COMMON LAW COURTS.

HL Deb 30 June 1837 vol 38 cc1711-3

Lord Denman, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that it was to abolish certain offices in the common law courts. It was stated by Sir Robert Peel, when moving for the Commission out of which the Bill rose, that one great object of it should be to lay a ground for future legal forms, and for that purpose it would be necessary to abolish certain sinecure offices, for those offices would be found great obstacles to the projected reforms. The Commissioners, after some time spent in inquiry, sent a communication to the Treasury, stating that it would be advisable that nineteen offices should be abolished in the King's Bench, and twenty-one in the Common Pleas; that the expense of compensating the former would be about 31,000l., and of the latter about 11,000l. They also recommended a more simple mode of doing the business of the courts. The plan was brought under the consideration of the judges, and it was their opinion that there should be five masters for each of the courts, that all the others should be abolished, and the parties compensated on the principle of the former Bill. A bill embodying this plan had been introduced by his learned Friend (Mr. Sergeant Goulburn). It had been stated that the three chief judges of the courts would not consent to abolishing so much of their patronage, unless five masters were appointed to each court. That was a most unfounded statement, and he could assure their Lordships that there had not been, as far as he was concerned, (and he was sure he could say the same for his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer and for his right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas,) that there had been no consultations or bargainings on the subject. He was not even acquainted with the Bill until after it had been brought into the other House by his learned Friend Mr. Sergeant Goulburn, who was kind enough to submit it to his consideration. The object of the Bill was, as he had already stated, to abolish a great number of offices in the courts, and in their place to substitute five masters with 1,200l. a-year in each court. Another object would be a saving of the money of the suitors, and a more uniform system of taxation in all the courts. The noble Lord concluded by mentioning the names of the gentlemen whom he bad appointed; and then moved that the bill be read a second time.

Lord Ellenborough

The grounds on which the noble and learned Lord had offered the Bill to their Lordships were, that it would be an improvement in the system of business in the courts, and would effect a considerable saving of money to the suitors; but he submitted that these objects could not be gained by the Bill as it now stood. The only real benefit which he saw likely to result from the Bill would be that of an uniformity in the system of the taxation of costs in all the courts. As to the abolition of offices that had been provided for by the bill of 1825, which declared that a certain number of sinecure offices should be abolished on the expiration of the lives of the present occupants. Again, under the Act of the 3rd Geo. 4th, the judges had the power of fixing the fines to be received by the officers of their respective courts, and according to that Act there was no reason whatever why they should not make such reductions as they considered necessary. It was, therefore, merely a pretence to bring forward such a magnificent preamble as was prefixed to this Bill, as the same objects might be effected by acts which were already in existence.

Lord Wynford

remarked, that many duties formerly discharged by officers appointed for that purpose had ceased. For instance, all real actions had been abolished, and the duties of the officers in the Court of Common Pleas who were engaged in attending to the proceedings connected therewith had ceased with them. The principal merit of this Bill appeared to consist in establishing one uniform system of taxation in all the three courts, and this was in itself a sufficient recommendation.

Lord Langdale

said, that with reference to the objection which had been made elsewhere, that the Bill went to appoint five principal officers, whereas the Commissioners in their Report only recommended four, it seemed to him much more desirable that a court should have too many officers than too few, in order to avoid delay. The principal difficulty, which he found in the Bill, was in the clauses relating to compensation. He must say, that it appeared to him to be unjust to impose the expense of such compensation on the persons who were hereafter to become suitors. Compensation was to be made out of the fee fund, provided that fund was sufficient, thereby throwing the whole burthen and the whole expense on the suitors. In his opinion, the fees ought to be reduced to such a point as would be sufficient to pay the general expenses of the court, and the compensation should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund.

Lord Abinger

was favourable to this Bill, as it tended to assimilate the practice of the courts; but he did not approve of that part of it which disappropriated the officers from the courts to which they belonged. They would not know where to take their seats. The Master of the King's Bench would be dancing attendance in the Court of Exchequer, and the Master of the Exchequer would be sitting in the Common Pleas. In short there would be a perpetual maze of confusion. He objected to any attempt to make the officers common to all the courts, although he had no objection for officers of one court to revise the taxation of another.

Bill read a second time.