Lords Sitting of 3 March 1856

MINUTE.
PUBLIC BILL.—1a Consolidated Fun (£1,631,005 1s. 5d.)

JUDICIAL STATISTICS.
LORD BROUGHAM: * I rise, in pursuance of my notice a fortnight ago, to bring before your Lordships the great subject of Judicial Statistics. When that notice was given, my noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) desired an explanation of the term. It signifies the regular and constant record of the whole particulars connected with the administration of the law in all its branches: its administration by all courts, civil and criminal, general and local; the state of those courts, as to judges and other office-bearers; their whole proceedings through every stage; together with every matter concerning the working of the law, though not having come within the cognisance of any tribunal—in a word, the record, in minute detail, and for the most part in a tabular form, of all the facts connected with the execution of our laws. Need there more be said to show. I will not say the great value, but the paramount importance, nay, the absolute necessity, of this knowledge to the makers of those laws? Can we, I will not say conveniently, but rationally, nay, can we safely, can we honestly, exercise our legislative functions without having this information upon the action of the laws which we make, or of those made by our predecessors, and which we are constantly required to abrogate, or alter, or continue? We make some change in the system. We are bound to examine how that new law works: unless we know all the facts connected with its execution, how can we tell whether or not it was wisely, that is, usefully adopted?—whether we should persist in our course, or retrace our steps, or proceed in another direction? Jurisprudence is eminently a practical science, and the work of a safe because a prudent lawgiver is for the most part of a tentative kind. It behoves him to carry it on with a constant reference to the effects which his measures have produced. He can but dimly see even to the shortest distance before him; therefore is he bound carefully to look behind, and on each side, that he may be well assured he has made no mistake, and be full sure of his ground. When we are sailing upon an unknown

1675
coast or a coast little known, where we cannot have the benefit of a chart, how shall we hope to be safe, if we possess neither compass to guide our course nor lead to give us soundings and keep us secure from shoals and sunken rocks? Full and minute statistical details are to the lawgiver, as the chart, the compass, and the lead to the navigator.
When I referred my noble Friend (the Lord Chancellor) to the French reports and tables as the specimen of such information which approached nearest to perfection, the Lord Chief Justice said, I was not aware that we possessed a body of statistical facts in the yearly returns of criminals, to which the learned Judges often referred in their charges to grand juries. I was fully aware of their existence and their uses, as I then told my noble and learned Friend; and it was because I was well acquainted with them that I pronounced our judicial statistics to be at the opposite point from the French, and to be the very worst which any country affecting to have such returns possesses. It will presently appear why I rated the French so high, and ourselves so low in this great department—a department which alone can make legislation a branch of inductive science and bring it, so to speak, within the scope of Lord Bacon's rules.
In 1853, an important congress to discuss the various statistical questions with a view to the intercourse of different nations, was assembled at Brussels, summoned by the King of the Belgians, who with his sons attended on one of its three days. The Minister of the Interior presided, and nearly a hundred delegates, mostly persons in official stations, attended from all parts of Europe save Russia, and from the United States also. Some years after, in last autumn, a similar congress, but much more numerously attended, was assembled at Paris under the patronage of the Emperor, and presided over by the Minister of Public Works, Agriculture, and Commerce. The representative of England were Dr. Farr, appointed by my hon. Friend Major Graham (the Registrar General; Mr. A. Fonblanque, of the Statistical Department of the Board of Trade, accompanied, I believe, by his assistant, Mr. Valpy; and Professor Levi of King's College, representing different chambers of commerce. My noble Friend Lord Ebrington represented the Statistical Society of London. These gentlemen had also attended the Brussels congress; mid there,
1676
as well as at Paris, the important department of Judicial Statistics largely engaged the attention of the body; it formed, indeed, the subject of one of the four sections into which the whole of their inquiries were distributed. The desire was universal at both the meetings for the promotion of this branch of economics; and the wish was strongly expressed that a third congress should be held in London this year. How imperfect our system is—how little it ever could bear a comparison with that of France at any time—how much it has become even less to be commended of late years—how entirely we are left by it in the dark as to all the facts which it is the most essential that we should know regarding the administration of our laws and the condition of the people their subjects, will speedily appear if your Lordships will bear with me while I enter into some necessary details upon the whole subject. It is needless to beguile you with the notion that this explanation can be accomplished without some trespass upon your time; but I engage not needlessly to encroach upon it.
