, the present bill notices none of the most material ones, and attempts only some trivial and unimportant alterations. I therefore, Sir, move "that it be read a second time this day six months."