MR. OSBORNE MORGAN, on rising to call attention to the great and increasing delays which have arisen in the administration of justice under the recent Judicature Acts; and to move
That, in the opinion of this House, the evil can only be adequately remedied by an increase in the strength and of the judicial and administrative departments of the High Court of Justice proportioned to the increase in the work imposed upon them,said, that whatever differences might exist as to the Resolution which he had placed upon the Paper, no one could doubt that the time had arrived when 965 we might fairly and usefully review the operation of the Judicature Acts. These Acts had been in operation nearly a year and a-half, as legal years went, and it was not therefore too soon to take stock of their operation, and see how far the predictions which had been indulged in when they were under discussion had or had not been realized. Now he was bound to say that in one respect the working of the Acts had very agreeably disappointed public expectation. It was said that the Judges could not safely be trusted to administer the new system until they had been educated up to its level. As far as his experience went no prediction could have been more unfounded. The Judges had set to work honestly and loyally to carry out the new Acts, both in the letter and in the spirit—both in the rules which they had framed, and in the mode in which they construed the rules and the Acts themselves; and the consequence was that the new system had worked far better and more smoothly than anyone could have anticipated. How then, it might be asked, was it that everyone was complaining already of "the breakdown of the Judicature Acts?" That was a question which he would endeavour to answer before he sat down. Now, some of his hon. Friends might remember that, when the Acts were under discussion, he had pointed out that the result of improving their judicial system in the way they proposed to do, would be to attract to the Courts business which had never found its way there before; and, in that event, was it not to be expected that our existing machinery, which had been found barely sufficient for our existing wants, would break down under the additional strain thus imposed upon it? That apprehension was founded upon an assumption no doubt paradoxical in itself, but which was abundantly justified by experience—namely, that, up to a certain point, the result of every improvement in the administration of justice was not to diminish but increase litigation. The fact was—humiliating as it was to admit it—that there were until very lately in England thousands of persons who deliberately consented to have their pockets picked, simply because they were more afraid of the law than of the law breaker. And, really, when he looked back at the reports of cases decided some 20 or 30 years ago, and saw how the ingenuity 966 of Judges and counsel was strained to muddle away the merits of a case—how every importance was attributed to technicalities of pleading and practice, and none whatever to the right and justice of the case, he could scarcely wonder that a man having to choose between injustice and that sort of justice, should deliberately come to the conclusion that upon the whole injustice was the lesser evil of the two. Well, but they had changed all that. It was scarcely too much to say that recent reforms had made our judicial system, once the most technical and artificial in the world, one of the most simple and certain. For the first time in its history a suitor might feel confident that ho would not be turned out of the Temple of Justice, because he had got in by the wrong door; and that, if his case had any "merits," those merits would not be overlooked, and the result might be seen in the increase of business to which he had called attention. Now he was far from thinking that such an increase was matter for unmixed regret. On the contrary, he thought that, so far as it showed that the public were beginning to put more confidence in the administration of justice, it was matter for congratulation. But before coming to figures, he wished to advert to another circumstance which had helped to aggravate the existing block of business in one important branch of the High Court. Before the passing of the Judicature Acts, cases in the Court of Chancery were usually decided on affidavit evidence. Now he knew of no more ingenious process for not getting at the truth of a case than this system of affidavit evidence. But it had one great advantage. It materially shortened the hearing of a case. For a practised eye could easily separate the relevant from the irrelevant parts of an affidavit, whereas such a process of elimination became much more difficult when the truth had to be extracted, bit by bit, from a stupid, or unwilling, or dishonest witness. Now the Judicature Acts had provided that the evidence should be taken, as a rule, vivâ voce in all the Courts. But this change, which in the interests of truth was much to be commended, had been purchased at a considerable sacrifice of time, and the result had been that in the Chancery Division they had not only more cases to try, but they occupied a 967 longer time in trying them. Now, he and other hon. Members had pointed out this at the time the Acts were debated, and had also called attention to the fact that the number of the Judges of the Chancery Division had been fixed in the year 1841, at a time when railway companies and joint-stock enterprizes generally were in their infancy, and when the wealth of the country and the materials for litigation were not a third