New volumes of the Encyclopædia Britannica > Volume 30, K-MOR

144
Jessel, who held that office when the new system came
into force, regularly sat as a Judge of First Instance
until 1881 when, by the Act of that year (sec.
Chancery ^ ^ Master Qf the Rolls became a member
'V,S,on' of the Court of Appeal only, and provision
was made for the appointment of a judge to supply the
vacancy thus occasioned (sec. 3). Sir James Bacon
(b. 1798, d. 1895) was the last survivor of the Vice-
Chancellors. He retained his seat on the Bench until the
year 1886, when he retired after more than seventeen
years’ judicial service. For some reason the solicitors,
when they had the choice, preferred to bring their actions
in the Chancery Division. The practice introduced by
the Judicature Act of trying actions with oral evidence
instead of affidavits, and the comparative inexperience of
the Chancery judges and counsel in that mode of trial,
tended to lengthen the time required for the disposal of
the business. Demand was consequently made for more
judges in the Chancery Division. By an Act of 1877
(40 and 41 Viet. c. 9, secs. 2, 3) the appointment of an
additional judge in that division was authorized, and
Sir Edward Fry (afterwards better known as a Lord
Justice) was appointed. In August 1899 the Crown con¬
sented to the appointment of a new judge of the High
Court in the Chancery Division on an address from both
Houses of Parliament, pursuant to the 87th section of the
Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876 (39 and 40 Viet. c. 59), and
in the following month of October Mr Justice Farwell was
appointed. The Chancery Division, therefore, consisted
in 1902 of the Lord Chancellor and six puisne judges.
The latter are styled and addressed in the same manner
as was customary in the old Common Law Courts.1
Until lately there were only four judges of this division
(being the successors of the Master of the Rolls and the
three Vice-Chancellors) to whom chambers were attached.
The fifth judge heard only causes with witnesses trans¬
ferred to him from the overflowing of the lists of his four
brethren. In each set of chambers there were three chief
clerks, with a staff of assistant clerks under them. The
chief clerks had no original jurisdiction, but heard appli¬
cations only on behalf of the judge to whose chambers
they belonged, and theoretically every suitor had the
right to have his application heard by the judge himself
in chambers. But the appointment of a sixth judge
enabled the Lord Chancellor to carry out a reform
recommended by a departmental committee, which re¬
ported in 1885. The great difficulty in the Chancery
Division always was to secure the continuous hearing of
actions with witnesses, as nearly one half of the judge’s
time was taken up with cases adjourned to him from
chambers and other administrative business and non¬
witness actions and motions. The interruption of a
witness action for two or three days, particularly in a
country case, occasioned great expense, and had other
inconveniences. It was a simple remedy to link the
judges in pairs with one list of causes and one set of
chambers assigned to each pair. This reform was effected
by the alteration of a few words in certain rules of
court. There were, therefore, in 1902 only three sets of
chambers, each containing four chief clerks, or, as they
are now styled, Masters of the Supreme Court, and one of
the linked judges, by arrangement between themselves,
continuously tries the witness actions in their common list,
1 The comte de Franqueville comments on the misuse of the title
“Lord” in addressing judges as another anomaly which only adds to
the confusion, but perhaps unnecessarily. According to Foss (vol.
viii. p. 200) it was only in the 18th century that the judges began to
be addressed by the title of “ Your Lordship.” In the Year Books (he
adds) they are constantly addressed by the title of “ Sir.” “Sir, vous
voyez bien,” etc.
[united KINGDOM
while the other attends in chambers and also hears the
motions, petitions, adjourned summonses, and non-witness
cases.
Although styled Masters, it does not appear that the
chief clerks have any larger or different jurisdiction than
they had before. They are still the representatives of and
responsible to the judges to whom the chambers are
attached. The judge may either hear an application in
chambers or may direct any matter which he thinks of
sufficient importance to be argued before him in court,
or a party may move in court to discharge an order
made in chambers with a view to an appeal, but this is
not required if the judge certifies that the matter was
sufficiently discussed before him in chambers.
Under the existing rules of court many orders can now
be made on summons in chambers which used formerly
to require a suit or petition in court (see Order LV. as to
foreclosure, administration, payment out of money in court
and generally). The judge is also enabled to decide any
particular question arising in the administration of the
estate of a deceased person or execution of the trusts of
a settlement without directing administration of the whole
estate or execution of the trusts generally by the court
(Order LV. rule 10), and where an application for accounts
is made by a dissatisfied beneficiary or creditor to order
the accounts to be delivered out of court, and the applica¬
tion to stand over till it can be seen what questions (if
any) arise upon the accounts requiring the intervention of
the court (Order LV. 2, 10a). Delay and consequent
worry and expense are thus saved to the parties, and, at
the same time, a great deal of routine administration is
got rid of and a larger portion of the judicial term can be
devoted to hearing actions and deciding any question of im¬
portance in court. The work of the chambers staff of the
judges has probably been increased ; but, on the other hand,
it has been lightened by the removal of the Winding-up
business. The Chancery Division has also inherited from
the Court of Chancery a staff of registrars and taxing
masters.
The King’s Bench Division consists of the Lord Chief
Justice and fourteen puisne judges. It exercises original
jurisdiction and also appellate jurisdiction from
the county courts and other inferior courts,
By the Act of 1873 (sec. 45) this appellate Division.
jurisdiction is conferred upon the High Court
generally, but in practice it is exercised by a Divisional
Court of the King’s Bench Division only. The deter¬
mination of such appeals by the High Court is final,
unless leave to appeal is given by the court which heard
the appeal or by the Court of Appeal. There was an
exception to this rule as regards certain orders of Quarter
Sessions, the history of which involves some complication.
But by sec. 1 (5) of the Act of 1894 the rule applies
to all cases where there is a right of appeal to the High
Court from any court or person. It may be here men¬
tioned that if leave is given to appeal to the Court of
Appeal there is a further appeal to the House of Lords,
except in bankruptcy (47 Viet. c. 9, sec. 104 (a)), when
the decision of the Court of Appeal on appeal from a
divisional court sitting in appeal is made final and con¬
clusive. It is suggested that under the new distribution
of business in the Chancery Division, appeals from the
county courts in equity and some other matters might
advantageously go to two judges in that division.
There are masters in the King’s Bench Division.
Unlike the masters in the Chancery Division, they have
original jurisdiction, and are not attached to any particular
judge. They hear applications in chambers, act as taxing
masters and occasionally as referees to conduct inquiries,
take accounts, and assess damages. There is an appeal
LAW