The Sun.
London, England, 1863-12-03 00:00:00

REPORTING IN THE LAW COURTS,

A very numerously attended meeting of members
of the bar took place yesterday in the Hall of Liu-
eoln's Inn, to consider the present system of pre-
paring and publishing the reports of decisions in
the variou:3 courts of law and equity. There were
present—The At t °They-General, the Solicitor-
General, Sir Fitzroy Kelly, M.P., Sir Hugh Cairns,
M.P., Mr. Malins, M.P., the Hon. Gee. Denman,
Mr. Macqueen, Q.C., Mr. Anderson, Q.C., Mr.
Baggallay, Q.C., Mr. Shapter, Q.C., Mr. Wilicock,
Q.C., Mr. Gifford, Q.C., Mr. Daniel, Q,C., &c.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Roundel' Palmer,
m.P.), who occupied the chair, said that all present
were aware of the cause of their meeting that day.
lle had received a very numerously signed requiei-
lion from members of the bar to call the present
meeting. The subject was one for the common
benefit of all, and he had invited them to come
together to discuss it. Having done what was gene-
rally required, he would call on Mr. Daniel to pro-
pose the first resolution.
Mr. DANIEL said the resolution he had placed in
the hands of the Attorney-General was, " That, in
the opinion of this meeting, the present system of
preparing, editing, and publishing the reports of
judicial decisions in this country requires amend-
ment." The question was—are the bar satisfied
with the present system ? He he.d no doubt but
that the opinion of the meeting was that it required
some amendment. If the proposition affected the
interests of those who are at present engaged in the
publication of reports, those interests should not be
interfered with without proper compensation ; but,
if in the public interest, a sweeping change should
be required, the sooner it took place the better. Our
system of law consisted of two parts, the written and
the unwritten; one the acts of Parliament, and the
other the reports. The same law or unwritten law
was left in the hands of private individuals, the pre-
sent reporters, which he considered a most fatal
system. The learned gentleman then went on to
describe the history of reporting in this country. He
said that at one period, a long time ago, the la ,V !Nos
officially reported by official persons employed by
the State up to the 27th of Henry VIII., when the
year-book ceased; the reason these official reports
ceased was that Henry VIII. had other requirements
for the public money. What was the consequence?
rhe reports became inaccurate, end loosely con-
ducted. From the time of Henry VIII. till the end
of the reign of Elizabeth there were only the works
of Plowden and Coke, which could hardly he called
reports; from the time of Sir Edward Coke we
passed to Lord Bacon, who in 15th James 1., 1617,
odtained letters patent from the King for the pur-
pose of appointing two official reporters. The reign
of Charles 1., and during the Commonwealth, was
a period unfavourable for law reporting, during
which reporting was at its worst. At the Restora-
tion, 13th and 14th Charles 11., an Act was passed,
directing that no report of law cases should be pub-
lished without the special licence of the Lord Chan-
cellor or some other judge, which continued till.
1692—he might say almost till Lord Mansfield was
elevated to the bench. But the public required the
decisions quickly reported. Under the old system
of official reporters many cases were not reported
till 20 years after the judgments had been given,
and when the judges were dead. In 1822 a gentle-
man of the name of Paget, a solicitor of great expe-
rience, knowing how difficult it was to obtain re-
ports at any reasonable time after judgment, started
a paper called the Law Journal, In this
tion the members of the profession could stain, at
a small cost, and more accurate thPM from news-
papers, and with greater expedit'ion than from the
authorised reports, the various decisions of the
judges in the different courts. In 1832 a new and
better system was established. Sixteen gentlemen
of the bar were employed in reporting for this pub-
lication. We had now what were called authorised
reports, which were, however, nothing more than
private undertakings for commercial profit; and
he contended that the decisions of the judges
in all great cases should not be entrusted to
private enterprise, but should be paid for and
published by the State. There were now the Jurist,
Law Times, Weekly Reporter, New Reports, S:c.,
all the offspring of competition, and the Law
Amendment Society had called attention to this
fact in 1849. The evil was one of long standing.
Everyone complained of the system, and ho con-
tended that the State was in fault. Ia 1853, Mr.
E wart gave notice of a motion in the House of Com-
mons on the subject of law reporting, but the sub-
ject was so dry that he believed the motion had
dropped. In bringing forward the question, he
assured the members of the profession that he had
no object except to benefit the bar; and he was
certain that the present system might be improved
by them to their own advantage and the public
benefit.

Sir FITZROY KELLY said that the deep interest
he took in this subject induced him to second the
resolution, and he was glad to sea the meeting so
numerously attended by the members of the profes-
sion. Ho went on to say that the evils had been
pointed out, and it was fur them to consider what
was the best remedy. He thought there should be
one report only of each decision. At present there
were conflicting reports of the same judgments de-
livered by the same judge. There were often five
or six reports of the same case in different public
tions,each of which was materially different. His
opinion was, that if official reports were published
within three months of the judgment, the public,
as well as the profession, had a right to insist that
these reports should be issued in the cheapest pus
o
sible form. He thought a committez
with power to communicate with the
be appointed to consider the matter. eonfch, thesh bar,ul
d
Mr. GEMMET opposed the motion on the ground
contended
of monopoly. He that law reporting
was in no way different from other literary pub-
lications.
Mr. WEBSTER admitted that the present system
was bad, but he said the proposed measure would
not give us bar reports but judge-made reports. He
was that liberty not prepared to deny to the bar
which they had so long enjoyed. No one ever
could in this country prevent competition,
The
Hon, GEORGE DENMAN said that, in
op'llion if the reports were settled by the judges it
werewatched
would be most unsafe. At present they
by a most intelligent class of men, who
reported all
that took place in court, which, in his opinion, was
a great check upon the judges,
and he for one did
not believe that we could do anything to improve
the present system. It would
indeed be a bad
system to trust to the judges for reports, or trust to
the officials whom it was proposed to appoint. They
would have no interest •in furnishing accurate re-
ports. Tne guarantee for accuracy was competition.
If the present reports were not correct, no one
would buy them, and the present proposal would
interfere with free trade in reports. He protested
against the state
paying for reporting. In his
opinion the State had nothing to do with reporting.
Mr. INCE said he considered the general public
hail nothing to do with the question. The profes-
sion had nothing to find fault with in the present
reports, which had existed for 30 or 40 years. He
did not think that we ought to disturb the present
system.
Mr. MALINS would not sanction a monopoly in
law reporting. He believed that the system of re-
porting was best when the sayings and doingso. the
the judges were reported. He strongly ed of
idea of appointing a Government reporter. His
opinion was that the committee about
propose no to be ap-
pointed
would report that they could
better system of law reporting.
_7..11_ e
and Mr.
Mr. Tennison Edwards, Mr. Wt k
W. G. Harrison addressed the meeting amidst cries
of " divide."
Sir HUGII CAIRNS had a preposition to make
which would not require a speech. He moved that
a committee of members of the bar be appointed to