HC Deb 16 April 1891 vol 352 cc686-8
GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY (Hammersmith)

On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth (Mr. Kim-ber), I beg to ask the Attorney General whether he is aware that there are nearly 500 causes, besides motions, petitions, &c, awaiting a hearing in the Chancery Division, and over 1,500 in the Queen's Bench Division, which at the present rate of progress, and with all the Judges working hard, will take more than 12 months to try, irrespective of new causes; and whether, and when, the Government proposes to appoint addi- tional Judges to overcome the very serious damage which the delay is inflicting on a large number of Her Majesty's suitors for justice?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL(Sir R. WEBSTER, Isle of Wight)

In answer to the question of the hon. Member, I have to state that I believe that the statements of fact contained in the first paragraph of his question are substantially correct. With regard to the question of the appointment of an additional Judge, I may say that the matter is receiving the careful attention of Her Majesty's Government. It is not possible, however, for me to make any statement with regard to the latter part of the hon. Member's question.

MR. H. H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)

I beg to ask the Attorney General whether it is the fact that, in the Queen's Bench Division Courts, two Judges are constantly sitting for deciding questions of no greater importance than those which are decided in the Chancery Division by one Judge; and whether, having regard to the waste of judicial time involved in the present arrangements for the administration of justice in London and at the Assizes, to the accumulation of arrears arising from the long periods during which the Courts are not sitting, and to the dissatisfaction which exists with respect to the increased cost and delay caused by the working of the Judicature Acts, the Government will institute an inquiry, either by a Royal Commission or by a Select Committee, either of this or the other House, to inquire into and report on the whole question?

SIR R. WEBSTER

In answer to the question of the right hon. Gentleman, I have to say that the first paragraph raises a point which was considerably discussed last year upon the occasion of the passing of the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Inverness, and that there is a great difference of opinion as to whether more than one Judge should sit in Courts in Banc. There are certainly many cases that come before Divisional Courts of the Queen's Bench Division which require the attention of two Judges. The latter part of the question of the right hon. Gentleman should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Perhaps the First Lord of the Treasury can answer now?

THE FIRST LORD or THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH, Strand, Westminster)

My attention has not been called to this question until this moment, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will see the answer requires a little consideration.