as great as they were now. But they were arguing against the master of many legions, and if they had not the worst of the argument they were sure to have the worst of the division. The fiat had gone forth that they might build their house as they pleased, but they must build it out of the old materials, and the result was to be seen in the figures to which he would now call attention. He wished to premise, however, that in his observations he would confine himself to the Division in which he himself practised — the Chancery Division of the High Court; not but that delays equally scandalous would be found to exist in Westminster Hall; and he hoped that before he sat down some hon. Friend of his would be found to throw light upon that part of the question. But he desired to dwell upon the state of things in the Chancery Division for two reasons—first, because he knew much more about it; and, secondly, because it was sometimes suggested that by some re-adjustment or re-distribution of Business they might get more work out of a Common Law Judge. He believed that these suggestions were for the most part illusory. It was the old story of two persons trying to cover themselves with a blanket only large enough for one. If the one pulled it on to himself, the other was necessarily left out in the cold. But, be that as it might, no such suggestion could be made as to the Chancery Judges. They worked as hard as men could work; they tried every question, whether of fact or law, as it came before them; their Courts were open practically all the year, and Parliament had lately shown its appreciation of their mode of conducting business by requiring the other Judges to adopt it. Now, what was the state of things in the Chancery Division? Before the Judicature Act came into operation the average number of cases waiting for hearing in the four Courts of the 968 Master of the Rolls and the three Vice-Chancellors at the beginning of each term was 300. At the beginning of the year 1875 it was 301; at the beginning of this year, when the Acts had been in operation a year and a-quarter, the number had risen to 566, and the day before yesterday it was 698. But what was most significant was the gradual and progressive increase in these numbers. At the beginning of last year it was only 332, at Easter it had risen to 457, in June to 502, at Christmas to 566, and now it was 698! Well, but were these cases lighter? On the contrary, from a cause to which he had already referred, they were much heavier. And the strength of the Judges, instead of being increased, was actually lessened, for under the old system the Lord Chancellor and Lords Justices were members of the Court of Chancery, and one of those learned Judges could, and very often did, sit with great effect to hear cases set down before Judges of the First Instance. But this was no longer possible, for now the Appeal Court formed a distinct tribunal. Indeed, the case was reversed, for one of the four Chancery Judges, the Master of the Rolls, was now a Member of the Appeal Court, and was actually sitting in that Court at this moment, his own Court being of course shut up. So that, instead of as before borrowing a Judge from the Appeal Court, the Chancery Division might be required to lend a Judge to that Court. Now let him ask this question—For 10 years before the Judicature Acts the average number of causes and matters yearly originating in the Court of Chancery had been 2,500; last year it was 5,111. Now, if four Judges and their Staffs were barely equal to dispose of 2,500 cases, how could less than four Judges and their Staffs be expected satisfactorily to dispose of 5,111? So that what they were attempting to do, in fact, was to put a quart of water into a pint pot, and that was a process which could not be satisfactorily accomplished even by Act of Parliament. They had all heard of the unfortunate damsels who, for sins done in the flesh, were condemned in another world to fill a tub which leaked as fast as it was filled; but he thought the task imposed upon their judicial Danaidæ was at least as cruel, for they were required to empty a tub which 969 filled twice as quickly as they could empty it. But how did all this work in practice? for that was what the House would wish to hear. Why, simply thus—the Vice Chancellors were at that moment hearing cases which were set down for hearing 8, 10, and 12 months ago. Here was a letter written to him by a friend, in whose testimony he could confide, which gave a picture by no means exaggerated of a state of things which must be seen to be believed—I have a case in your own Court which has been waiting for hearing ever since March or April last, and it is still quite impossible to say when it will be reached. It only involves a short point of construction, and will not take half-an-hour when it comes on; but the parties will have had to wait almost or quite a year for this half hour of judicial time. In the meantime, it is impossible to administer real and personal property of considerable amount, to the very great inconvenience of all concerned. Law taxes may be as bad in principle as Bentham contended; but most suitors would find them a lesser evil than the present delay.Well, but suppose this "half-hour of judicial time" secured at last, and a decision pronounced, there was still the Registrar's office to be passed, where a further delay of a month or six weeks took place, and then, if accounts had to be taken, came the most trying delay of all, that in the Judges' Chambers. He was told that it took at least a fortnight to get an appointment before the chief clerk, even for the