I begin with our criminal returns, the only portion that has any the very least pretence to be called a regular branch of statistics—all the others being irregular, occasional, accidental. Now, I pray you to observe how exceedingly defective are these returns, tabular as they are, made by the care and ability of an excellent officer, very ill supported, Mr. Redgrave of the Home Department; and I will first of all show you how a paltry saving has of late years made them more imperfect than they were before. In 1839, the age and instruction of the prisoners were omitted—their age and education in connection, with their offences. In 1851 a further step was taken in the course of petty savings, and the sex of the persons was left out; so that the spirit of false economy, of expensive parsimony, had to boast of saving three columns out of four-and-thirty. But its triumph is confined to England; for the Scotch returns still continue as formerly to give these most important particulars. Some, I am aware, set little store by the details of education, as if they were little to be relied on, or, if accurate, of no great value. Of their importance I can have no doubt; and how far they can be made trustworthy I think we have some indication from the experience of our neighbours in France, We find that the proportion given for the average of five years ending 1820 of prisoners wholly illiterate

1677
—that is, quite unable either to read or write at all—was 612 in 1000. In thirty years this proportion had been considerably reduced, for the average of five years ending 1850 was only 509 in 1000. Of persons not wholly illiterate, but very imperfectly taught to read, above 300 were to be added, making the uneducated class fourteen-fifteenths of the whole. When the proportion of education in criminals, as well as its progress, is compared with the same matters in other classes, as the conscripts, we find such a diversity as might he expected. In the fifteen years ending 1850, half the period formerly taken, the number of the illiterate conscripts had come down from 480 to 362, or as four to three instead of six to eight; so that the returns, being according to what the diversity of the classes would lead us to expect, confirm each other. I have said that the returns from Scotland continue to give education, together with age and sex, as before the rule, the tyrannical rule of wasteful parsimony. But neither there nor in England, at any time, was there ever given the very essential particular of the number of offences, without which no estimate can be made of the amount of crime at any period, or in any district. The number of persons alone is given, and has ever been. Yet, see how this is calculated to mislead. I observe, by to-day's account of the assizes in Northumberland, six persons tried for one murder; in our tables this would be recorded as six murders. The gravest offences—murder, manslaughter, burglary, arson—are often committed by more than one; but so too are some misdemeanors; for instance, riot and conspiracy must needs involve several parties. Why all these defects in our statistics—defects which render them not merely useless, but deceptive rather than instructive? Above all, why this retrograde movement, so that the defects have become greater, the usefulness less? All arises from a wretched, a false, an expensive economy. In no country is it more the habit to overpay insignificant, and underpay important service. We positively appear to take as serious the sarcastic description of "penny wise and pound foolish "—to make of the sneer a maxim—not taking it as a warning against folly, but as the guide of our conduct. Nor, I greatly fear me, is this confined to such paltry savings on our criminal statistics as I am now speaking of. An alarming report has reached me, utterly
1678
impossible to have any foundation, I would fain hope; and from such apprehensions I trust my noble and learned Friend will at once relieve me. The story, the incredible story is told, that the Government intend to cut down the salaries of the County Court Judges from the sum voted by Parliament—I will not say in its generosity, but in its wise providence—for securing efficient services in those most important stations; and this while my noble Friends have, I rejoice to say, listened to my often repeated demand of repealing the taxes upon proceedings in those courts. But to lower at the same time for a miserable saving of a few hundreds the remuneration awarded by Parliament, and thus to narrow and fetter the choice of fit judges—and this by those who profess themselves the friends of Local Judicature—it is not to be believed! Well may those courts pray to be saved from their friends, and ask what their enemies could do worse! They may, perhaps, remind us how near friend and foe can come together; and though they may not say that friend and fiend differ but by a letter, they may think it likely enough that the monstrous attacks upon the system will be, I do not say universally hateful, but let us say only disrelished in the greatest degree by the people with whom local judicature is in great and justly great favour, and who desire nothing more strongly than to see it exercised by the ablest, the most learned, and the most honourable men.
