§ MR. BOWYERsaid, as he had a question to put, which would require a short statement, he would, to be in order, move that the House do adjourn. It related to the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords, as exemplified in an appeal in the case of Grey and others v. Pearson, which had been decided in the House of Lords on the previous day. It had been argued in favour of the creation of Lord Wensleydale, that such creation would facilitate the hearing of appeals. Now, the appeal in question was one from Lord Justice Turner, who was known as a Judge of great ability, to the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor took a different view of the case, and varied the judgment. The case was then brought by appeal before the House of Lords. It was heard by the Lord Chancellor, sitting in appeal from his own judgment, by Lord St. Leonards and by Lord Wensleydale. The Chancellor adhered to his former opinion. Lord St. Leonards delivered an opinion against the Chancellor, supporting his view by several strong decisions—among others, one of Lord Hardwicke's. Lord Wensleydale concurred with the Lord Chancellor. Now, Lord Wensleydale was, no doubt, an able common law Judge, but he had been all his life engaged in common law, and had no experience in equity. The result was, that Lord Justice Turner, a great equity Judge, and Lord St. Leonards, another great equity Judge, concurred in their opinions; while, on the other side, there was the Lord Chancellor, assisted by a common law Judge. Both the bar and the public would give preference to the opinion of Lord Justice Turner or Lord St. Leonards over the Lord Chancellor. Here was the fact, that two eminent Judges in equity had pronounced an opinion which was set at nought by one equity Judge, assisted by a common law Judge. Last year he himself had pointed out the probability of the very case which had now occurred. He would ask the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary whether, under these circumstances, the Government were not of opinion that much remained to be done before the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords would be in such a state as the wants of the country and the administration of justice required; and whether he would next Session bring forward a measure for the constitution of an appellate court of ultimate resort which 2398 should be fully adequate to the performance of its important duties?
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the question seemed to him an extraordinary one. He could not say, because a case was decided yesterday by the House of Lords, that therefore great changes were required in its appellate jurisdiction. He knew nothing of the case but from the statement of the hon. Member, and there was nothing in that statement to lead him to such a conclusion. Two noble Lords had decided against one in a minority. This was a case of frequent occurrence, and did not convince him that any great changes were necessary in the jurisdiction of the House of Lords. He did not think that the House would usefully occupy its time by discussing the merits of particular Judges, and endeavouring to provide that, contrary to the general rule, the opinion of one Judge should prevail against those of two others. So far as he was concerned, he did not think that the circumstances of this case rendered necessary any interference with the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords.
§ MR. BOWYERexplained that he did not complain of the decision of the House of Lords being given by the majority; he complained that the decision was made by an equity Judge, sitting on appeal from himself with a common law Judge who never practised or sat in a court of equity, against the opinion of two great equity Judges, one in the House and the other in the Court below. The casting vote was given by a common law Judge.