COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 24 August 1881 vol 265 cc825-52

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.

Clause 2 (Master of the Rolls to be Judge of Appeal only).

MR. WARTON

said, he proposed to move, in page 1, line 28, to leave out the word "any," and substitute the word "no;" secondly, to add, after "Master of the Rolls," in line 28, "or any Judge of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal; "and lastly, in page 2, line 1, after "1873," to strike out— In the same manner in all respects as he would have been under the last-mentioned Act, or any Acts or Act amending the same, if he had continued to be a Judge of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice. He had mentioned the three Amendments together, because they were all dependent upon each other, and the effect of them was to provide that in future no Master of the Rolls nor any Judge of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal should be under an obligation to go Circuit and act as a Commissioner under Commissions of Assize or other Commissions authorized to be issued in pursuance of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873. The Court of Appeal was composed of Judges of the very highest calibre, who would have higher salaries than the ordinary Puisne Judges, and it was most desirable that they should not be required to go Circuit. One reason was that upon Circuit they were required to preside at criminal trials; and, however much fun they might make of the fusion of Law and Equity, it was sometimes a ghastly spectacle to see a Chancery Judge displaying his entire ignorance of the Criminal Law in the course of the trial of a man on a charge of murder. He would not mention names; but he recollected a criminal trial in which the Judge who presided was an Equity Judge upon his first Circuit, in which the proceedings were positively revolting, owing to the ignorance displayed by the learned Judge, who was, nevertheless, trying a man for his life. Fortunately, the Judge had the able assistance of a clerk who was able, to some extent, to put him right. He had often known a Judge ask a brother Queen's Counsel to assist him in disposing of a few cases, and if the Counsel demurred on the ground of his want of experience, he would say at one—"Oh, you can have Avery." The natural retort, however, was—"What will your Lordship do without him?" It was very difficult to pick up experience merely by going Circuit. The present system was thoroughly unjust, as far as the adminis- tration of the Criminal Law was concerned, and it was inefficient as far as the Equity Law was concerned. His own opinion was that it was a retrograde step to confound together two different and distinct branches of legal training, instead of keeping men to the functions which they were well fitted to perform. Let the Chancery man do Chancery work, and let the Common Law man do Common Law work. Another reason why the exemption he proposed should be made was that it was the old and experienced Judges who constituted the Court of Appeal, and it was irksome and troublesome to the senior Judges to be required to go Circuit. He did not, therefore, see why they should inflict upon the Master of the Rolls and the Judges of the Court of Appeal—men generally of advanced age—the painful duty of attending on Circuit. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would give him all the support he could in the proposition he was making. The effect of adopting the three Amendments he proposed would be to make the clause read thus— Provided also, That no Master of the Rolls, or any Judge of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal to be hereafter appointed, shall he under an obligation to go Circuits, and to act as a Commissioner under Commissions of Assize or other Commissions authorised to he issued in pursuance of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 28, to omit the word "any," and insert the word "no."—(Mr. Warton.)

Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. ARTHUR ELLIOT

opposed the Amendment on the ground that it would do mischief rather than good. He understood that the effect of adopting it would be to prevent the Lords Justices of Appeal from going Circuit. Now, the Lords Justices, as a rule, were better men than the Puisne Judges, and the effect of the proposal to prevent them from going Circuit would be to deprive the Circuits of those Judges who were fittest to do the work. He therefore hoped the Committee would refuse to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton). He felt bound to say, in regard to the Equity Judges, that there were no Judges who did the gene- ral work of a Circuit better; and, no matter how they had obtained their legal training, he was satisfied there were no Judges on the Bench who could discharge the work on Circuit better than one or two of the Equity men. He therefore trusted that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would not feel called upon to pay any attention to the Amendment.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he was sorry that he was unable to accept the Amendment. There were, however, several reasons why he was unable to do so. In the first place, the judicial strength was not sufficient to enable them to exempt the Judges of the Court of Appeal from the duty of going Circuit. If the House considered it right to agree to the arrangements proposed in the Bill, no doubt their tendency would be to work in the direction indicated by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton); but he doubted whether it would be wise to give way to the hon. and learned Member's suggestion, even if that opportunity were afforded to them. It was very desirable that the Judges of the Court of Appeal should have experience of Circuit work. There were eases continually brought before them in which they had to review the decisions in Nisi Prius cases which occurred on Circuit; and it would be a matter to be much regretted if they were deprived of the opportunity of gaining the experience which they would obtain from going Circuit. As to the Judges of the Court of Appeal being unfit to try criminal cases, he entirely dissented from the hon. and learned Member, whose attack he thought was both groundless and unseemly. He could mention more than one Equity Judge who had been a very great success on Circuit; but, apart from that fact, if the contention of his hon. and learned Friend wore correct, he ought to carry the Amendment much further, and prohibit any member of the Equity Bar from going Circuit. Mr. Justice Kay, Mr. Justice Lindley, and others, ought not to be allowed to go Circuit at all; and it certainly could not be said that they were incompetent to discharge the duties of Judges of Assize. He trusted that the Committee would not accept the Amendment which had been proposed by his hon. and learned Friend.