But I revert to the glaring defects in our statistics, especially as compared with those of France, Our tables, whether for England, Scotland, or Ireland, give no proportion of the criminal to the whole population, either of the country at large or of the particular districts. In the French you can tell this at a glance, both generally and in detail. On the average of five years, ending 1850, the proportion for the whole country was 1 in 4568; but this varied exceedingly in the different departments. In the L'Ain it was as low as 1 in 10,523. The highest was that of the Seine, 1 in 1,385; and nearly on the same level with the most refined portion of the community, the inhabitants of the capital, was the least civilised, the Island of Corsica, where the proportion was 1 in 1,672. As might be expected, the offences against the person formed a large proportion in the latter, and a small proportion in the former Department. In Paris, 14 per cent, or one-sixth, were offences against

1679
the person, 86 against property; in Corsica it was reversed, 83 against the person, or five-sixths, and 17 only against property. Now, I have no manner of doubt that this extraordinary amount of crimes of violence being brought before the Minister of Justice, himself a Corsican, as, indeed, are some in more exalted stations, he will direct his attention and theirs to the means of so improving the administration of the law in that island, as to bring the inhabitants to a greater uniformity with the rest of the people, so far as the diversity of temperament, character, and social habits will permit. Such is the practical tendency of the information which these Statistical Returns afford, such the useful lessons which they inculcate, and the needful remedies which they compel the Government to apply.
Another defect, and a very great one, in our returns is, that they give no account whatever of the length of time during which criminal proceedings are pending, no means of ascertaining how long persons have been in confinement, or what interval has elapsed between arrest and final sentence, between final sentence and execution, between the commencement and termination of the case. In this particular the French tables are admirable; they approach as near perfection as possible. The result is satisfactory as regards the administration of the criminal law in respect of despatch. Of the cases tried at the Cours d'Assize, nine-tenths take no more than six months in the whole. Of those tried by the Tribunaux Correctionels, nineteen-twentieths are finished in three months. As to despatch, therefore, the return is satisfactory. As to the merits of the trial itself, I cannot by any means pronounce the same opinion; for their criminal procedure is extremely defective, being by far the worst part of the Code. It was, indeed, left imperfect; and I have learnt with the highest satisfaction that the Emperor's Government is disposed to remove this great blot from the most important of his celebrated kinsman's works, that which he himself foretold would form his title to renown with after ages.
Such, then, is the inferiority of our statistics in whatever regards proceedings in courts; and such the great superiority of the French. But, suppose all the defects of which I have been complaining were removed, all the omissions supplied, there is this grand objection to these returns—to the Statistics which my noble and learned
1680
Friend, now gone the circuit (Lord Campbell), described as so important; they are confined to persons tried at Assizes and Sessions, and are silent as to all other trials and all other proceedings. Not one word of police courts—not one word of summary convictions of any kind: forming, really, the greater part in number, though not in magnitude, of the whole criminal proceedings of the realm. All the arrests, and discharges, and penalties at police courts—all the proceedings at petty sessions—all the penalties inflicted summarily out of sessions—are entirely left out; and your Lordships will observe, that the jurisdiction of magistrates has lately received a very large extension, both voluntary and contentious, both where persons plead guilty, and where they elect to be tried at once and without jury, by the Act of last session, which I have often taken the liberty of calling the Carlisle Act, because it originated in the petition presented by me from my friends the Cumberland justices, last session and the session before, though a right hon. Friend elsewhere (Sir John Pakington) had proposed a like measure somewhat earlier. This new Act has been found to work so admirably, that a most able and learned Judge now on circuit (Mr. Justice Coleridge), lately pronounced a high panegyric upon it, the more valuable because his Lordship had formerly, as he states, entertained a somewhat different opinion, before the experiment was tried. The whole results of summary jurisdiction are thus left out of our criminal statistics. But I will now suppose this omission also to be supplied, and that we have these results, as well as the proceedings at assizes and sessions, still our accounts are confined to crimes which actually appear before different courts.
