PALACE COURT (WESTMINSTER) BILL. (Hansard, 11 June 1849)

§ LORD DUDLEY STUART
moved for leave to bring in a Bill for giving a person sued in the Palace Court, Westminster, a right of election to he sued in the county court of the district in which he resided. The evils of the Palace Court were so notorious, that it would be unnecessary for him to make more than a few observations in order to point them out to the House. He hoped it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to offer any opposition to this Motion. If there were any any benefit greater than another which a Government could confer on the inhabitants of a country, it was that of bringing cheap justice home to every man's door. Now, the Palace Court prevented that from being done. It exposed those who were engaged in litigation to enormous and most disastrous consequences. The fees which were charged in that court were ten times as large as those charged in any other of the courts that took cognisance of similar causes. The consequence was, that being a court for adjudication of cases in whtch the demands were of small amount, those wretched persons who were dragged into it, were frequently reduced to absolute ruin. It was quite enough for a plaintiff to bring his cause into the Palace Court to insure to himself a verdict. The defendant had only to consent at once to what was demanded of him; because it was notorious that the verdict was always in favour of the plaintiff. So much was this known to be the case, that the court was commonly called "The Plaintiffs' Court." The public had been made familiar with the case of the celebrated writer Jacob Omnium, who in a case with a horse-dealer involving a sum of only 2l. 17s. had to pay a bill of costs amounting to 21l. He would ask if this was not oppression that demanded instant redress? In the Palace Court a person was not at liberty to choose his own attorney, but must employ one of a few enjoying a monopoly of the business of the court; and there could be little doubt that the attorneys enjoying this monopoly paid others in the shape of agency to induce suitors to bring cases nto tnat court. In the county 1435 courts the process was simple, and the costs small; and he therefore thought liberty should be given to persons sued in the Palace Court to transfer their cases to the county courts. As he understood that the hon. and learned Attorney General did not intend to oppose the Motion, he would simply move for leave to bring in a Bill.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL
would not oppose the introduction of the Bill. He did not deny the grievance of which the noble Lord complained; but there were difficulties in the way of a settlement. There were six attorneys, four counsel, a judge, and sundry officers who had purchased their places at a considerable price, and to whom compensation, in the event of the court being abolished, would require to be given. He had had the circumstances connected with this court under consideration, and it was his intention to bring in a Bill to meet the exigencies of the case, but hitherto he had not found time or opportunity to do so. The best course would be to abolish the court. That was the object he had in view, but he had not yet been able to overcome the difficulties that lay in the way.

§ MR. B. OSBORNE
said, he wondered that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General was not aware that under the 7th and 8th of Victoria, cap. 106, compensation had been already given to the parties to whom he had alluded. Many of these persons had already received much larger sums than they had paid for their privileges. The House had already paid 5,000l. in compensation to that court, and he held in his hand a return that had been laid before the other House of Parliament, from which it appeared that one of the at 1436 torneys of that court had been paid 3,000l. odd as compensation. But he could prove that the court had been illegal from its origin. It was established in the 16th of Charles II., and it had, he believed, ever since continued to tax the people by fees without the sanction of Parliament. He thought that it would be better not to bring in a Bill at all, but to withdraw the patent under which the court was held.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that the Palace Court had been recognised in a variety of Acts of Parliament, and it might be urged that Parliament should not, therefore, treat it now as an illegal institution.

§ MR. REYNOLDS
rejoiced that his noble Friend had taken up this question, and he hoped that the House would also consent to abolish the twin sister of this court—he meant the Record Court in Dublin, and that the public would not hear of any unjust provisions for giving compensation to parties connected with it. There could be no nuisance abolished at the present day without an outcry being raised for giving some parties or other compensation.

MR. HENRY DRUMMOND
said, he apprehended that courts of justice were not established for the benefit of judges and attorneys, but for the benefit of the public.

§ SIR G. GREY
hoped that it would be understood that his hon. and learned Friend had not alluded to the subject of compensation as a matter of right towards these parties.