§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
§ MR. PARNELLmoved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. His object in doing so was to give the Government an opportunity of stating what necessity there was for the creation of this additional patronage, and how it was proposed to pay the new Judge to be appointed under it.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Parnell.)
MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, that the Bill was a proper one, but he thought its value diminished by the statement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made early in the evening in answer to a Question. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to have said that the new Judge whom it was proposed to appoint under this Bill would not be a Vice Chancellor at all, and would not have any staff, but would be appointed for the purpose of trying what were 2016 called Common Law actions, and would be called in when any Judge happened to be overloaded with work. In other words, he was to be a sort of journeyman Judge—a kind of judicial charwoman, who would be sent for when any part of the establishment could not get through its work. Now, he very much doubted whether that plan would be found to work well in practice, and whether a thoroughly good man would be found willing to take the new post on such terms. On a former occasion he had shown that the effect of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act had been to double the amount both of the contentious and administrative work in the Chancery Courts, and that the result had been a scandalous block of business both in Court and in Chambers. This Bill might alleviate the former evil, but it would aggravate the latter. For, if the new Judge, as was suggested, was to take nothing but purely contentious business, it would proportionately increase the administrative business of the other Judges, and would throw a still greater burden upon their Chief Clerks. Thus, if the Bill passed in its present shape, the evil would be partly remedied in one place, only to appear in a worse form in another.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he thought the House would agree that the Government had shown a laudable promptness in adopting steps for grappling with the great block of business which existed in the Law Courts, especially in the Chancery Division. But for the vigilance of certain hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, who apparently deemed it their imperative duty to oppose every useful measure, in order that they might leave the House early, or to accomplish some other useful end, the Bill would long ago have been read a second time. When the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Osborne Morgan) called attention to the subject, a few weeks ago, everybody seemed agreed upon it; and on behalf of the Government it was stated that they were considering what steps should be taken to remedy the evils complained of. Notice was afterwards given of their intention to introduce a Bill for that purpose. The chief evil mentioned in the discussion on the hon. and learned Gentleman's Motion was the Common Law business, which created a great block in 2017 the Court of Chancery. That defect the Government attempted to remedy by appointing an additional Judge to assist the Vice Chancellors, whose main duty, at all events, it should be to grapple with cases of that description, though it was not intended that he should be exclusively so occupied. If a man of ability, of vigour, and of expedition were appointed to the new Judgeship, the cause of complaint would thus far, he contended, be removed; and as there was no reason to suppose the Government would not make such an appointment, great relief would, he had no doubt, be given to the Chancery Division. But then his hon. and learned Friend was of opinion that the Government did not go far enough, and that an additional staff was required for Chambers. Now it was, he thought, not well to multiply offices unless it was absolutely necessary to do so, and he did not think there was any such necessity in the present instance. It was, he believed, the fact that in the Chambers of the Vice Chancellors, the Chief and other Clerks were not in the habit of lending a helping hand to each other. It seemed to be with them much as used formerly to be the case in the Courts at Westminster, when one Court which might not be very popular was able to rise perhaps at I o'clock and the Judges were able to go home or disport themselves in the parks, whereas the Judges in a neighbouring Court which was more popular were obliged to toil all day. That being so some arrangement might, in his opinion, be made by which the work might be done in the Chancery Division by imposing more work on some of the clerks and diminishing the labour of others. If that could be done it would be better than creating an additional staff. If not, the Government would be obliged to screw up their courage to the sticking point and to create additional clerks.
§ MR. BIGGARobserved that the Notice of opposition of the Bill which had been given had obtained for the House the benefit of a very satisfactory explanation from the hon. and learned Gentleman.
§ MR. PARNELLalso thought the explanation of the Attorney General perfectly satisfactory, and he should not, therefore, divide the House against the second reading.
2018 Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.