Skip to main content


By August 18, 2022essay代写



1.Introduction英国法律essay范文The development of judiciary, to some degree, is the history of law-reforming phylogeny. In 19 century, abolishing formalism, which is the main contents of the civil law reform, began in British. In this reform, equity law and common law were conflated and the court instructures were improved.

From Glorious Revolution to the publication of Woolf Report in 2008, law reform ranged throughout the 19th century and 20th century. It included not only legal institutions reform, but also innovations on legal methods and juridical authority and so on.

2.Background of law reform2.1The Glorious RevolutionThe Glorious Revolution, also called the Revolution of 1688, was the overturn of King James II of England in 1688 by a union of Parliamentarians with an invading army led by the Dutch stadtholder William III of Orange-Nassau, who, as a result, ascended the English throne as William III of England. The expression "Glorious Revolution" was first used by John Hampden in late 1689, and is an expression that is still used by the Westminster Parliament.

The Glorious Revolution is also occasionally termed the Bloodless Revolution, albeit inaccurately. In England there were two significant clashes between the two armies, and anti-Catholic riots in several towns. There was also the Williamite War in Ireland and serious fighting in Scotland.The revolution also led to the collapse of the Dominion of New England and the overthrow of Maryland’s government.

2.2The Economic Institutions of Capitalism:social premiseAny revolution in the realm of the superstructure depended on social-economic development and change. Basically, the Capitalist economy system led to the law reform of British in 19 century.

This new kind of economic foundation of society demanded on matching superstructure. However, as one of the main contents of superstructure, the judiciary, was still of much ingrained feudalistic overtones and could not accommodate itself to the needs of social development .

Narrow-ranged Common Law adjustment and judicial proceeding rigidity became burning questions. A large amount of New-Type social relations were excluded from either remedy or compensation. Equity law, the original correction and supplement of Common law, nevertheless, became stiff and trivial when the rules of equity decided. Discrepancies between Common law and Equity law often backfired because the same suit get a contrary outcome of court decision. The most typical example was the action about corporation. A Company Limited directors were always dual-identified. They were not only Nominee Shareholder, but also the trustee. This discrepancy led to conflict of laws.

Moreover, traditional judiciary used to be complex and inefficient.From the user’s perspective:" the justice system is frequently weakened by: Long delays; prohibitive costs of using the system; lack of available and affordable legal representation that is reliable and has integrity; abuse of authority and powers, resulting in unlawful searches, seizures, detention and imprisonment; and weak enforcement of laws and implementation of orders and decrees."

3.Evolution and content The 19 century law reform was not a concentrated historical event,but a continuous historical progress running through the whole century. On the basis of different emphases, the whole progress can be divided into 3 stages.Before the 1830s, the first stage, was the start of law reform. From the 1830s to the 1860s was the second stage of reforming proceeding. And after the 1870s the law reform focused on court system and judiciary, which of course, is deemed as the third stage of law reform.

3.1 Launching of law reformThe British government aimed at exposed judicial problems and took action to them since the early 19th Century. There were several diseases of traditional judiciary in general: juridical; ossified proceeding; inefficient judgment and high cost; incomplete police and backward carceral system.

The main reform measures were as follows:In 1800,the government promulgated a decree and strengthened stipendiary magistrate system,which the central government reinforced local juridical administration.The Lord Chancellor was the official head of the Court of Chancery. But because of being a cabinet member as well as the Lord, he was too busy to preside juridical affairs all by his own. The government created vice chancery lord in 1813 to assist the chancery lord. It was helpful for reducing backlogs and overcoming the shortage of juridical officials.

In 1819,the government ordered abolishing the benighted Trail by combat to reduce wrong cases.

It is easy to see, overall, the law reforms at that time were usually aimed at concrete problems. The problems were always on a small scale and lacked general plans.

Another bafflement was the traverses from rightists. Proceeding from their own interests, the rightists tried every means to prevent law reform. However, as promoted by the reformists, several judiciary committees were set up, carring out investigations about law reform. For example, a judiciary committee set up in the 1820s made 2 report. Following it, the other judiciary committees submitted 6 reports since 1829. These reports uncovered the legal diseases at that time, offering advise and providing the direction for law reform.Therefore, let us not go into the question how small the actual effect of those reforms was, this stage indicated the start of a great reform.

