COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 4 July 1876)

SIRHENRY JAMES
wished to observe that the present condition of our judicial administration was very unsatisfactory. It was clear that we did not at present possess suitable machinery for the speedy administration of justice, and therefore it was necessary that those who had practical knowledge of the subject should lend their aid in improving the system. An opportunity for doing this was afforded by the introduction of the present Bill, and he felt certain the Government would carefully consider any suggestion which might be made. Under this Bill a serious question arose as to the constitution of the Intermediate Court of Appeal. For his own part, he should have preferred one Court instead of two Courts of Appeal, but the House had already given its decision on that point, and therefore it would be useless for him to argue it. In his opinion, the Intermediate Court of Appeal had proved to be very inefficient, although the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had argued that that Court had satisfactorily discharged its duties. The inefficiency of the Court was due first to the want of numerical strength; and, secondly, to the want of personal direction. There was no member of this tribunal, with the exception, perhaps, of Lord Justice Mellish, who had been a practising member of the Common Law Bar, and, therefore, the authority of the Court was the less respected when they overruled Common Law judgments. Under the 14th section of the present Bill provision was made to strengthen that Court by adding two permanent and fixed Judges, who, however, were not to be appointed until the death or resignation of certain members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The appointment of the new Judges ought not, in his opinion, to be deferred until that contingency occurred. He had consulted with many of his learned 983 friends, and he believed that his views would meet with considerable, if not entire, concurrence from the legal Members of the House. The remedy he ventured to propose might at first sight appear to be of a somewhat dangerous description. He thought that permanent and fixed Judges should sit in the Court of Appeal, as great inconvenience arose from a Judge sitting as a Primary Judge one day and as an Appellate Judge the next. An Appellate Judge ought to be an Appellate Judge for all purposes. He suggested that two members of the Bench in the Common Law Division of the Supreme Court of Justice should be taken from the Primary Court and transferred to the Appellate Court as permanent and fixed Judges. It would be necessary for Her Majesty's Judges to apply themselves to this work, not according to old precedents, but according to the necessities of the time. It would never do to allow our Courts of Nisi Prius to be less than six in number, but many cases which were now argued before three Judges sitting in banco might well be disposed of by one. This would secure a great saving of time and economy of judicial power, and it could not be said that this was a new principle, for it had always been adopted in the Chancery Courts. By this arrangement they might have two Divisions of the Appellate Court always sitting. He would also allow one Judge to take special cases on the Crown Paper. Three Judges might be allotted for sitting at Chambers and at the Central Criminal Court. By this means they would have sufficient numerical strength on the judicial bench and justice would be better administered than at present. He had reason to believe that the suggestions he had made pointed in the direction of a great reform. It might not be beneficial to the Bar, and it might find but little favour with the Bench; but it would meet with the approval of the suitors who were asking, and asking in vain, for justice. He hoped the Government would not shrink from dealing with the subject in the manner it deserved

§ MR. FORSYTH
moved the adjournment of the debate, the subject raised by the hon. and learned Member being one of great importance, on which several Gentlemen intended speaking.

§ SIR GEORGE BOWYER
seconded the Motion.

§ MR. MORGAN LLOYD
asked that the debate might be fixed to be resumed before the Members of the House who were members of the Bar went on Circuit.

§ MR. DISRAELI
said, the debate would be resumed at a Morning Sitting on Friday.