SIR EARDLEY WILMOT

said, he should certainly support the Amend- ment of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), and for this reason—he felt that the objection made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General in regard to the experience of the Judges of the Court of Appeal was not well founded. In point of fact, the reason why a Judge was elevated to the position of a Judge of the Court of Appeal was because the public had confidence in his experience. As a rule, they possessed great knowledge both of civil and criminal business; and he could not think that with their already acquired experience at the Bar and very frequently on the Bench, the practice of requiring them to transact Nisi Prius business on Circuit would strengthen their mental qualification for the disposal of business in the Court of Appeal. He knew that some dissatisfaction was felt by the Judges of the Court of Appeal, owing to the necessity of their going Circuit; they considered that they had quite enough to do in going through all the heavy list of appeals that came before them. They asserted that, almost before it was possible to get half through the business they had to transact in London, they were hurried away to a distant part of the country, like judicial bagmen, to do the legal business of the country, which other Judges would be able to do equally well. But he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) was of opinion that all the difficulty arose from the exercise of a miserable and petty economy on the part of the country in regard to the strength of the Judicial Bench. He had very little doubt that the work had outgrown the capability of the Judges to overtake it. Several of the Judges had told him that the work they had to do was far more than they ought to be called upon to undertake. They had not only to sit constantly in Court, but they had to work up numerous cases and study the law for the purpose of giving important judgments which now-a-days every Judge was expected to give at great length. Notwithstanding the fact that there might be three or four Judges sitting, it was the custom for all of them to give elaborate judgments. The presiding Judge generally stated his opinion at great length, and the other Judges followed him as a matter of course, and the public expected that each Judge should give the reasons for his judgment; and, of course, it must be so, wherever there was a difference of opinion. But, at the same time, he thought the proper way of meeting the difficulty was not by shuffling one Judge from one Court to the other, which was done by the present Bill, but by providing the efficient and numerous staff of Judges which the j country really required. They had heard only yesterday from the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) that great dissatisfaction was felt in the Northern counties, and especially in the commercial centres, at the want of a Judge at their own doors. What he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) would say was, let them pass this Bill if they liked, but let it be brought under the consideration of the Government whether the real way of meeting the difficulty was not to give these great commercial centres a sufficient number of Judges to provide for their own immediate wants without overburdening the Judges of the Court of Appeal by requiring them to go Circuit? It that were done, all the Judges of the Court of Judicature would be able to discharge the business satisfactorily which they were called upon to undertake. He strongly felt the objections which had been urged against requiring the Master of the Rolls and the Judges of the Court of Appeal to go Circuit; and he should, therefore, support the Amendment. He felt that the objections which had been stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General were unsound; and, so far as the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridport was concerned, if his hon. and learned Friend had not proposed it, he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) certainly should have done so.

MR. WARTON

said, he was very much obliged to his hon. Friend the learned Attorney General for the remarks he had made, because in the beginning of his speech he practically admitted every point which he (Mr. Warton) had raised, and it was only with regard to the smallness of the staff of Judges that he was induced to oppose it. He would remind his hon. and learned Friend that the way to remedy this evil was to increase the staff.

MR. WILLIS

said, he should support Her Majesty's Government in the opposition they gave to the Amendment. He would have every member of the Court of Appeal not only go Circuit, but sit to administer justice in his turn both in the Courts at Westminster and in London. He believed that if that were done, the appeals would be diminished one-half. He, therefore, opposed the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridport.

Question put, and agreed to.

SIR EARDLEY WILMOT

said, he had an Amendment to move to the clause; but he would not dwell upon it, as it might not be admissible. The Amendment was, in page 2, line 5, after the word "Justice," at the end of the Clause, to add the following words: — And the salaries of the ordinary Judges of the Court of Appeal shall, from and after the passing of this Act, he the same in amount as the salary of the present or any future Master of the Rolls.

THE CHAIRMAN (Sir FARRER HER-SCHELL)

It is not competent for the hon. Member to move this Amendment as it would impose a burden upon the people.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 3 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 9 (Appeals under Divorce Act).

