§ LORD CAIRNSsaid, that in order to prevent any misunderstanding as to what had been said by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack last night, and also on a former occasion, he wished to make one or two observations. Out-of-doors there was an impression that his noble and learned Friend had submitted his Bill for a new Court of Appellate Jurisdiction and other Law Bills to the Judicature Commission, and that they had been considered by a Committee of that Commission. Now, as a Member of the Commission, he (Lord Cairns) knew that no Bill had been submitted to it by his noble and learned Friend, and, consequently, no Bill of his noble and learned Friend 223 could have been referred by the Commission to a Committee of its Members. What private communication his noble and learned Friend might have had with Members of the Commission he had no means of knowing; but beyond the Report of the Commission, made now two years ago, there was no responsibility on the part of the Commission in respect of any Bills introduced by his noble and learned Friend. He wished to call attention to another error into which he believed his noble and learned Friend had fallen. It had reference to the appellate business of their Lordships' House. His noble and learned Friend was reported to have said some time ago, that when he first took his seat in that House the appeals were two Sessions and a-half in arrear. He (Lord Cairns) was surprised when he read that statement, because it did not at all accord with his recollection. He now held in his hand a Return, which showed how the apppeal business stood at the beginning and at the end of the Session of 1868, when he had himself the honour to occupy the place now filled by his noble and learned Friend. From that Return he found that at the beginning of the Session of 1868—the Session immediately preceding the advent of his noble and learned Friend to the Woolsack—the number of appeals set down for hearing was 42, and the number heard during the Session was 38—leaving 4. He did not like to state positively the reason why those four stood over, but he believed it was because the parties objected to their being taken up at a late period of the Session. He thought, therefore, that that Return showed that the information obtained by his noble and learned Friend must have been erroneous.
§ LORD WESTBURYwished to ask his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, whether he was correctly reported this morning as having said last night that—
On Thursday next he would make a statement on the subject of the Bill for the establishment of a new Court of Appellate Jurisdiction"—Did not his noble Friend state that he would bring in the Bill on Thursday evening?
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he would have been glad if his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns) had given Notice of that part of his Question 224 which related to arrears of appeals in their Lordships' House. Not having had such Notice, he had not been in a position to make the necessary inquiries; he would, however, do so, and state the result, if necessary, on a future occasion. He thought there must be some fallacy lurking in the figures. Certainly there must be some difference in the way by which the Return quoted by his noble and learned Friend had been arrived at, and that by which the arrears to which he had referred on a former occasion had been calculated. But, as there had been no Notice, he was not prepared at the moment to explain the discrepancy, and must reserve his answer on this point. As to the other part of his noble and learned Friend's Question, he had to reply that on the first occasion of his reference to his Bill and to the Judicature Commission, he did not say that the Judicature Commission had been engaged in preparing Bills which he intended to introduce. On that occasion he said nothing of the kind. What he did say was, that during the Recess a number of gentlemen, Members of the Commission, had voluntarily formed themselves into a Committee, and had most kindly gone through the Bills to which he was referring. These gentlemen were Lord Justice James, Baron Bramwell, Mr. Justice Quain, and Mr. Hollams. They were members of the Commission, and though they were a self-appointed Committee for the purpose of going through the Bills, he did not think he had fallen into any great errors in his statement. They went most carefully through the whole of the Bills, and made a great number of useful alterations and suggestions and improvements in them. In reply to his noble and learned Friend (Lord Westbury), as to the words attributed to him in the report published that morning, he had to say that the report was perfectly correct. The report most correctly made him say that he would make a statement on Thursday, and not that he would bring in the Bill on that day. He could not have made the latter promise last night, because he had discovered that previously to bringing in the Bill he must move a Resolution, and this he intended to do immediately after the Recess. On a former occasion he stated that he would bring in a Bill, and he had hoped and believed that he 225 would be able to bring it in before Easter. But, on a full consideration of the matter, be found that a previous Resolution would be necessary. He hoped their Lordships would not be of opinion that any apparent delay arose from negligence on his part in the performance of his promises. Both his noble and learned Friends were aware from experience of the amount of business which the Lord Chancellor had to get through, in addition to the duties which he had to perform in that House.
§ LORD CAIRNSsaid, his noble and learned Friend's explanation was, as he expected it to be, perfectly satisfactory. His noble and learned Friend was quite entitled to ask any of the members of the Commission to give him such assistance as that which had been rendered by the learned Gentleman he had referred to. The misunderstanding had been that the Bill had been submitted to the Commission, which had referred it to a Committee.