3.2 .Reform in proceedingThe law reform between 1830s to 1860s focused on how to simplify common law and equity court’s proceeding. Some problems about juridical organization were also included. reform about proceeding in Common law Court.As noted already, the diseases of Common law were primarily owning to the rigmarole writ system, so that the key focus of Common law proceeding reform was the reforming of writ system.It was mainly through the following 5 ACTs: A.1832<Writ of Summon>.To solve the issue that different court had different proceeding, the government abolished a variety of actioninpersonam. When taking a legal action to 3 common court, the united writ system should be adopted. This new writ system was relatively simple, delivering the case to dependent directly instead of signing of the court hearing the case(except for chancery court) .B.1833< statute of real property prescription>Abolishing nearly almost the whole writ systems of real action, the government only preserved 3 kinds of important immovables proceedings. This reform greatly simplified the procedure of real action.C.1833<Civil Procedure>This ACT evolved from 1832<Writ Summon>, revoking the ancient Wager of Law and authorizing Judges to develop procedure. It was the revolution that substituting the previous defense procedure for the simplified system.D.1852<Common Law Procedure ACT>The 3 above mentioned reforms of law were still fragmentary and brushfire to a certain degree. The formalism of writ system and complexity of proceeding did not change significantly, failing to achieve the aim of giving the disease a radical cure.Consequently,in the 1850s, the government appointed several new Judiciary Committee once again to propel reform. Among them, the Judiciary Committee who was responsible for Common Law Court achieved the most remarkable success. The Judiciary Committee did research into proceeding, lawsuit Practice, system of advocacy, circuit of trail system and litigation cost, and was subordinating to Common Law Court of Westminster. Then,they submitted the first report to Parliament in 1851. This report contributed to the generation of <Common Law Procedure ACT>. This innovation of proceeding is very thorough especially considering the inner part of it. Innovations of the report includes: revoking all extra procedure steps, deleting some indigestible hypothesis in law, substituting increasing judge’s income for receiving gratuities from litigant and so on.According to the needs of society development, some new law clauses, for example, the Contract law and the Tort law have been enacted.E.1852<Common Law Procedure ACT>In 1853,the High Court Judiciary Committee submitted another report, analysing some defects still existing in the judicial fields.The report alleged that , jury system was not suitable for all the lawsuit system. Jury system should be reduced and limited, not only good for the lawsuit efficiency, but also for the quality of jurors. reform about proceeding in Equity law Court.The reform about proceeding in Equity was also based on Judiciary Committee report, and decrees promulgated by Parliament.

In those early years, reformists believed that the medieval process followed by Equity Court was too backward to fit for modern society development, by inspecting the history of Equity Court scrutinizingly.

The Lord Chancellor was a member of the Cabinet and, is legally responsible for the efficient functioning and independence of the courts. Formerly he was also the presiding officer of the House of Lords, and the head of the judiciary in England and Wales at that time. But the judges in Equity Court were only a few, which resulted in an inefficient proceeding and arrears of cases. In their report in 1830, delay of cases had been confirmed by a real lawsuit.

In1852,<Chief Justice’s Litigation Regulations> cancelled the feudal writ of summons, which the Equity Court had used for a long time. At the same time, a new type of summon in writing generated, attaching to indictment. This act also authorized Equity Court to resolve legal conflict in the process of lawsuit whenever necessary. On the face of it,the ACT innovated mainly in judicial procedure of Equity Court, eliminating source of Equity Court diseases to a great extent.

To sum up, from 1830s to 1860s, the procedures of two courts have been transformed more thoroughly. On the one hand, the writ system of Common Law Court has been eliminated on the whole; on the other hand, the indictment procedure of Equity Law Court has been simplified greatly. The whole proceeding took on a brand-new look.#p#分页标题#e#

However, in terms of the juridical organizations, the disorder and power abuse were still very serious problems at that time. Consequently, law reform in the next step played an essential role to adjusting juridical organizations.

3.3.Adjustment of court systemActually, adjusting of court system had started form 1830s and 1850s. At that time, the main content of adjustment was establishing Country Court, Court of Probate and Divorce of Court.

3.3.1.Setting up Country CourtAncient British Country Court declined gradually since the 13th Century. By the end of the 18th Century hardly played a big role. Then, many low-expense and effective Quarter Sessions have been swallowed up by Common Law Court and Circuit Court. Consequently, the local Juridical organizations used to be paralysed basically for a long time. It created great inconvenience for litigants.

In 1863, parliament enacted <the County Court Regulations> about Country Court and the new court established.Although the name of the new court was followed by the ancient Country Court,but "there was no connection between them, because these newly-emerged country courts were not divided on the basis of geography" Civil claims with an amount in issue under £20 were dealt with in the County Court originally. After 1850, the amount expended to £50 .

The Country Court charged low and closed cases effectively, which contributed to cutting down the proceeding period, reducing long-pending cases. Therefore,Country Court developed quickly.

3.3.2.Establishment of Court of Probate and Divorce CourtSince the Middle Ages, litigations about probate and marriage were always falling within the scope of ecclesiastical Court of Arches and the canon law of the Church of England..

In 1857, Parliament enacted <The Matrimonial Causes Act>. The Act created a new Causes and gave it jurisdiction to hear and decide civil actions for divorce. Further, it gave rights of audience both to common law barristers and civil law advocates, removing the advocates’ previous monopoly in divorce proceedings.