Hitherto I have spoken of offences and offenders as recorded in the proceedings of courts, whether of trial or of police; but it is of the greatest importance to ascertain as far as possible the number of crimes which never reach any court: nothing can be more essential to the formation of an estimate touching the state of crimes in the community, and the action of the law in detecting and in preventing them. I can give no better illustration of this than is afforded by the inquiries of the Commission on the Constabulary Force, whose report was made in 1839; at the head of it was my right hon. Friend the Speaker (Mr. Lefevre), Colonel Rowan and Mr. Chadwick

1681
were the other commissioners; and it would not be easy to name any persons whose authority stands higher in all respects, but more especially on the subject-matter of their inquiry. I may say that they soon found their progress stayed, if not altogether stopped, by the want of statistical information. They were obliged to issue above two hundred questions for obtaining necessary details from various departments, all which details, had their inquiry been conducted in Franco, would at once have been furnished by the inspection of the yearly tabular returns. On one subject they had access to accurate information regarding untried, indeed, unprosecuted offences, that of forgery. From the Bank they obtained the number of forgeries for a series of years, and the result of the comparison is very instructive. The average number of forgeries for the years 1816 and 1817 was 28,000; the convictions, 110. The average of forgeries for 1820 and 1821 was 24,000; the convictions, 240. So that, while the convictions show an increase of the offence of more than double (24 to 11), the offence had actually decreased in the proportion of 7 to 6. So, in the twenty years ending 1826, the convictions had doubled, while the offence had fallen to one-half. Well may the Commissioners observe, that if our view is confined only to the transactions in the courts of criminal justice, we may be seriously misled in our inferences, as may likewise the community in its feelings; and the legislature and even the dispensers of mercy may be misled, if the calculations founded on judicial proceedings are not corrected by a reference to the actual state of offences in the country. That there exist the means of obtaining such information cannot be doubted. We have it in some of our own great towns by means of the police; we have it generally in Ireland; and the Tables of crime and outrage record such information—the result, however, as almost all our returns are, of occasional exertions, arising from the accident of motions in Parliament. I will take the returns from the Dublin Metropolitan Police; I have here those for 1852. It appears that there were 60,886 offences of all kinds, and only 54,261 persons apprehended; so that above 6,000, or a tenth part of the offences, are reported without any proceedings having been had. Of the whole there were 40,256 sentenced, 13,050 discharged, and 955 committed for trial. I must add, in justice to my worthy countrymen
1682
of the sister kingdom, that by far the greater number of the sentences, or 43,000, were for smaller offences; for instance, 16,000 were for vagrancy. But this return shows that we may obtain accounts of crime independent of judicial proceedings. The French tables go further: they give a minute account of the causes which are supposed to have operated in producing the offences—as passion, poverty, sordid propensities, irregular habits; and no doubt this may be regarded as somewhat a speculative statement. Compared with the other heads of the returns it certainly is so; but it is very far from therefore meriting no attention. If, for a small number of instances, or for a single year, we were to rely upon such an account, manifestly we should be led into error. But as the same causes of inaccuracy, the same want of complete information in individual cases, the same sources, in short, of error, most probably exist in each district, and in each year, we may more safely rely upon the comparison of district with district, of year with year. As to time, if we cannot with perfect safety compare the returns of two single years, we can with greater certainty institute a comparison between any two years and any other two; and if we take the average of six or seven years at one period with the like average at a subsequent period, according to all the doctrine of chances, we shall be probably safe in the conclusions we draw from the result of the comparison.