most ordinary purpose. Let him read a letter received by an eminent firm of solicitors practising in the county represented by his hon. Friend opposite, the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), from their London agents, respecting a case in their office. It was dated the 14th January, 1877—The order on further consideration made in May last has only within the last three weeks been obtained from the registrar. The share in which Mrs. S. is interested is directed to be carried over to a separate account, with liberty to any party interested to apply. But before this can be done the costs must be taxed, the whole fund arranged, and the inquiry No. 2 answered. The contest with Mr. S.'s assignee will then have to be gone through. At the present time it certainly appears to us that at least a year must elapse before Mrs. S. can touch a single penny of the fund.And this in a country in which time was supposed to be money. Why, half the rascals in England would soon be presuming on this state of things to resist any just claim that might be made against them. Only that morning a 970 man had told him that he had been compelled to abate £500 of a claim to which he was as justly entitled as he (Mr. Morgan) was to his seat in that House, simply because he would have had to have waited two or three years before he could have established it, and the delay would have been ruin to him and his family. Everyone admitted the scandal—Judges, counsel, solicitors, and suitors. He ought, perhaps, not to have said every one, for there was one most distinguished exception, the present Master of the Rolls. Sir George Jessel was, perhaps, the most rapid, acute, and clear-headed man who had ever sat upon the English Bench; but the value of his testimony in the present instance was a little impaired by one prominent trait in his character. He was a man who, as he himself had said, never entertained a doubt and never changed an opinion. Now those who remembered how strenuously Sir George Jessel, when Solicitor General, had opposed any increase in the judicial staff, would be prepared to hear that he had not altered his views on the subject. But even he could not deny that there was a block in the Chancery Division; in fact, if his information was correct, there were at this moment 134 causes standing for hearing at the Rolls. But what Sir George Jessel was reported to have said was, that if it had not been for the Common Law actions which were brought into the Chancery Division, and if suitors would only take those causes elsewhere there would be no block in the Chancery Division. That was to say, if the Judicature Acts had never been passed, if suitors had not acquired the invaluable privilege of taking their causes to any Court which they preferred, and if, too, the other Courts were not themselves so crowded as to repel rather than attract them, then there would be no block in the Chancery Division. Was riot that very much like saying, that if Napoleon Bonaparte's father had never happened to come across Napoleon Bonaparte's mother there would have been no battle of Waterloo. They must deal with things not as they might have been, but as they were, and as they themselves had made them. Well, then, the grievance being admitted, what was the remedy? Could they spare a couple of Judges from Westminster Hall? ["No, no!"] There were the suggestions 971 embodied in the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Marten). But to say nothing of the fact that some of them would not hold water in practice, they seemed to him too elaborate and specific to be dealt with on such an occasion as the present. Then there was the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen), to increase the jurisdiction of the County Courts. His hon. Friend might be sure that when that proposal came before the House it would receive from it the consideration which every proposal emanating from him both merited and obtained. It would perhaps be said that as they had given unlimited jurisdiction to the County Courts in Bankruptcy, there was no reason why they should not give them unlimited jurisdiction in other matters. Having read, however, very carefully the reports of the numerous Bankruptcy cases decided by County Court Judges, and brought on appeal to London, he felt bound to say that he thought the less that argument was pressed the better. Besides, he would throw out a hint for the consideration of his hon. Friend. The County Court Judges were at present doing excellent work as juges de la paix; but if you once threw upon them the enormous work which such an extension of jurisdiction would imply, you would paralyze their action at once. In fact, if you gave unlimited jurisdiction to the County Courts, one of Two things must follow; either the business which at present overwhelmed the Superior Courts would, or it would not, gravitate to the County Courts. If it did not, the evils of which he complained would remain untouched. If it did, he would wager anything that in a year there would be twice as great a block of business in the County Courts as they now found in the Superior Courts, simply because those Courts, unless their whole character was altered, would be utterly unprepared to cope with the influx of business coming to them. Besides, was it quite fair, when they had just made an experiment on a vast scale in one direction, and had found that that experiment was only prevented from working admirably, because they had not given it fair play by increasing their judicial staff, suddenly to reverse their steps and start off in an entirely different direction. There