In the same year, Parliament also passed <Court of Probate Act>, transferring responsibility from the ecclesiastical courts of England and Wales to a new civil Court of Probate. It created a Principal Probate Registry in London and a number of district probate registries.

3.3.3.Advice on incorporateing Common Law Court with Equity CourtDiseases of traditional dualistic court system had became a cause for concern since the 1850s. The Juridical Committee taking charge of investigating Common Law Court and Equity Court proposed combining the two courts into a single unite.The <Common Law Procedure Act> in 1853 and the <Chancery Amendment Act> in 1858 had an initial try on the merger. However, it was almost impossible to remove the dead hand of state from enacting acts and reform.

In Common Law Court, the power of obtaining evidences compulsorily, was used effectively. However, the power of enacting injunctions and constraining power of judgment in Equity was limited to a great extend. In Equity Court, the power ,enacting injunction of Common Law, have been used very well. However, the authorizing methods caused much compliant among people.The Jury system was still resisted by judges and lawyers, existing in name only. Despite the fact that the above-mentioned ACTs made a big difference to proceeding, the juridical organizations remained orderless just as in the past.

Therefore, the Judiciary Committee submitted 5 reports to Parliament from 1867 to 1873 in turn, advocating the merger in both jurisdiction and procedure.

3.3.3.Establishment of Supreme Court.According to the reports submitted by Judiciary Committee, Parliament enacted <Judicature ACT> in 1873. The objects of the act were threefold:A. reduce the historically independent courts of common law and equity into one supreme establish for all divisions of the court a uniform system of pleading and provide for the enforcement of the same rule of law in those cases where chancery and common law recognised different rules.In this way, the two cofigurative court systems combined into one. Then,the Great Britain achieved complete reunification in court in court system.

By the Act of 1873 the Court of Chancery, the Court of Queen’s Bench (or King’s Bench, when there is a King), the Court of Common Pleas, the Court of Exchequer, the High Court of Admiralty, the Court of Probate and the Court of Divorce and Matrimonial Causes were consolidated into one Supreme Court of Judicature, divided into two permanent divisions, called "the high court" with original jurisdiction, and "the Court of Appeal" . The <Judicature of Act> came into focus on 1st January 1875.From 1873 to 1875, another part that the Supreme Court established was Court of Appeal, taking charge of appeal cases from Supreme Court and the courts belonging to it. Court of Appeal was the appeal body for civil cases, which accepted appeal cases from Country Court, Supreme Court, National Industrial Relation Court and Administrative Tribunal.

Witness and jury were not required in appeal proceeding, the judges heard the facts upon the first trail notes. Only in some particular situations, for example,the wrong corroboration of witness, Appeal Court would call the witness or order the first trial court hearing de novo.

After 1875, something new happened in court system in succession. In 1880, the former Common Pleas and Exchequer Divisions were merged into the Queen’s Bench Division. And then, courts subordinating to High Court shrank to 3 divisions. They were the Queen’s Bench, the Chancery Court and the Family Court.After the adjustment, both the Common Law precedent and the Equity precedent could be used in every apartment of High Court. The conflict between two courts subsided.Among the 3 courts belonging to High Court, the Court of Queen’s Bench was the most crucial centre court. The Court of Queen’s Bench consisted of the Lord Chief Justice and 13 puisne judges, exercising original jurisdiction and also appellate jurisdiction from the county courts and other inferior courts, in practice being exercised by Court of Queen’s Bench only. There were masters, judges with special knowledge in the Queen’s Bench Division. The Court of Queen’s Bench masters had original jurisdiction, and were not attached to any particular judge.

英国法律essay范文The Chancery Court was "the court with significance of modern Jurisdiction, the reform established." The Chancery Court dealed mainly with claims arising out of trusts and mortgages; actions arising out of contracts related to land. It also exercised jurisdiction on taxation, partnership and so on.

Another goal of <judicature ACT> was unifing the principles of Common Law and Equity Law. Lord Selborne said that:" With the unification of court system, the principles of Common Law and Equity should be unified gradually." According to <Judicature ACT> act25 and act23, when the Common Law principle came into conflict with Equity principle, the Common Law principle should submit to the equity.

3.3.Reform of House of LordIn the late 18th Century and the early 19th Century, the House of Lord, as the highest Court of Appeal in UK, would not satisfy the need of social development because of long-standing abuse.Firstly,appellate jurisdiction enjoyed by House of Lord was restricted to Equity Court. The functions were partially inevitable to some degree. Secondly, the quality of decisions were not very good. Even a ignorant of law Lord, a layman,could attend an appeal trail.