Let me now lay before your Lordships in one view the result of the whole French Annual Statistics; and that not as a mere matter of curiosity, but as fruitful of proofs how far they are superior to our own, and as leading to some remarkable illustrations of the consequences that spring from our great deficiencies. We shall find that light is thus thrown, for example, on three subjects which must and justly occupy the attention of Parliament at the present day: the establishment of a rural police, prison discipline, and the secondary punishment consequent upon the disuse of transportation, connected with recommitment and ticket-of-leave. In 1853, the last year for which I have the tables, the offences of the whole country were 5,440, and 7,317 persons were tried at assize courts, 208,699 and 261,147 persons of lesser offences tried correctionally—in all 213,139 offences and 268,466 persons. Of the assize cases 4,194 were persons in the rural districts, 2,821 in the towns; and of the rural, 2,458 were charged with offences

1683
against property, 1,646 against, the person; while of the towns 2,115 were against property, 715 against the person. I need not stop to observe that these are general results; but the tables give everything in the most minute detail, specifying the offences and offenders in each district, the proportion to the population, with all the other particulars on which I have already commented. Then, we have similar returns in the like detail as to police proceedings; and the total is 543,407 persons apprehended or summoned, of whom 474,359 were punished by fine, 24,748 by imprisonment, and 42,433 were discharged. The offences, of course, were, for the most part, of a trivial description; thus 25,203 were cases of keeping shops open at undue hours. But one very important head is given, especially in the graver cases, that of recidives, relapse, or recommitment: we find that of the 7,317 tried at assize courts, 2,401 had been punished before. It is true that fifteen-sixteenths of the number had only been sentenced by the Correctional Tribunals; but 983, or nearly one-seventh, had been condemned to a year's imprisonment, 278 to more severe punishments, and no less than 169 to travaux forcès, indicating very grave offences. It is from the view of these facts, and facts such as these, that the Government had been led to consider very anxiously the necessity of making some alteration in the system of secondary punishments, as well of the law itself as of its execution; and one most important use of these details, indeed the great value of such statistics, arises from their holding up to the Government the state of the criminal law and its administration. Here we are continually desiderating such lights; and we are fain to obtain the mere glimmering afforded by occasional returns, required by mere accident and by accident furnished, instead of having them regularly supplied at all times, and systematically as well as symmetrically arranged, like those of our French neighbours. When I presided over your Lordships' Committee on Transportation some years ago, we had to circulate our questions in various quarters, and to examine for many days, I might say weeks, a vast number of witnesses, the greater part of whose testimony would have been rendered unnecessary had our criminal statistics been like those of France, because the inspection of the tables would have given very much of the information required, and given it without the partial, one-sided view
1684
inevitable in the statements brought forward for a particular purpose. The information afforded by the French tables is further of the very kind most wanted to shed light upon the question, the all-important question, of a police establishment. A noble Friend of mine who attended the Brussels and Paris congress, and has given his valuable opinion in the letter I am to move for (Viscount Ebrington), could well speak to the want of such statistics in this country. He was, with one or two others, lately engaged in the plan of establishing a rural police for the county with which he is connected, that of Devon. They had recourse to the experience of places where it had been tried. All was diversity and variation. In some counties, as Oxfordshire, they found the experiment had been made with superintendents and no assistants—with officers, as it were, and no privates; in other places, privates and no officers; in some, as Lancashire and Hampshire, both officers and privates. But there were no returns of the practical working; no steady light was shed on the! effects of the plans severally pursued. The inquirers were not helped, but hindered: sometimes in the dark from the total want of details; sometimes misled and not enlightened, but bewildered by false lights and cross lights; so that in despair they gave up the attempt to guide themselves by the experience of others, and Devonshire has not had even the trial of a rural police.
