HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (KING'S BENCH DIVISION). (Hansard, 8 May 1933)

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip)

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty representing that the state of business in the King's Bench Division requires that a vacancy in the number of puisne judges of the King's Bench Division should be filled, and praying that His Majesty will be graciously pleased to fill such vacancy accordingly, in pursuance of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925. Hon. Members in all parts of the House will be familiar with this procedure, which has been necessary since it was first adopted in 1910. It has been repeated in the Supreme Court Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, and the present position is that when the puisne judges, that is, the judges under the Lord Chief Justice in the King's Bench Division, are in 1328 number 15 or more, an Address to His Majesty shall be required before a vacancy can be filled. Such a Motion if passed in both Houses of Parliament, is efficacious for a period of 12 months, that is to say, if vacancies occur one after another within that period, and as often as a vacancy occurs, upon such an Address having been presented. The lamented death, which has recently taken place, of Mr. Justice McCardie, leaves the Lord Chief Justice with 16 puisne judges, and because it is desired to bring the number up once more to 17, I therefore make this proposal to the House.

I am not sure how far the House will desire me to make the statements that have always been made on this occasion as to the history of this matter. My learned Friend the Solicitor-General moved a similar Motion in February of last year, and on previous occasions the history has been repeated to the House how, as long ago as 1873, when the population was much smaller and the amount of business was much less, there were 18 Common Law judges. They were reduced to the number of 15 in 1876, when the Court of Appeal was set up, and raised to 16 in 1907, and in 1910 to 17, subject to the provisions to which I have referred as to a vacancy not being filled when the number is over 15, unless both Houses of Parliament have presented an Address to His Majesty. The experience of the last 10 or 15 years must have satisfied everybody that if the number of judges in the King's Bench Division is allowed to fall below the number which it has recently been, namely, 17, there is congestion, delay and a denial of justice. The experience during the period between October, 1929, and 1932 was a very striking one. In October, 1929, Mr. Justice Shear-man resigned and, partly from motives of economy and partly perhaps for other reasons, the vacancy was not filled until February, 1932, when the Motion to which I have referred was moved and Mr. Justice du Parcq was appointed to fill the vacancy. The congestion of business in those supervening years was lamentable. It was recognised on all hands, even by some of those who first thought of opposing the Motion made in 1932, that the appointment of the new judge to fill the vacancy was necessary. I have a great number of figures with 1329 which I could regale the House if necessary, or if any hon. Member desired. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Then I will not pursue them. I thought that if I threatened the House it would be sufficient. Let me say in a sentence that, if you take the number of cases awaiting trial on the 1st January in each of the last four years, you will find a progressive increase in the number of cases.

There have been on these occasions two customary objections to such a Motion. One was that there were overdue certain reforms in legal procedure. The other objection was based on what was supposed to he the undue length of the Long Vacation. Arrangements are now being made to propose to the House certain reforms in legal procedure and other reforms are at this moment being considered by a committee presided over by the Master of the Rolls. So far as the Long Vacation is concerned, that long-threatened institution appears to have reached a stage where, at any rate, it will be shorn of 10 days of its glories. It would be a great disaster if, when the legal profession have shown themselves amenable to public opinion in these respects, the advantages likely to accrue were prevented from being realised by any failure to fill the vacancy which has so lamentably occurred. I hope, with these few observations, I may have said enough to persuade the House that this Motion should be adopted.