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

moved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 30, to leave out from "Court," to the end of the clause, and insert— The decision of the Court of Appeal on any question arising under the Acts relating to divorce and matrimonial causes or to the declaration of legitimacy shall be final, except where the decision either is upon the grant or refusal of a decree on a petition for dissolution or nullity of marriage, or for a declaration of legitimacy, or is upon a question of law on which the Court of Appeal give leave to appeal; and save as aforesaid, no appeal shall lie to the House of Lords under the said Acts. Subject to any order made by the House of Lords, in accordance with the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, every appeal to the House of Lords against any such decision shall be brought within one month after the decision appealed against is pronounced by the Court of Appeal if the House of Lords is then sitting, or, if not, within fourteen days after the House of Lords next sits. This section, so far as is consistent with the tenor thereof, shall be construed as one with the said Acts. He would state very shortly the object of the Amendment. It related to appeals from the decision of the President of the Probate and Divorce Division of the High Court of Justice, that they should no longer be to the "full Court," but to the Court of Appeal as it now existed. Under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act of 1878 appeals were given from the President of the Court called the full Court, which consisted of the Court in which the case was tried, and two other Judges. It was thought that it would be prejudicial to give the appeal from the full Court to the Court of Appeal as at present constituted, and, therefore, the appeal from the full Court went to the House of Lords. This was a very important question, because, under the Procedure Act, in all other matters the appeal went from the President to the Court of Appeal as now constituted. The object of the Amendment which he now proposed was to do away altogether with the full Court as a Court of Appeal, and to take the Court of Appeal as now constituted and make it the Appellate Court for all appeals. From this Court no appeal to the House of Lords would be made, except when the decision was upon the grant or refusal of a decree on petition for dissolution or nullity of marriage, or for a declaration of legitimacy, or upon a question of law upon which the Appeal Court should give leave to appeal. It was further provided that every appeal to the House of Lords should be brought within one month of the decision of the Court of Appeal if the House of Lords was sitting, or, if not, within 14 days after the House of Lords should next sit. The matter was, in reality, a very small one. If an order were made by the President, and confirmed by the Court of Appeal, it was thought that the decision should be final, without a further appeal to the House of Lords. This view was carried out in the Amendment which he now asked the Committee to assent to, and which was rather more full now than when the Bill left the House of Lords. the Amendment had received the approval of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Inderwick), who had had great experience, and also of the learned Judge who presided over the Court, and expressed the views which they wished to carry out. The Amendment also carried into effect the view which the Government entertained.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 30, to leave out from ''Court" to end of the Clause, and insert— The decision of the Court of Appeal on any question arising under the Acts relating to divorce and matrimonial causes or to the declaration of legitimacy shall be final except where the decision either is upon the grant or refusal of a decree on a petition for dissolution or nullity of marriage, or for a declaration of legitimacy, or is upon a question of law on which the Court of Appeal give leave to appeal; and, save as aforesaid, no appeal shall lie to the House of Lords under the said Acts. Subject to any order made by the House of Lords, in accordance with the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, every appeal to the House of Lords against any such decision shall be brought within one month after the decision appealed against is pronounced by the Court of Appeal if the House of Lords is then sitting, or, if not, within 14 days after the House of Lords next sits. This section, so far as is consistent with the tenor thereof, shall be construed as one with the said Act."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Clause as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10 (Appeal against decrees nisi for dissolution or nullity of marriage, 31 & 32 Vict. c. 77).

On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendments made:—In page 3, line 36, leave out from beginning of clause, to "no," in line 42; in page 4, line 1, leave out "such," and after "nullity," insert "of marriage;" and in line 3, leave out "under this Act."

Question, "That those words stand part of the Act," put, and negatived."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 11 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 15 (Extension of 39 & 40 Vict. c. 57, to all assizes).

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he proposed to move the omission of this clause, which would dispose of the Proviso which his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) had given Notice of his intention to move, prohibiting the appointment of any place not within the limits of the Principality of "Wales, for the holding of Assizes for any county situate within Wales.

Motion made, and Question, "That Clause 15 be omitted from the Bill,"— (Mr. Attorney General,)—put, and agreed to.

Clause 16 (Quorum in Court of Criminal Appeal).

MR. ARTHUR ELLIOT

asked for an explanation of the clause. Was it intended that the Lords Justices and the Master of the Rolls, or any of the Equity Judges, should or should not constitute part of the Court of Appeal?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

was understood to say that the clause made no change in the law as it now existed.

MR. ARTHUR ELLIOT

said, he did not think he had made himself clearly understood. If the five Judges were not agreed, the practice was for the case to be heard by all the Judges, including the Lords Justices and also the Master of the Rolls. He wished to know whether the present clause made any change in that respect?

MR. HOPWOOD

said, the circumstance mentioned by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Arthur Elliot) arose under the old law, which had the effect of substituting a shorter mode of appeal by the creation of the "Court of Crown Cases Reserved." In all cases previously, the appeals had gone before all the Common Law Judges, at first 12 in number, but afterwards increased This practice was abolished; and it was enacted that the appeals should go, in the first instance, before five Judges, and in case of difference among them, then to the full number; and he apprehended that procedure remained the same now.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 17 to 20, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 21 (Patronage under 42 & 43 Vict. c. 78).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be omitted from the Bill."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he understood that the Government had given a promise to deal in the course of the Session with the question of patronage. Both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary had made promises to that effect. There was enormous patronage vested, as he thought most improperly, in the hands of the Lord Chief Justices of England by the abolition of the offices of Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and Lord Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer. He wished to have a distinct pledge from the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) that if this clause were struck out, the Government would deal with the question of patronage next Session.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

thought that as a pledge had already been given by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, it was not necessary that it should be repeated a third time by him (the Attorney General).

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary only pledged themselves as to the present Session, and said nothing about next Session.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, it was not the fault of the Government that their pledge had not been redeemed, and that they were not allowed to proceed with the Bill. So far as he knew the promise the Government had made would be carried out in the course of another Session.

Question put, and agreed to; Clause omitted accordingly.

Clause 22 agreed to.

Clause 23 (Notices of vacancies in offices of Supreme Court).

On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendment made:—In page 7, line 41, leave out "in," and insert "for."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 24 (Appointment of district registrars).

On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendment made:—In page 8, line 19, leave out from "office" to "any," in line 20.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

moved, in line 22, at the end of the clause, insert as a separate paragraph the following words:— A district registrar shall not, either by himself or his partner, be directly or indirectly engaged as solicitor or agent for a party to any proceeding whatsoever in the district registry of which he is registrar. He explained that these words appeared in the original County Court Act, and the object was to prevent the Registrars from practising in the Courts.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 25 (Appointments to keep order, &c. in Royal Courts of Justice).