remained, therefore, 972 only the very simple remedy which he had suggested. Now, what was that remedy? He was addressing several men, who were the proprietors or managers of large commercial undertakings. He would ask them this question—If any of them found that he was short of hands what would he do? Why, of course he would take steps to get more hands, and that was all he asked of the Government to do. Against such a proposal two arguments, and Two only, had been urged. It had been said, first, that, if they had more Judges, they would have to put up with inferior men on the Bench; and, secondly, that the country would not stand the expense. As to the first argument, he felt it very difficult to treat it seriously. He had hitherto understood that when a vacancy arose in the judicial Bench the difficulty in filling it up arose rather from the number, than from the paucity of the competitors for it, and he had even heard it whispered occasionally that there were times when the Bar was showing itself too strong for the Bench. As for the other argument it no doubt was entitled to some consideration, particularly from a Member of the Party which had made retrenchment one of its watchwords. The salary of a Judge was £5,000 a-year, and, looking to the value of the article, he could hardly say it was dear at the price. At any rate, he much questioned whether it would be politic to reduce it. Now it was said that each new Vice Chancellor, with his Staff of chief clerks and registrars, would involve the country in an outlay of twice or perhaps thrice that amount. Granting for a moment that the argument was a sound one in itself, he had an answer to it. It was founded on a mistake of fact. Astonishing as it might seem, it was the fact that the Judges in the Chancery Division were to a great extent, if not entirely, self-supporting. For, on adding up the fees taken in the offices of the Chancery Court for the year ending October 1875, he found that they came to the enormous sum of £119,639. Making a liberal deduction for the fees earned by the Appeal Court, which were not distinguished in the Estimates, he might safely assume that at least £90,000 was in 1875 earned by the four Judges of First Instance and their attendant Staffs. Now, the Estimates for 1876 had not yet been published, but, looking to the large 973 increase in the orders made (1,600 in one year) it was only fair to assume that these figures would now be raised to at least £100,000. Dividing this sum between the Master of the Rolls and the three Vice Chancellors, it would give £25,000 as the amount earned by each Judge and his Staff. But the most exaggerated estimate of the cost of a new Judge which he had yet seen put it at £20,000 only, so that, as it was only fair to assume—looking to the enormous amount of work waiting to be done—that a new Vice Chancellor would have at least as much to do as his Colleagues, an additional Chancery Judge would not only pay his way, but would be a source of revenue to the country. He really was ashamed to urge such an argument. He thoroughly agreed with old Jeremy Bentham, that the administration of justice, civil as well as criminal, was the business of the whole Commonwealth, and that they had no more right to make a suitor, except as a member of the community, pay for the Judge who was to hear his case than they had a right to put a special tax on a householder in order to pay for the policeman who guarded his street. And ho would not have urged such a consideration at all, if it had not been from a very remarkable, and as he thought a very unfortunate, speech made by no less a man than his right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) Two years ago, in which he had charged the members of the Legal Profession, who were agitating for additional Judges, with making "an assault upon the public purse." It might be some consolation to the right hon. Gentleman to know that, so far from proposing to make an assault upon the public purse, he (Mr. Osborne Morgan) was actually trying to put money into the pockets of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Unfortunately the right hon. Gentleman had no practical experience of such matters. He had never been a suitor himself, and it was astonishing to see the equanimity with which we bore the misfortunes of others. "He jests at scars who never felt a wound." Sydney Smith once said that railways would never be made safe until they had killed a Bishop; and, on the same principle, it might be difficult to get the House to give to this question of the "law's delay," the attention it deserved until some prominent Member of the front 974 benches had learnt by practical experience what it meant. He knew that the subject was not altogether a popular one; indeed, the moment a lawyer got up to propose any addition to the Judicial Staff, he was always credited with having some personal end in view. He appealed, however, to his hon. and learned Friends around him riot to be deterred by the fear of any such imputations from speaking their minds. He appealed still more to the lay Members of the House, particularly to those who were engaged in trade or commerce, to make the subject their own. For it was not a lawyer's question; it was a suitor's question, a merchant's question, a banker's question; in fact, it was a national question. Let them look the evil in the face. To deny it was impossible. To remedy it was, in his opinion, both easy and simple. If they approved of the remedy which he suggested, let them second his efforts; if they disapproved of it, in Heaven's name let them at least propose something better.