In August 1876, the <Appellate Jurisdiction Act> was passed by Parliament, providing for the right of appeal ."House of Lord exists as a final appellate court to any court in England, Wales and Scotland" Then, the House of Lord established itself as the final appellate court, and the court of appeal existed as media for appealing. Since then, cases could be appealed from High Court to Court of Appeal. If a party refused to accept a judgment, one would still keep on appealing to House of Lord.

To increasing judicial efficacy and ensuring judicial impartiality, <Appellate Jurisdiction Act> regulated that:"Unless 3 noble Justice entry of appearance,or the appeal could not in process. " And then, the jurisdiction of House of Lord was fastened on expert 。.

3.5.Reform of Jury SystemSince the later Middle Ages, the Jury system had become the crucial method of all the judicial adjudications in Great Britain. However, with the development of society, the traditional Jury system left much to desired. High expense, low efficiency and irregular quality of jurys would not ensure judicial openness, impartiality, and seriousness. What is more serious was that the judge always influenced the juror’s independent judgment in some wrong ways, for example, giving his own opinions on evidence. In practice, the juror was inspired by the judge about his judgment and at judge’s beck and call, doing the verdict what the judge suggested.

The <County Juries Act> in 1825 sought to enhance the qualifications and quality of special jurors by requiring them to be merchants, bankers, esquires, or persons of higher degree. The 1825 Act also established a system of anonymous balloting in the selection of jurors, which was aimed at ending jury packing.The second reform came in the <Juries Act> in 1870, which introduced further procedural rules governing special jurors, and altered the qualification requirements for special jurors.

3.6.Constitutional Reform

The Britain has been undergoing a period of constitutional reform gradually since 1997. The process was radically distinctive in the democratic world, in that it has been changing the historic constitution. Some of the new constitution will be familiar to the United States’, in aspect of power allocation, coming a long way in separation of three powers. As a result, Britain is in the process of fashioning a constitutional system which is more reasonable.#p#分页标题#e#

3.6.1.Constitutional Reform Act 2005This act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom was originally introduced in the House of Lords on 23 February 2003 and proposed the following, much broader, changes:.A.Establishing a "Supreme Court of the United Kingdom" and moving the Law Lords out of the House of Lords to this new court..B.Exterminating the office of "Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain", generally known as the Lord Chancellor.C.Other measures relating to the judiciary, including changes to the position of the Lord Chief Justice and changes to the Privy Council’s Judicial Committee

It provided for a Supreme Court of the United Kingdom to take over the existing role of the Law Lords and some powers of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and remove the functions of Speaker of the House of Lords and Head of the Judiciary of England and Wales from the office of Lord Chancellor.

The Law Lords kept their judicial roles in the new Supreme Court even thought the the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords was abolished. New members of the Court would not take the peerage and would be named Justices of the Supreme Court. The Lord Chief Justice replaced the Lord Chancellor as governer of the English judiciary.

3.6.2.Features of Modern Court SystemAfter these reform,the legal institutions of United Kingdom became more and more well-ordered. The court system entered a new period. In principle,court system has the following features:

A.There is no judiciary in England and Wales. Dualistic court system was implemented for a long time in the history of England and Wales. Court of common law and Court of equity law worked in his own system and each acted things in his own way. In the 19th Century, these two courts combined into one after the judicial reform. But no central administration of judicial was built up .The judiciary is not existed, even to today, the administrative power was implemented by the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary in England and Wales.

B.According to the relationships between higher and lower legal organization,the British Courts can be divided into Centre Courts and District Courts.The Centre Courts judged the civil and criminal case trails together, or process the civil case and criminal case by civil court and court of criminal respectively. House of Lord, Supreme Court and Judicial Committee of the Privy Council were included in the Centre Courts.The District Courts judged the cases by their natural. Country court was in charge of the civil cases and Magistrates’ Court was responsible for the criminal cases.

C. The Supreme Court was made up of High Court, Court of Appeal and Court of King’s/Queen’s Bench. As a result of House of Lord, the Supreme Court was just the highest court nominally, who can not implement the highest judicial authority. It is also a characteristic of British legal system.

D. Cases which accepted by courts can be classified as civil cases and criminal cases.指导essay The legal organizations and judicial proceedings also varied according to the nature of cases. However,the distinguishing of these two cases is not absolute in practice. Then a appearance occurred that many criminal cases can be accepted in the civil court and many civil cases can also be received by the criminal court.

英国法律essay范文4.ConclusionLaw reform"accomplished a real reform and modernlization on law", said a French jurist.Particularly,at first, the British established a unified and orderly modern juridical structure.Secondly, the reform ended that the Common law and equity exist as independent players.integration and completion of legal system.Thirdly, the relationship between substantive and procedural law had been adjusted.At last, the law reform promoted forming contemporary society of the rule by law in Britain.


Author admin

More posts by admin