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, that a short time ago, when he raised a question with regard to the granting of pensions and compensation allowances for abolished offices in the Law Courts, his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General said he was ignorant of any cases to which his (Sir George Balfour's) remarks would refer, and that he was unable to give any explanation, because his attention had not been drawn to them. As this clause created some new appointments, he had come down now armed with information on the subject, and he would call the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman to the Estimates, which were full of charges for pensions and compensation allowances to legal officers, and particularly for compensation for the abolition of offices in the Law Courts. He found that in the Court of Chancery one of the Judges, who had only held office for a very short period, had quitted office and received compensation allowances of £750 a-year, and he could, if not invidious, point to names of parties whose services had been short but their pensions large. The custom was to appoint certain individuals to discharge a particular duty or hold a particular office, and then very soon afterwards to make a number of changes which involved the appointment of new officers and entitled the old ones who were got rid of to pensions. That course had been very frequently pursued in regard to all the Law Courts, especially in the Bankruptcy Court; and he could assure the Committee that the Estimates now in his hand showed that the operation was a very expensive one. In point of fact, whenever a change took place in connection with any of the Law Courts, persons would be found coming forward to claim compensation allowances, merely because the old name of the office to which they were appointed had been altered. The sum paid in the Chancery Division at that moment for compensation allowances amounted to £51,000 a-year, and he would respectfully call the attention of the hon. and learned Attorney General to the Estimates for the present year, in which all these claims were elaborately set out. In connection with the Court of Bankruptcy the expenses for compensation were very large indeed, amounting to about £8,652 a-year. His hon. and learned Friend would therefore see that the statement which he (Sir George Balfour) had made was perfectly correct; and although he was not prepared to have it challenged at the time, yet since it had been challenged he had gone through the Estimates, and he found that the allowances paid in that way far exceeded anything he had imagined. He would appeal to his hon. and learned Friend to endeavour in future to prevent charges of this kind from falling upon the public in consequence of the passing of Acts of Parliament which, by abolishing existing offices, gave a large number of men a claim to compensation, many of them being quite young enough, and possessing sufficient ability, to be retained in the new offices without any necessity for abolishing them at all.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

said, he would not dispute the accuracy of the figures of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir George Balfour); but the present clause applied to a very different set of offices indeed. It only applied to the appointment of persons to keep order in the Courts, such as ushers and under-ushers, and also to the appointment of persons charged with the care and cleaning of the Courts of Justice —he presumed a certain number of old ladies. Therefore, the observations of the hon. and gallant Member had no bearing on this particular section. He should like to know from the hon. and learned Attorney General what it was that was likely to come under the 3rd sub-section of this clause—namely, "Any other matters necessary or incidental to the use or management of the Royal Courts of Justice?" They certainly appeared to him to be rather large words.

SIR EARDLEY WILMOT

asked, whether these appointments had hitherto been in the hands of the Lord Chancellor or of the Judges of the different Courts in which the appointments were made?

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, the hon. Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) generally objected to any matter which he (Sir George Balfour) considered it his duty to bring forward. It so happened that the com- pensation for the abolition of offices was raised in this very clause, because the clause referred to the pensions of parties employed in the Law Courts, so that it was perfectly correct now to discuss the whole question of pensions to the Law Court persons. The words at the end of the clause were—"Any remuneration payable under this section shall be paid out of money voted by Parliament." Perhaps the hon. Member would take the trouble to explain in what other form he (Sir George Balfour) could have brought forward the question of pensions, seeing that this was the only part of the Bill which dealt with the kind of expenditure that might be incurred in consequence of the passing of the Bill? Therefore, the objections of the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst were not borne out by the facts of the case.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

wished to say in explanation that he had distinctly stated that he did not dispute the figures given by the hon. and gallant Member.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, the hon. Baronet had declared that the clause applied only to certain minor offices connected with the Courts of Justice.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

said, he still adhered to that assertion.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

thought the question he had raised on the subject of pensions generally was one of considerable importance, and he hoped to hear from his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General that the Government were prepared to do something in the matter to prevent officers and others, whose offices might be abolished, from being thrown on the Pension List.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he was quite prepared to admit that the question raised by his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir George Balfour) was one that was deserving of the greatest possible attention. There was no doubt that of late years great alterations had been made in the administration of justice in this country. It had been found necessary to abolish many freehold offices and to make compensation to the holders of them—for instance, in connection with the County Courts and the Provincial Courts of Bankruptcy. It was not possible to send Registrars, and Commis- sioners, and others adrift without making them compensation. All he could say was that he was sure the Treasury used the greatest vigilance in preventing unnecessary pensions being granted, and he was sure that the observations which had been made by his hon. and gallant Friend would be an incentive to them to continue to exercise the closest supervision. He had only to thank his hon. and gallant Friend for having called attention to the matter. In regard to the present clause, however, he felt bound to confirm the observation of his hon. Friend the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland), that it dealt only with two classes of persons—ushers, who would have to keep order in the Courts of Justice, and persons who would have to attend to the cleaning of the Courts. The offices in question were very subsidiary offices indeed, but it was considered necessary to put them under proper regulation. The present clause referred to no other office whatever. In reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire (Sir Eardley Wilmot), he could only say his impression was that the ushers of the Courts were at the present moment appointed by the Chiefs of each Court. As to the words at the end of the clause—"Any other matters necessary or incidental to the use or management of the Royal Courts of Justice," they were mere general words.