I have now shown your Lordships how defective the criminal Returns are in almost every material particular; how entirely they are made without system; and, excepting that most imperfect account of the assizes and sessions, how much their existence in any form depends upon the chance of some Motion, or other proceeding, occurring; so that in the result, for the most part, there are no Returns at all. But bad as this is, the want of information respecting civil proceedings of all kinds is incomparably more disgraceful to us. There is absolutely not a return of the kind made regularly either to the Government or to Parliament—not the least record left of the state of any of the courts of Law or Equity, Admiralty or Consistory, except that once a Motion of mine to your Lordships, was made with a particular view, and by this chance we had a list of the Judges and their salaries—nothing like an account of the business transacted by these courts, except that the Commons also for a particular purpose directed a

1685
return of the County Court causes, which account happens to have been repeated; but there exists no return whatever of the causes in any of the other courts, either general or in detail; and any one looking at our Parliamentary Returns connected with the administration of justice, returns which it would be a cruel mockery, a very sarcasm, to call statistics, must conclude, if he had no other means of information, that there was no business at all carried on in this country of a civil nature—no causes tried, no judgments pronounced, no costs incurred, no delays to wear out the suitor's life, no expense to consume his substance. Only see, my Lords, the consequence of this most lamentable defect in the information promulgated by authentic documents—this total want of such information from official sources as to all that passes in our courts of civil jurisdiction! See the sad effects of our having been left ignorant of all these particulars, that is, left without their being brought together and in one view, so as to produce the impression which can only be made by the light of such a concentration! Does any one dream, for instance, that the defects in the Court of Chancery could have continued so long to vex the suitor and discredit the law, had the whole of the suits been chronicled regularly here as they are in France, with their results, and the periods of their endurance? What possibility would there have been of the Legislature, but still more of the country, hearing for years, ay, and for generations, I might say for ages, those defects—we may now call them grievous abuses, for they have been at length, after a more than Chancery length of time, condemned and partially removed—those abuses which ended in making the name of the court a term of reproach? My belief is, that a regular yearly table, exhibiting the causes, the delays, the costs, would, even without a Department of Minister of Justice, have sufficed to produce, years and years ago, this great improvement. From that subject willingly abstain on the present occasion. I have often urged it strenuously on your attention; but it is now, I trust, safe in the abler hands of a right hon. Friend elsewhere (Mr. Napier), and he, I know, will persevere after the success which attended his appeal, as learned as eloquent, to the Commons upon a late occasion. I may, however, remind your Lordships of the slow progress which has been made in the great cause of law
1686
amendment from want both of a Minister of Justice and of regular records of judicial statistics. The mere dates of measures propounded and adopted, distinguishing the times of the proposal and enactment, will show how truly the great sage's (Lord Bacon) maxim that proposal has wings, execution leaden feet, applies to all plans of amendment brought forward by men not clothed with official authority. I may well instance the greater part of ray own plans for reforming our laws. Of the nine Bills which in 1845, with the concurrence and support of my learned colleagues of the Law Amendment Society, I presented to your Lordships, and of which the greater part have since become law, I will venture to say all, certainly eight of the nine, would have passed easily if patronised by a person having the influence of Government to support him; and of those which did pass, by far the most important, that which has really altered the whole face of procedure in courts of civil judicature—the making the parties competent witnesses in civil causes, was postponed from 1845 to 1851; and though the Judges now admit that it has had the most blessed effects upon the administration of justice, the suitors and the courts were kept from its benefits, the discovery of truth obstructed, the triumph of falsehood secured, for six years and a half of utterly needless delay. Again, of the four courts, the establishment of which I urged upon your Lordships—and all of which, by many years' experience, are found to have been changed in our judicial system at once safe and beneficial—mark the dates of the proposal and adoption. The Bankruptcy Court Bill, presented in 1831, passed the same year. The Central Criminal Court Bill passed in less than six months after it was brought forward. The Judicial Committee was formed and in action within a few months after the Court of Delegates had been abolished. In all these cases of sure and speedy legislation I sat upon that woolsack, now so much more worthily occupied (I speak most sincerely and unaffectedly) by my noble and learned Friend; but the Evidence Bill, which lingered six years in its passage, was presented after I had long ceased to hold office. To one, the greatest of all these changes and the most important, the establishment of Local Judicature, no doubt, my present argument does not apply; for though originally propounded in the other House (1830), and before

