COUNTY COURT EXPENSES.
BY degrees Parliament will stumble upon the true method of law-reform. At the present moment we hardly over notice a debate upon the subject that does not bring out the incapacity of legislators for handling even the principles of law-amendment. If Lord Chancellor Cranworth had shown no greater powers in administering the law than he does in making it, he never would have reached the woolsack. Having done so, he seems to have considered that the occupation pertinent to the position was wool- gathering. At the sitting of the Lords on Tuesday, the business of the Chancellor was to explain the bill for amending the County Courts in various small matters respecting which the local Judges have gone astray, but most chiefly in altering the mode of supporting the Courts. Hitherto they have been supported by fees to the amount of 278,0001. per annum ; which is di- vided into the expenses of the Court, the Judges' salaries, and the building of Court-houses. Government proposes to build the Court-houses and to pay the Judges' salaries; leaving the current expenses to be levied by fees. For, says Lord Chan- cellor Cranworth, it is desirable to make the Courts self-support- ing, and, while relieving the man who has suffered the wrong, to throw the costs on him who has committed it. The principle might be questioned even if the Court always did relieve the Man who has suffered the wrong and placed the responsibility upon the wrong-doer. But we know that all kinds of mistakes of teohnieal wrong, of accidents, and many causes besides injustice or wanton misdoing, may subject a man to process of law, and _compel him, when most incapacitated, to contribute through fees to the general support of justice for the country. This is unjust. It would be more reasonable to make malefactors pay for criminal courts. It is not the wrong-doer who is interested in maintaining justice and rendering it efficient ; it is in a great proportion of oases not the wrong-doer who has the means ; still less is it the innocent man who should be called upon. If the individual is benefited by the administration of justice, much more is the community at large so benefited ; for every man who goes to law is only the represent- ative of a larger class who govern their conduct by the decision in his ease ; and thus the persons who escape all process of law are those who are most interested in maintaining an efficient admin- istration of justice. There is indeed one advantage in the enforcement of fees—the cheek upon a wanton resort to law or a wanton defiance of it. But most results are better obtained by a direct than by an oblique process, and misconduct of this kind would be best checked by giving the judge the power at his discretion of inflicting a fine upon the man that wantonly engages the time and machinery of the law-court. The resort to justice ought to be absolutely free, and a man ought as little to fee a judge on receiving justice as he should be called upon to lay down two-and-sixpence when he calls out "Police !" in the streets.
Another object of the bill is to fix the salaries of the Judges ; which have hitherto been rated between the sums of 12001. and 15001., leaving to the Treasury a discretion in raising the salary. As Mr. Roebuck pointed out, this was to give the Executive the power of feeing the Judge ; a principle so vicious that it is diffi- cult to understand how both Houses of Parliament can have connived at establishing it. The Lord Chancellor, however, scruples to make " an indiscriminate rate of 15001.," because, he says, very able men can be procured at the lower salary, and in some courts the business is not heavy. Again we say, that those decisions are most valuable which prevent business in the courts ; and the worth of a judge, therefore, is not to be tested by the sta- tistics of clients that come before him, but by the clearness and sufficiency of his judgments. Still less is the worth of a judge to be appraised by the higgling of the market—as a man would buy a horse, a slave, or, may we say it, a wife. It is not what law- yers under competition will consent to take, but what secures an Independent position for an English gentleman, for the means and appliances of maintaining that position in society, and for supply- ing him with all the influences and facilities that he requires. This is the true measure of salary for ajudge ; and if the Lord Chancellor allows ohanee to fix it at 12001,4 13501., or 15001., he is in fact evading his duty. Less surprising, perhaps, though far more vicious, is Lord Campbell's argument against adopting some propositions in the bill because they were suggested by Mr. Pitt Taylor, who was in a minority among the Commissioners deciding upon the subject. Lord Campbell goes upon the principle of deciding by vote. Now this is well enough where a mere convention upon multifarious interests has to be accomplished. The representatives of the country may vote whether they will or will not adopt this or that course ; but where a clear judgment upon ascertained facts and precise reason has to be procured, you will get the best decision from the highest judgment, and the best man out of seven is more worth attending to than all the other six. It would under- mine the wholeprinciple of judicial decisions if they were un- derstood to be subjected to the ballot-box.
Previous page
