HC Deb 11 July 1851 vol 118 cc568-9

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read a Third Time."

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, that he did not mean to object to the third reading of this Bill, but he protested against the mode adopted of paying the Judges, who ought not to be paid out of the Suitors' Fund, but out of the Consolidated Fund. He protested also against this measure being considered as a reform in the Court of Chancery. He did not deny that two new Judges might not palliate some of the evils which arose from the delay of business in that Court; but he hoped the Government would bestow their serious attention upon the evils of the present system, and devise some speedy remedy. Don't let the Government imagine that, having passed this measure, they had settled the question of Chancery reform, or any thing of the sort. The present fee system, with its 100 fees, and its 40 feetakers, was one of the grand bases of the mischief, and must be utterly removed, and an end must be put to the anomalies and mystifications, and corruptions, and extortions of the Suitors' Fee Fund and the Suitors' Fund. It was but last year that he had presented the petition from the Corporation of Hastings, stating that an unopposed claim for 136l. cost them 189l.

MR. HUME

was of opinion that the Suitors' Fund and the Suitors' Fee Fund might be consolidated with advantage.

SIR GEORGE STRICKLAND

protested against this Bill being considered any answer to that demand which was now so universally made for the reform of the Court of Chancery. He quite agreed with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon (Sir J.Graham), who had stated that this was beginning at the wrong end. It was necessary to reform altogether the system which caused such ruinous delay. His opinion was that, instead of being any real benefit to the people, this Bill would only add to the grievance of which they already complained. He knew of an instance in which the Court of Chancery took nine years to decide whether it had jurisdiction over a cause. The matter was ultimately tried in a Court of Common Law, and the whole merits of the question were absolutely disposed of in nine hours. The preliminary point of jurisdiction would have been decided by a Judge at Chambers in ten minutes or a quarter of an hour.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

had not at all put forward this measure as the Chancery Reform Bill which was required to meet the case. The question of fees was one which merited the amplest consideration, and he should be most glad, when the materials were before him, to apply his best efforts to remedy every evil connected with that and all other branches of the system.

MR. ALCOCK

said, he felt bound to complain that no provision was made by the Bill respecting the Church patronage of the Lord Chancellor.

MR. SPEAKER

intimated that the hon. Member was out of order, as the patronage of the Lord Chancellor had nothing to do with the question before the House.

MR. SLANEY

said, he did not mean to oppose the Bill. But as he had been the Chairman of a Committee for inquiring into the mode in which the suits of persons engaged in commercial transactions were conducted, he felt it his duty to warn the House and the Government of the pressing necessity of passing some measure for facilitating the settlement of those suits. No judicial arrangements could be more cumbersome, expensive, and unsatisfactory, than the present mode of terminating before the Court of Chancery disputes which arose out of commercial partnerships.

Bill read 3°, and passed.