SIR EARDLEY WILMOT

said, that in consequence of the reply of his hon. and learned Friend, he would move, in page 8, line 23, to leave out the words, "The Lord Chancellor," and insert the words "The senior Judge of each Divisional Court of the High Court of Justice." Such an Amendment would un-mistakeably restore the patronage to the Chiefs of each Court, in whose hands it had hitherto been, and from whom he did not think it ought to be removed.

Amendment proposed, In page 8, line 23, to leave out the words "The Lord Chancellor," in order to insert the words "The senior Judge of each Divisional Court of the High Court of Justice."—(Sir Eardley Wilmot.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

hoped that his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment. It was one which really affected the question of patronage, and whenever that question was brought on for discussion would be the proper time for raising a minor matter of this kind. It formed a very small portion of a very large subject.

SIR EARDLEY WILMOT

said, that the question was already raised practically by the clause, and the patronage was taken away from the quarter in which it had hitherto been exercised, notwithstanding the understanding that the whole question of patronage was to stand over for consideration in another Session. The effect of passing the clause in the shape in which it now stood would be to transfer the patronage from those who had hitherto exercised it, and hand it over to the Lord Chancellor, and he considered that such a proposition was most unfair.

SIR HARDINGE GIFFARD

said, that, as a matter of fact, there was no interference with the mode in which the patronage was at present exercised. He could not help feeling that there was a great deal in what his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had said. The Government, in deference to the general feeling of the House, had postponed the consideration of the question of patronage until another Session, and he thought that the mode of dealing with these particular offices should be treated in the same manner. He understood that the pledge which had been given by the Government would apply to these offices as well as to all others. He therefore hoped that his hon. Friend (Sir Eardley Wilmot) would withdraw the Amendment.

SIR EARDLEY WILMOT

said, that, under the circumstances, he would not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 26 (Powers as to solicitors).

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that, in deference to the views of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), he intended to propose that the Solicitors' Act of 1860 and the Solicitors' Act of 1877 should be included in the clause. The clause vested the powers of the Act for consolidating and amending the laws re- lating to attornies and solicitors practising in England and Wales, heretofore vested in the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench, the Master of the Rolls, the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, and the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer should henceforth be vested in the Master of the Rolls, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice of England, or, in case of difference, of any one of them. The Amendments which his hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex had proposed on behalf of the Law Institute, he (the Attorney General) had adopted, as they appeared to be well-founded. He would move now to insert in line 37, after the word "powers," the word "which."

Amendment agreed to.

On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendments made: —In page 8, lines 41 and 42, leave out "respectively given to and vested in," and insert— And by 'The Solicitors Act, 1860,' and by 'The Solicitors Act, 1877,' and by any Act amending the said Acts respectively, are vested in the Master of the Rolls jointly with.

In page 9, line 1, leave out "the Master of the Rolls;" in page 9, line 3, leave out from "Exchequer" to the second "shall," in line 4, and insert— Or with any of them, or jointly with the Presidents of the Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer Divisions of the High Court, or with any of them.

In page 9, line 7, leave out from "them" to "for," and insert— And anything required by the said Acts to be done to or before the said Lord Chief Justices and Lord Chief Baron, or the said Presidents jointly with the Master of the Rolls, may be done to or before the Master of the Rolls, the Lord Chancellor, and the Lord Chief Justice of England. Provision may be made by the Master of the Rolls, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice of England, or (in case of difference) of one of them.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 27 (Chief Justice of England to have powers of Chief Justice of Common Pleas and Chief Baron of the Exchequer).