§ MR. MARTEN, who had given Notice of his intention to move an Amendment on the Resolution of the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down (Mr. Osborne Morgan), pointed out that in the course of the discussions on the different Judicature Bills the Government had at first consented to increase the number of the Judges, but that afterwards they yielded to the great pressure that had been brought to bear upon them, and had decided against any increase in their number being made. The number of Judges of First Instance in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice was only four, whereas there was business enough for seven. The increase in the number of causes in that Division since the Judicature Act came into operation had amounted to about 75 per cent, there being now an average of about 140 causes before each of the four Judges, where as before that Act was passed the average number was only 84. He admitted that while under the new judicial system there had been a sudden and a necessary increase of business, yet it would likely happen that the congestion would be got rid of as soon as the Act settled down into proper operation. He thought, therefore, that existing institutions should not be dislocated to a great extent unless it could be shown that substantial improvement 975 could be effected. There was an indisposition on the part of Government to increase the number of Judges, and therefore the solution of the difficulty would be to separate the duties of Chief Judge in Bankruptcy from those of the third Vice Chancellor, leaving the latter free to attend to Chancery business only. A Chief Judge in Bankruptcy, assisted by a competent number of registrars, would be able to get through all the business there, even when, as he proposed it should be, the whole of the winding-up jurisdiction got transferred to that Court. The annual cost of a Vice Chancellor with a full staff of officers would not be less than £16,000 per annum; and, therefore, to avoid such expense, although ho would appoint an additional Chancery Judge, he would make him as assistant to the Master of the Rolls, which was the more necessary, as the Master of the Rolls, being a Judge of the Court of Appeal, was occasionally taken from his own Court to sit in the Court of Appeal. He also suggested that a moderate fee for hearing before the official referees should be substituted for the present high rate of fees, so as to allow of full advantage being obtained by the public on the institution, under recent legislation, of official referees; and that the jurisdiction of the County Courts should be extended, so that the limit of pecuniary amount might be the same in Common Law as in Equity. With regard to criminal business he would suggest that the principle of the constitution of the Central Criminal Court should be applied throughout England and Wales, and that criminal business requiring the presence of a Judge of the High Court of Justice should be taken in connection with the local quarter sessions, and that a revision should be made of the classes of cases proper to be tried before Judges of the High Court of Justice and before the court of quarter sessions respectively, so that only the gravest cases might be reserved for trial before the Judges of the High Court. Then, with respect to the civil business on circuit, he would suggest that there should be one list of cases for the circuit, each case entered being marked on the list for the place where the trial was desired, and the Judge of the High Court proceeding from place to place as the amount of the business at each place permitted, and 976 that commission days for civil business should be abolished. Such a system could be easily and conveniently worked out in these days of railway and telegraphic communication. Then his concluding suggestion was that, as far as practicable, and in order to obviate the objections raised by the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) to the existing state of affairs, arrangements should be made for the holding of simultaneous sittings at Guildhall and at Westminster for the trial of civil cases—a course by which great advantage would be secured to the suitors and to the public.
Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
MR. COLEregretted that the question should have come on at such a time, when all the Common Law barristers were on circuit. He did not personally know much about Chamber business, but understood that it was sometimes impossible for counsel to be heard until two or three days after a cause was put down for hearing. And what was the reason? Why, the great tendency now to try causes in London. Under the Judicature Act all local venues had been abolished, and hence causes were removed to London which should properly be tried in the country. He was sorry at the course the Government had taken in reducing the number of Judges at a time that the number of cases set down for trial at Westminster Hall and at Guildhall had enormously increased. The consequences were most serious to suitors. Formerly there were three, and more commonly four, Judges sitting in Banco; but that was altered by the new Judicature Act; and now, while the sittings in Banco were reduced to two Judges, and even to one Judge, so great was the increase of the business of the Courts at Nisi Prius that the number of Judges was wholly insufficient, and the authority that had the arrangement of the circuits was obliged to take Judges from the Court of Appeal and send them on circuit, and so the Court of Appeal had to cease its sittings. What would be the consequence of such a state of things? Why, that in a short time they would have such a crop of appeals that the Court of Appeal would become overwhelmed with business from every Court in the country, 977 for it was now practically a Court in Banco for all cases tried. Among the various defects in the administration of the law was a very serious one affecting the interests of suitors in the City of London, where all the great mercantile causes were tried, where only two Judges were now sitting. The cause list had vastly increased, and suitors, wearied out by delay and uncertainty as to when their cases would come on for trial, made up their minds to withdraw from the prosecution of their suits and to submit to great loss. The real fact was that the Judicial Bench was short-handed. He might mention the case of the Lord Chief Justice of England who was so ill, while in the discharge of his judicial duty, as to be unable to join his circuit for several days; but seeing the great inconvenience that must ensue to suitors, juries, and witnesses, the learned Judge, though very ill, went down to Winchester and joined the circuit, although quite unfit to travel. Parties were put to the greatest inconvenience, expense, and loss of time, by the scarcity of Judges to deal with the vastly increased number of causes. The question was, how were they to get over the present state of things? The only way that he could possibly see to meet the difficulty was to increase the number of Judges. As to the expense, it seemed to him they would pay themselves. A distinguished Chancery Judge—Vice Chancellor Hall—had said to him—"Talk of the expense of Judges! Why, I am earning at the present moment double my salary by the fees that are paid to my Court." But even if it was otherwise, was the judicial business of the country to be stopped in order to save a few thousand pounds? With regard to the trial of prisoners on circuit, the winter arrangements had been exceedingly inconvenient, and on the Western Circuit prisoners had been brought from Bodmin, and had to remain at Exeter a week, being obliged to be there at the commencement of the assizes, in order that bills might be sent before the grand jury. He did not think the plan of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge would work satisfactorily, and believed that the best plan would be to restore the number of Common Law Judges.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, while acknowledging that the discussion which had arisen was one of a very interesting 978 nature, was doubtful whether it would be useful to prolong it, for it was a subject on which it seemed to him there was likely to be a very general agreement. Beyond doubt there was a great block of business, and the question was how to deal with it. His hon. and learned Friend who had introduced the subject (Mr. Osborne Morgan) had spoken with much earnestness and ability, but probably without exaggeration, and his statement as to the block of business in the department of the High Court with which he had more particularly to do was entirely borne out by the testimony of a very temperate memorial which had been laid before the Lord Chancellor by the Incorporated Law Society. Taking the statements of that memorial there was certainly a much greater arrear of business in the Chancery Division than formerly, and the causes had risen from an average of 2,500 during the 10 years from 1864 to 1874, to 5,111 at the present time. Various causes had contributed to that increase of business. People having rights were more eager to embark in litigation than formerly. Since the Judicature Act suitors were aware that they could have their causes tried before a single Judge, with the great advantage of having the evidence taken vivâ voce. There appeared to be an opinion that a great many civil causes could be better tried by a single Judge, the evidence being taken vivâ voce than before a jury. A great many causes were now taken to the Chancery Division, where the evidence could be taken vivâ voce, as in the Common Law Division. The Master of the Rolls, in dealing with this matter, had called these Common Law cases and treated them somewhat as intruders. They might be Common Law cases, but they came to the Chancery Division, and those who brought them had the right to have them tried there, and it must be borne in mind that if the business of the Chancery