1687
my accession to power, it was afterwards submitted once and again to this House with the advantage of official weight; and I bear your Lordships no malice for rejecting it by the narrowest majority in a moment of party controversy (1833). This blessed measure was some years after introduced and carried by my noble and learned successor, and though too long deferred, has produced the happiest effects (1845). Such postponements of beneficial changes are, however, to be deeply lamented; and I cannot avoid recollecting, perhaps, the most remarkable instance of this delay, and which never could by possibility have taken place if all that passes in the Courts of Chancery had been, as in France, regularly recorded, and promulgated, and held up, as it were, in the face of the Parliament and the Government by periodical display of the facts. It affords a striking instance of our great loss in the want both of a Department of Justice, and of a Department of Judicial Statistics. The most important change, and the greatest improvement of that court and its proceedings, is on all hands confessed to be the abolition of the Master's office. When was this first propounded? In 1842, by my lion, and learned relative (Master Brougham), then a Master, whose experience of ten years had led him to consider (and one or two of his brethren, I believe, agreed in the opinion) that there was no other remedy for the evils so loudly and so long complained of. In answer to the demand for his opinion by the Chancellor (Lord Lyndhurst), he reported to the Master of the Rolls (Lord Langdale) the very measure, with its details and the reasons for it. He and his colleagues could see no other means of effacing the blots on the system, than the root and branch reform of entire erasure. They said of their court, as the old Roman (or rather Spaniard) did of his own epigrams:——
''Non possunt nostros multæ, Faustine, littiræ Emendare jocos."
If sport to them, their proceedings were death to the poor suitor; so they mercifully concluded—una litura potest, and urged the total abolition. But when did my hon. relative make this proposal to Lord Langdale? In 1852; and, for want of the departments I have named,—above all, for want of the concentrated light which must have been cast upon the evil and its causes by the constant promulgation of the whole particulars connected with
1688
the Master's office,—ten long years were suffered to elapse of unspeakable suffering to the parties, utter disgrace to the tribunal, and general discredit to the administration of justice.
I have stated the contrast which France presents in this respect, and I pray your Lordships to mark how the facts bear out my assertion. We have a perfectly full account regularly given to the Minister of Justice yearly of all the proceedings of every court within the Realm in the most minute detail. That functionary makes his report to His Imperial Majesty, and presents the reflections also which the facts are calculated to suggest with a view to the improvement of the law and its execution. I am now dealing with the subject of delay. See how that is chronicled in these reports. We find that of the causes in the Court of Primary Jurisdiction (Première Instance) one-fourth on an average last above a year, one-third three months; but in the next superior court (Cour d'Appel) only one-fifth are disposed of in three months, while one-third take a year. I have already shown that the despatch is much greater in the criminal courts, nine-tenths of the proceedings for greater offences occupying six months, nineteen-twentieths of the proceedings for lesser offences three months only. The Minister of Justice is immediately struck with this difference of expedition in courts composed of the same judges, and he reports upon it. He is of opinion that it arises partly from the criminal proceedings being under the superintendence of the Public Prosecutor, somewhat from the greater complicacy of the civil procedure—but chiefly from the operation of professional interest—professional men, and, it should seem, some official persons also, being benefited by the protraction of suits. He calls the attention of the Emperor to this important subject, and promises his assistance in devising and effecting such measures as may (I cite his own words) "give to the administration of civil justice that promptitude which is an element of its efficacy." One may venture to conjecture that a report upon the Master's office would not have required the decies repetita in France as with us; that the denouncement of the Minister would have called forth that vigorous arm which brooks not the delay of a ten years' siege; and that the stronghold of abuse would have fallen in far less than the classical period of time during which

1689
it was suffered to mock the prayers of the suitor and defy the assaults of the amenders of the law.