On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendment made: —In page 9, line 11, after "England," insert "and either with or without the Lord Chancellor, or any judge, officer, or person."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 28 and 29 agreed, to.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, there were standing in his name upon the Paper four new clauses. With respect to the first, he did not propose to move it. A Committee was now sitting to inquire into the best mode of improving the procedure of the Supreme Court, and that Committee was taking into consideration the constitution of the Divisional Courts, and also the extension of the one Judge system; he therefore thought it would be improper for that House, at the present time of the year, to do anything that might prejudice the decision of that Committee. He would, however, like to ask his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General when the Report of the Committee was to be laid on the Table of the House? As he had explained, he did not propose to move his first clause, and the second, which related to the sittings for the trial of causes directed to be held in Middlesex and London, had reference to a subject which the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) called attention to last night. The clause proposed that sittings for the trial of causes directed to be held in Middlesex and London by the 30th section of "The Supreme Court of Judicature Act," should be held as far as was reasonably practicable concurrently both in Middlesex and in London. The evil now experienced must sooner or later be dealt with; but he did not propose to trouble the Committee with that clause at present. With regard to the third clause, he should be compelled to place it before the Committee. It proposed that— The sittings of the Court of Appeal and the sittings in London and Middlesex of the High. Court of Justice shall be four in every year, viss.:— the Michaelmas Sittings, the Hilary Sittings, the Easter Sittings, and the Trinity Sittings. The Michaelmas Sittings shall commence on the eighteenth day of October and terminate on the twenty-first day of December; the Hilary Sittings shall commence on the eleventh day of January and terminate on the Wednesday before Easter; the Easter Sittings shall commence on the Tuesday after Easter week and terminate on the Friday before Whit Sunday; the Trinity Sittings shall commence on the Tuesday after Whitsun week and terminate on the eighth day of August. He wanted now to call the attention of the Committee to a circumstance of which he did not think the public were generally aware—namely, the very long suspension which took place in the sittings of the Courts of Justice in this country. There were four vacations in the year. The Christmas Vacation lasted for 20 days, the Easter Vacation for 12 days, the Whitsun Vacation for 10 days, and what was called, with a singular accuracy of expression, the Long Vacation, lasted for 85 days. That made a total of 127 days, or 18 weeks and 1 day, on which the Courts of Justice in this country were practically shut. The Treasury Bench was very bare that afternoon. He did not make any complaint on that head; but he should like to call the attention of the Committee to the words of the Minister who was responsible for the administration of justice in this country—the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir William Harcourt). The last time this question was before the House was when the right hon. Gentleman sat below the Gangway; and the right hon. Gentleman then made these remarks— One of the greatest difficulties of getting the law administered in that country was the block of business, and the loss of judicial power consequent upon the fact that with reference to a great proportion of the business it was altogether suspended for a third or a fourth of the whole year. The judicial and administrative staff of the country was more expensive than all the Public Departments of the State put together, and yet they kept all that plant and capital doing nothing for the period he had mentioned. When last he called attention to this subject his table was covered with letters from solicitors stating the hardships produced to individuals by the suspension of the administrative business of the Court of Chancery during the Long Vacation. These were some of the evils of the law which the Bill, in its present form, did nothing whatever to remedy, and he could not reconcile his mind to allowing it to pass without asking the House of Commons not to spend £1,500,000 on one of the most costly judicial systems in the world, and yet, practically speaking, to close the Courts against the public for so large a portion of the year. Therefore his Amendment was to leave out those words which made the alteration of the vacation dependent on the will of the Judges. He could see no fair excuse for the present system; and he thought it would be for the advantage of the public if it were put an end to. If there was to be no alteration in the vacation, except upon the report or recommendation of the Judges, it would never be shortened by a single day or hour."—[3 Hansard, ccxvi. 1801–2.] The right hon. Gentleman had been ac- curate in his prediction. Not only were vacations not shortened by the Judges, but they had actually been lengethened. He did not propose to interfere with the Christmas Vacation of three weeks, or the Easter Vacation of 12 days, or the Whitsun Vacation of 10 days; but he asked the House to dock 14 days from the Long Vacation. He thought that 70 days, or 10 weeks, was as long a vacation as any Department in the Public Service ought to enjoy in this country. He was sure that no Minister of the Crown had 70 days for a vacation, and no other Department of the State gave its servants 70 days. When they reflected on the evils which were inflicted on suitors by the great delay in getting their cases heard, he was sure they ought not to turn a deaf ear to this appeal. His proposal was to shorten the vacation by 14 days; and, as there were 22 Judges, it would practically add another Court sitting all the year round. He hoped the Government would not meet his Amendment with a non possumus. They had had very little reform this year. [Mr. WARTON: Hear, hear!] His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridport cheered that remark; but his hon. and learned Friend did not look upon the matter in the same way; because he (Mr. Fowler) was satisfied that the Government were desirous of undertaking the work of reform, and had only been prevented by circumstances from doing that which they were anxious to do. They had now reached the last days of the Session, and they had the power, by their own simple act, without the slightest trouble whatever, of reforming one of the greatest abuses of the administration of justice in this country, and of conferring a great benefit upon the suitors who appealed for justice to the Courts of Law. He therefore hoped that in what would, perhaps, be the last division of the Session, he should not find a Liberal Government arraying all its force against so moderate, so useful, and so necessary a reform.

New Clause (Sittings and Vacation of the High Court of Justice,)—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

SIR EARDLEY WILMOT

said, the clause proposed to be introduced by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) would introduce a change of a very beneficial character, and he should cordially support it. He had already given his reasons for doing so at an earlier stage of the debate upon the Bill.

MR. WARTON

said, he should have much pleasure in voting for the clause proposed by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. H. H. Fowler).

MR. ARTHUR ELLIOT

said, at that season of the year it was customary with gentlemen of the Legal Profession to be absent from town, and they were to be found scattered, so to speak, all over the world—in Scotland, Italy, and Switzerland. Although the Long Vacation, terminating on the 18th of October, constituted, as he thought, a long holiday, still he did not think it fair to his Colleagues to introduce so great a change on almost the last day of the Session. Moreover, the Judges had never been consulted in this matter, and this was an additional reason why he hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. H. H. Fowler)" should not press his Amendment. No doubt, a great deal might be said in favour of the clause proposed to be introduced by his bon. Friend; but, notwithstanding that, having regard to the time at which it was brought forward, he should be unable to give it his support on the present occasion.

