§ MR. WARTON
asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to the following observations of Mr. Justice Grove, made on Saturday the 25th July, during the trial of the case of the Triumph Steamship Company (Limited) v. the Dartmouth Harbour Commissioners, viz.:—It was hardly possible to exaggerate the inconvenience of the present system. He had just learned that on Monday he had to sit in banco, on Tuesday he could go on with this case, which, however, would probably not finish on that day. On Wednesday he believed he should have to sit at the Old Bailey, and how long he would be detained there he had no idea. All he could therefore say was, that the further hearing must stand over until Tuesday;and, whether he will consider the propriety of recommending such an increase in the number of Judges as will permit of the continuance de die in diem of trials in the Queen's Bench Division? The hon. and learned Gentleman also asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to the following observations of Mr. Baron Huddleston, made on the 29th July at Chelmsford, viz.:—He was sorry that the new system under which the Assizes were held proved so inconvenient, and that, owing to the amount of business he had to go through at Norwich and other towns, he had been obliged to alter the dates for holding the Assizes at Chelmsford, Hertford, and Lewes; and even now, if he could not obtain the assistance of a Commissioner to whom he had made application for help, he was afraid he must again alter his present arrangements, for the two remaining Judges were obliged to stay in London, one taking work at Chambers, and the other being engaged with criminal business at the Old Bailey. He also referred to the great expense that the special jurors, petty jurors, and witnesses were put to at having to remain in the town for so long a time, owing to one judge having to take both civil and criminal business;and, whether he will consider the propriety of recommending such an increase in the number of Judges as will permit of the business at the Assizes being conducted with a due regard to the convenience of suitors, jurors, and witnesses?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER),
in reply, said, that these Questions should have been addressed to his right hon. Friend the 818 Secretary of State for the Home Department; but, after communicating with the right hon. Gentleman, he (the Attorney General) might say that the arrangements for the business of the Circuits, and also for the sittings in London, lay with the Judges themselves, who would now, as in the past, consider the interests of suitors and all concerned. The question of increasing the number of Judges, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman who put the Question referred, was one involving numerous and serious considerations, and could only be done by legislation.