xml:lang="en" lang="en" dir="ltr">

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Keep up to date with the latest news - subscribe to the Transcribe Bentham newsletter; Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts


Jump to: navigation, search

Click Here To Edit

1820. June 21.

Morn. Chron. June 21, 1820.
"King's Bench Proceedings Bill.

"The Attorney-General, in moving that the House do resolve
"itself into a Committee on this Bill, said, that he was aware
"some objections were felt to the measure, particularly by
"Members of the Bar. No one was more anxious than himself
to gratify the wishes and interests of that profession, and
if the inconvenience which might be supposed to follow the
Bill did not fall much below the good that would result from
it, he would not have introduced it. At present the Chief Justice
was not allowed to sit at Nisi Pruis for more than 14
days after Term; one of the objects of the present Bill was to extend
that time. Another object was, that two Judges of the
Court of King's Bench might be allowed to sit at the same
time to hear Nisi Pruis cases. This, he knew was objected to,
as altering the Ancient Constitution of that Court. But when
it was considered that for the last 4 or 5 years the business of
that Court had increased to a very great extent, that alteration
must be fairly allowed to be necessary, as the only way
of getting rid of that arrear. However he would only make
the measure temporary; as far as this object – he intended
therefore to limit it to two years, by which time the great
arrear of business might be hope to be got rid of. If In the
mean time, the measure should be found prejudicial, it would
of course at the end of the term cease to be law. If, on the
other hand, it were found to be beneficial, the House would
see the necessity of making it permanent.

M<hi rend="superscript">r Scarlett</hi> said that in duty to the profession of the law
he felt himself bound to oppose the Bill. It was said that business
pressed upon the Court, but if the trifling causes were
removed from that Court which were of no benefit to the
suitors, but, on the contrary ended in the ruin both of the
plaintiff and the defendant, it would relieve the Court and benefit
the public. But when it was said that the business of the
Court had greatly increased for the last years, he begged leave
to deny it (here the Honourable and Learned Gentleman read to the
House a list of the number of Causes in the Court of King's
Bench for each year, for the last ten years, in order to shew
that the business had not increased to the extent stated on
the other side.)
He agreed with the Attorney General, that
every facility ought to be afforded, in order to dispose of the
business of the Courts. And he should therefore think that the
measure ought to be more general, but the plan of having
two Judges sitting at the same time to determine Nisi Pruis
cases, would only have the effect of increasing the business
of the Court, which was, it appeared already too great, because
the greater part of the Term business at present was made
up of motions for new Trials and arguments on points of
Law, growing out of Nisi Pruis trials would previously had
therefore the increase of trials would only increase the
quantity of Term business. But why was the Court of

Identifier: | JB/109/157/001
"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 109.



Marginal Summary Numbering



Main Headings

Parliamentary Reform

Folio number


Info in main headings field

Collectanea England




Morn. Chron. June 21 1820 / King's Bench Proceedings Bill



Number of Pages




Page Numbering






Paper Producer

Andreas Louriottis


Paper Produced in Year


Notes public

ID Number


Box Contents

UCL Home » Transcribe Bentham » Transcription Desk