MR. M'INTYRE

reminded hon. Members that, besides the convenience of the Legal Profession and that of the Judges, there were the interests of the suitors to be considered by the House of Commons when it was proposed to make alterations in connection with the administration of justice. The Courts of Judicature were established for the purpose of carrying on the business of the country, and, as that business ought to be carried on in an efficient manner, the greatest possible amount of time ought to be devoted to that purpose for the benefit of the persons who were most concerned in it. He could assure the Committee that the great majority of the Profession of which he was a member would most heartily approve the provisions of the clause proposed to be added by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). He should have been better pleased if the hon. Member had proposed to make the Long Vacation end on the 8th instead of the 18th of October, which would allow two months. However, he did not propose to modify the clause in any way. On the contrary, he gave it his entire support, and if his hon. Friend went to a division, he should vote with him.

MR. WILLIS

said, amongst the many calamitous consequences of the Judicature Act was the abridgment of the number of days for the trial of causes. He remembered that when he was upon the Northern Circuit, before the passing of that Act, the Judges sat for the purpose of trying causes until the end of August or the beginning of September. But since the passing of the Act, which he should always deplore, the Judges ceased from their duties much earlier, and it was frequently the case that causes were referred and arrangements made to which counsel were admitted for the purpose of getting through the business on a certain day. In consequence of this interpretation of the Judicature Act, suitors were deprived of 20 or 30 days of term. He had himself been on Circuit as late as the 29th of August; but the Courts adjourned now on the 8th of August, and it was sometimes the case that when the adjournment took place something like 500 or 600 causes were outstanding. There could be no doubt that the suitors suffered very considerably in consequence of the postponement of their causes, and that something should be done to remedy the state of things to which he had referred. He suggested that 10 or 12 days should be added to the sittings after the 8th of August, or that the sittings on Circuit should continue until the causes down for trial were disposed of. If that plan were adopted, there would be no need for any alteration with regard to the termination of the Long Vacation; and he should be glad if the hon. and learned Attorney General would take the present opportunity of adding to Trinity Term as many days as had been lost in consequence of the passing of the Judicature Act. The matter was one of grave importance to suitors, and he trusted it would receive the serious attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he should feel that the Profession to which he had the honour to belong would be open to the charge of pursuing rather a selfish course if they decided for themselves against what was the true interests of the suitors. He was, therefore, in favour of some alteration of the kind contained in the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). A curtailment of the Long Vacation would, no doubt, facilitate the dispatch of business, and it might be effected either by bringing the vacation to an end sooner in the month of October, or by paring down the earlier part of it. He thought members of the Profession would join him in making this protest on behalf of the great body of lawyers, that they were not selfishly inclined.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he felt sure the Committee would believe him when he said that no one regretted more than he did the inconvenience caused to the public by the postponement of causes. He had already, on several occasions, given expression to his opinions upon that subject, and he was ready to do anything in his power to remedy the inconvenience complained of. But the Committee would understand that he was bound to deal with this matter not only in accordance with his own wishes and individual opinion, but also in accordance with the wishes of others who were interested likewise in any changes of the kind proposed by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. II. Fowler). The hon. Member proposed that the Michaelmas Sittings of the High Court of Justice in London and Middlesex should commence on the 18th of October and determine on the 21st of December. But that alteration could not be made without altering all the arrangements of the Circuit which had been in existence for years, and which were made for some time forward. The Government were therefore unable to accept the clause, inasmuch as it would constitute an interference with arrangements that had hitherto been left to the discretion of the Judges. But, although his hon. Friend had simply moved the clause then before the Committee, he had adduced arguments in favour of shortening the Long Vacation. He (the Attorney General) must remind the Committee that Her Majesty's Judges accepted their positions upon certain terms, amongst which was the Long Vacation as it at that time existed. That being the case, he did not think the Committee ought, without consulting the Judges, proceed to alter the original terms of the agreement. They ought not to subject such a body of men to an attack of public criticism, nor, by making the alteration proposed by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton without consulting them, treat Her Majesty's Judges, for whom everyone ought to have the most sensitive regard, without the slightest consideration. Therefore, he appealed to his hon. Friend, whose object he entirely shared, not to press his Motion to a division; and, although he was unable to give any pledge as to the course that would be taken, he would promise to bring that which appeared to be the unanimous opinion of hon. Members present under the attention of Her Majesty's Judges, and, with due respect to them, he would support that opinion as far as he could. Seeing that Her Majesty's Judges had not been consulted in this matter, he felt sure the Committee would not wish to act with anything like discourtesy towards that body, who were, under all circumstances, entitled to the highest respect and consideration. If, after the appeal he had made to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, he still felt it his duty to press the Committee to divide upon his Motion, he should be compelled to give him his reluctant opposition.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he must trouble the Committee with one or two words in reply to the observations of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. He held in his hand an exact copy of the wording of the Order which was in force for the regulation of the sittings of the Courts, and the only alteration proposed by the clause before the Committee, so far as that Order was concerned, was the substitution of the 18th of October for the 2nd of November. That being the case, the remark of the hon. and learned Attorney General, with reference to seven Judges only out of 22 having to go on the Winter Circuit, would be equally applicable to the latter date as to the former. He was surprised at the extraordinary position taken up by his hon. and learned Friend, that the Judges had accepted their offices upon a bargain that Parliament should not alter the judical time for the benefit of suitors. He should be bound to take a division. upon his Motion, as a protest against a proposition so dangerous to the Privileges of Parliament and to the interests of the country. To argue that the Judges had a right not to sit for more than 30 weeks in the course of the year, when Parliament had again and again interfered in these matters, and when the Rules now in force were made by Parliament, and by Parliament alone, was an absurdity. He repudiated anything like disrespect to the Judges; but hon. Members had a duty to perform to the public, and he did not think he should be wrong in putting on record the division which he felt bound to take, as a protest against a doctrine so dangerous to the public interest in the administration of justice.

