The Sun.
London, England, 1862-04-11 00:00:00

COURTS OF JUSTICE (MONEY) BILL.

On the order for the second reading of the Courts of Jus-
tice (Money) Bill,
Sir W. HEATHCOTE observed that this measure,
which tended to create a very lax ge charge, in opposition to
an adverse report of the Treasury, required explanation as
to the circumstances that called for it.

Mr. COWPER said he had explained those circum-
stances when he moved for leave to introduce the bill. He
suggested the advantages that would result from better ac-
commodation being provided for the courts, and from their
being brought into junta-position, which would be of pecu-
niary value to suitors. Looking at the subject in all its
aspects, the measure was, ho said, a most important legal
reform. He proposed that this bill should be referred to a
select committee, which would ascertain the real amount
of the charge the whole scheme would throw upon the
country, adding some details on the subject of the charge
to those he had given on the introduction of the bill. The
maximum charge upon the Consolidated Fund would be
£45,000 a year, subject to reduction and ultimate extinc-
tion, as the compensation allowances, amounting to
£59,000 a year, gradually fell in. H e was aware that the
Society of Lincoln's, inn desired to keep the equity courts
within the precincts of their inn; but this desire did not
meet with favour from the whole profession, and could not
be set against the great advantages of bringing all the
courts and offices under one roof in a convenient site.
Mr. SELWYN believed that this measure would involve
the country in a very heavy expense. The effect of the
guarantee undertaken by the Government was of serious
importance ; the calculations formed by the Treasury stated
the result at upwards of £1,000,000, which considering the
condition of the national finances, was of great moment.
He disputed Mr. Cowper's assumption that the suitors'
fund belonged to nobody, and contended that Government
would be bound to provide for claims. If the bill passed, it
would arrest the improvements in the Court of Chancery,
applying the funds for the benefit of other courts. As to
most of the Chancery Courts, there was, he said, no neces-
sity for any alteration. He justified the claim of the Society
of Lincoln's-inn to retain those courts within their limits,
and objected to the accumulation of all the courts in one
site. He moved to defer the second reading for six months.
Mr. PEEL, confining himself to the financial part of the
question, stated very clearly the nature and amount of the
two funds—the Suitors' Fund, and the Suitors' Fee Fund
—and showed that the liability of the public would not be
greater than had been estimated by Mr. Cowper.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY took a very different view of the
financial part of the question, believing that the measure,
deemed by some of the judges of the Court of Chancery un-
necessary, would impose an enormous charge upon the tax-
payers of the country. He should therefore support the
amendment.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER admitted
there was a prospect of a considerable charge, against which
there was, however, a set-off, and he thought it extremely
desirable that a committee of the house should have an op-
portunity of examining the whole question, The Govern-
ment believed that this was a measure of the greatest public
importance, and were willing to encounter, and to advise the
house to encounter, some risk, taking precautions to meet it.
Mr. BOUVERIE thought the set-off would prove illu-
sory. Law reform might be bought too dear, and he thought
tho present was not a time, with an unfavourable balance-
sheet and the prospect of a large expenditure, to embark in
so costly a scheme. The object itself had never been suffi-
ciently discussed, and it was not of such immense value as
to justify so large an outlay at the present time. He sup-
ported the amendment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, declining the financial
question, replied to the objections offered by Mr. Selwyn to
the proposal to apply the Suitors' Fund to the building of
the Courts, contending that the origin of the fund was en-
tirely Parliamentary, and that the suitors in the Court of
Chancery had no rights, in relation to the fund, distinct
from those in the courts of law. The profession generally
were in favour of better courts, and of a concentration of
the courts, and, if the cost should be greater than was ex-
pected, the object would be worth the money.
Ikir..MALINS believed there was a general concurrence
of opinion in favour of the proposed scheme as far as the
law courts were concerned ; but there was no occasion to
spend one penny for the Courts of Chancery, which disposed
of one- third of the judicial business of the country, and
which had been, or could be, provided for by the aid of
Lincoln's-inn.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL observed that the ques-
tion divided itself into two—the object in view, and the
means by which it was to be obtained. As to the first,
there could not, ho thought, be two opinions of its import-
ance to the profession and to the public. As to the second
question, the ways and means, he maintained that the funds
proposed to be applied to the object were as much public
property as the C,rAolidated Fund itself, and as much at
naittee:
the disposal of Parliament ; and that the object was of
greater public importance than any other to which the
Fund;;
a3t. were applicable. Some of the points mooted in the
he remarked, could be considered in the select cora-
_ ._nd the house wou.d have again an opportunity of
"ircl..f.nn g the subject.wererlo7l‘n.LPOLE said, as prudent men, if our finances
a flourishing Courts of chall state, and four out of the six
theyrY wrere admirably situated, they should
hesitate before
of houses, and build' new
to pull down a vast number
far excel
courts, at an expense which be
was convinced would
rit the estimate. Admitting
the object to be a good one,
Was not the time. In the
present state of our finances he wo,iid
not .
sibility of approving what be em.l,l_ incur the respon-
'rel an extravagant
proposition.