Division had thereby increased, the business of the Common Law Division had proportionately decreased. They had to be dealt with by the Tribunal before which they were brought. He was sorry to confess that there was a very considerable block in the Chancery Division, and it was difficult to know how to deal with it. The block arose, in the first place, from the want of judicial strength; and, secondly, it arose 979 from the want of strength in the subordinate offices. He thought the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Marten), to appoint an additional Vice Chancellor, was sensible and reasonable. That would give some increase of strength, and if an additional Judge were appointed, he might deal with those causes which had come to the Chancery Division, as assistant to the Judges of that Division. It was under the consideration of the Government to increase the judicial strength in the Chancery Division. They were also earnestly considering whether some measures could not be taken to relieve the pressure of business existing in the Judges' Chambers in that Division. It had been expected that a very considerable amount of relief would be afforded by the appointment of referees. Four gentlemen were appointed referees and cases might go to them. It had happened, however, that they had not had much work to do, and the reason might be that which was indicated by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge—namely, that they were authorized to charge a certain fee per hour before sitting, and that this had been distasteful, and perhaps unjust, to suitors. He had come to the conclusion that if the fees were diminished or abolished, recourse would be more frequently had to the referees, and if they were not otherwise fully engaged, they might be employed in getting rid of the surplus business at Judges' Chambers. In regard to the vacant Registrarship, no doubt it would be necessary for the Lord Chancellor to fill up the appointment. The Government desired to remove the block of legal business by an increase of judicial strength, if the object could not be attained otherwise; but it must be borne in mind that the system of trying cases by one Judge had hardly as yet had a fair trial. He was not sure, indeed, that that system would not ultimately result in a great saving of time and of official strength. The block chiefly arose from the large arrears of Nisi Prius business. The Court of Appeal had turned out remarkably satisfactory, the cases being dealt with speedily and without delay; but there were great arrears of Nisi Prius business, and that was a problem which no doubt it was very difficult to solve. Latterly there had been cases that had 980 occupied a very considerable time, such as the trial of the Franconia, in which 13 Judges were engaged, and a case before the Privy Council lately, in which 10 Judges had been employed. It was hoped that when the system came into full operation a sufficient number of Judges would be at liberty to deal with Nisi Prius business and then they might expect to see the arrears disappear. He threw it out as a suggestion that Judges would save a great deal of valuable time if they would trust more to the shorthand writers' notes, instead of writing out their own notes, in every case wherein they were required. He also thought it would cause a great improvement and additional saving of time to have shorthand writers employed in the Nisi Prius Courts throughout the country to the same extent as they were in Parliamentary Committees, and that opinion had been confirmed in a conversation he had had on the subject with an eminent Nisi Prius Judge. He did not say that the Government were considering the proposal to increase the number of the Judges in the Common Law Divisions, though, of course, if, after a fair trial, the arrears were found to be still increasing, there would be nothing for it but such an addition to the number of Judges. Referring to the further suggestions of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge, he confessed he did not like these constant alterations. The system had been put upon a fresh basis by the Judicature Acts of 1873 and 1875, and it would be better to see the working of those Acts before making further changes. He did not approve of the proposal for a separate Judge in Bankruptcy, thinking it undesirable that a Judge should be kept to one class of business. The jurisdiction of the County Courts could not be extended without a great deal of trouble and many complications; and as to the suggestion in regard to the criminal business, he had a great dislike to making the criminal business subordinate to the civil. It was of immense importance that the criminal business of the country should be taken before the Superior Judges. As to the commission days, it was not a fact that they were wasted, and as to the last suggestion for continuous sittings at Guildhall and Westminster, he considered they would be of great inconvenience to the Bar, in making coun- 981 sel run backward and forward between the Courts. It might be possible to make some arrangements of that kind when all the Courts were brought under one roof, or even before, when they had ascertained fully the working of the new system. He trusted his explanation would be satisfactory. He acknowledged, on behalf of the Government, the existence of the evil, and promised that they would do all in their power to remedy it.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Sir George Bowyer.)
§ The House proceeded to divide:—
§ Mr. Parnellwas appointed one of the Tellers for the Ayes, but no Member appearing to be a second Teller for the Ayes, Mr. Speaker declared the Noes had it.
§ Main Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.Committee deferred till Monday next.