MR. W. N. NICHOLSON

said, as a member of the commercial community, he should give his support to the proposed alteration. The inconvenience and expense caused to the mercantile public by the delay in the hearing of causes was of a most serious character, and he hoped the whole subject would receive the fullest consideration at the hands of the Government.

MR. HASTINGS

pointed out that the date proposed for the commencement of the Michaelmas Sittings—namely, the 18th of October, would clash with the holding of Quarter Sessions throughout the country, which were attended by a large number of gentlemen belonging to the Common Law Bar.

MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

thought there was a good deal of what he trusted he might be allowed, without giving offence, to call clap-trap in the argument of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, that the Privileges of the House were endangered by the doctrine put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General that Her Majesty's Judges should be consulted with reference to the great changes proposed to be made in the duration of the Michaelmas Sittings. He did not believe there was any fear of the Privileges of Parliament being interfered with by Her Majesty's Judges or any other limited body of men. The Privileges of Parliament were quite capable of taking care of themselves. The Committee had listened to a great deal about the convenience of the suitors, but he had heard nothing of the convenience of the Bar, although there was much to be said from their point of view also. It was well known that the members of the Bar were, in many cases, greatly overworked; and, for his part, he should very much regret that a change calculated to diminish, to so large an extent, their well-earned and necessary relaxation, should be decided upon in so thin a House. For these reasons, he should certainly not vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 28; Noes 36: Majority 8.—(Div. List, No. 410.)

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he should now move the next clause standing in his name. The Committee had just decided against his last proposal to lengthen the Michaelmas Sittings, and in the course of the discussion which had taken place upon that proposal a powerful argument had been used with reference to the Judges and the impropriety of deciding upon a change without their being consulted. But the Amendment he was about to move affected the Departmental administration only; and, therefore, the argument he had referred to did not apply in the present case. He hoped the Government would not object to curtail the enormous length of the Long Vacation, which now extended over a period of 95 days, or 13 weeks and 4 Says, and which he proposed to cut down to 12 weeks.

New Clause— The Vacations to be observed in the several Courts and Offices of the Supreme Court shall be four in every year, viz.:—The Long Vacation,, the Christmas Vacation, the Easter Vacation, and the Whitsun Vacation. The Long Vacation shall commence on the tenth day of August and terminate on the tenth day of October; the Christmas Vacation shall commence on the twenty-third day of December and terminate on the sixth day of January; the Easter Vacation shall commence on the Thursday before Easter and terminate on the Wednesday in Easter week; and the Whitsun Vacation shall commence on the Saturday before Whit Sunday and shall terminate on the Wednesday after Whit Sunday,"—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler,) —brought up, and read a first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he felt it his duty to ask the Committee not to agree to this Amendment. The vote just given he regarded as very expressive, and he understood it to mean that they ought not to deal in any way with the position of the Judges without consultation with them. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, in proposing a clause for the purpose of curtailing the Long Vacation, was now proceeding to deal with the position of an entirely different class of persons—namely, the clerks in the various offices of the Department, upon whom he was asking in effect that a greater amount of work should be imposed than they now had to perform. Now, it appeared to him (the Attorney General), that if the argument he had employed with reference to the Judges upon the last Motion of the hon. Member was entitled to carry with it any weight, the same argument ought to have even greater effect as applied to the present Motion. He thought his hon. Friend's Amendment did not go far enough, inasmuch as he would still keep the offices closed until the 10th October; and, looking at the present state of business, he considered the proper course he ought to have taken was to propose that these offices should not be closed at all, and that there should be shifts of the clerks to undertake the duties of the Department. That certainly seemed to him the direction which his hon. Friend's Amendment should have followed if it was intended to be of advantage to the public. He reminded the Committee that if the present clause were accepted, a hard-and-fast line would be drawn at the 10th of October. He trusted the Motion would not be pressed to a division, and that his hon. Friend would be satisfied with the assurance that the whole subject should be considered and brought before the House next year.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he agreed with the remark of the hon. and learned Attorney General as to the expressive character of the Vote just given; but he would point to the very expressive nature of the debate which preceded it. The hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) was the only Gentleman who had not approved the clause. However, he accepted the statement of the hon. and learned Attorney General that he would initiate a reform which would be acceptable alike to the Profession and the public, and, with the permission of the Committee, would withdraw the clause.

MR. DODDS

said, that the greatest possible inconvenience resulted to the public from the existing arrangements, and he expressed the earnest hope that if the Amendment were withdrawn, the whole matter would be investigated, and a beneficial change effected.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

House resumed.

Bill reported with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.