My statements have already extended to a considerable length, and I feel thankful to your Lordships for having so patiently borne a discussion upon matters somewhat dull in themselves, interesting as are the great subjects with which I hope their intimate connection has been demonstrated. I must, however, still claim your attention to another subject of very great importance upon which the judicial statistics of our neighbours throw some light; I mean the Process of Reconcilement, the proceedings in the Bureaux de Conciliation. I have, unhappily, never been able to obtain your concurrence in the measures often propounded by me, chiefly in the County Court Bills, for establishing this most beneficial tribunal in England; but I hope that either I shall be spared to see such a consummation of all the great reforms in our law, or that in other and more powerful hands it will be accomplished. It needs no proof surely from experience to show how unspeakably great would be this blessing—the extinction of all, or nearly all, the unjustifiable litigation, that which, being groundless, is the mere torment of society. Facts we have in abundance to prove the success of the plan, wherever it has been tried and had fair play. In some countries it has at once cut off four-fifths, in others even more, of all the suits previously brought and carried through the courts. But can any one doubt that this must be the result, or require the proof from experience of what the least reflection must show to be infallibly certain before any experience is had? Needs more be done to secure its favourable reception than simply to tell what the plan is? If the parties who can by no possibility have an interest in continuing a hopeless litigation, shall go before a judge without the presence of a professional man who may have such an interest, and shall hear the opinion of a person whose station commands respect, whose judgment they trust, and who stands perfectly impartial and indifferent between them—if the one be told that he has no chance of succeeding should he prosecute his suit, or the other that his defence must prove unavailing, can there be any reasonable doubt that in a great majority of instances this advice will be taken, say rather, this warning will prove effectual; and so the hopeless demand or desperate
1690
refusal will be at an end, and the greater part of the causes stopped, such only going on as involve matters of fact properly in dispute, or points of law really requiring to be settled by trial? The French process of this kind is by no means so well devised as that of Denmark and some other countries where the effect of its introduction has been to clear the tribunals of a very large number of that class of causes to which I have referred. But, comparatively inefficient as the Bureau de Conciliation is, in consequence of the less satisfactory provisions of the law, it nevertheless produces very important results. We find, for example, by the tables for 1853, that of 211,000 proceedings in Conciliation, no less than 154,000, or three-fourths, were successful in wholly and finally adjusting the conflicting pretensions, or settling the cases without further litigation.
I must now add, that whatever doubts may be entertained, or, if I may respectfully to your Lordships so speak, whatever prejudices may prevail against Courts of Reconcilement, surely there can be no hesitation in approving of the Conseils de Prudhommes, and envying our French neighbours for the possession of so useful an institution, one so much wanted amongst ourselves. These, as your Lordships may be aware, are councils composed of respectable individuals not professional, for arbitration upon matters connected with the work and the differences of artisans, and especially for settling by voluntary submission disputes between masters and workmen. The successful working of this excellent plan is universally admitted. Thus I find that of 28,429 disputes in 1850 all were settled save 1041, and of this small proportion, only 1/27, the greater part were subsequently accommodated by parties who at first had refused to yield. The proportion in Paris was much less satisfactory, less so indeed than in any other Department, probably from the turbulent habits of the working classes in that capital—not above two-thirds of the disputes were settled. In the great manufacturing districts it was very different. Thus, at St. Etienne, of 2818 disputes, all but seventy, that is, all but one-fortieth, were accommodated. Only conceive how beneficial it would be if for our Birmingham (the St. Etienne of this country) you had a Domestic Forum which cut off thirty-nine in forty of the disputes between masters and men by an amicable, and comfortable, and immediate settlement!

1691
I have described the evil consequences of our only having occasional and chance returns upon the most important heads of both civil and criminal statistics—that one accidental Motion in either House obtains our only information on the numbers and salaries of Judges, another on the business transacted in courts of a single description only, the County Courts. But I should except two others, Admiralty and Bankruptcy, from the statement that there never have been any returns; for by mere accident there have been in both these cases, but once only; and the information never has been continued, so that it became entirely useless for any practical purpose. The unhappy accident of the war occasioned a return to be called for from the Prize Courts, and it was of considerable use in showing the effects of the blockade; but nothing could be more interesting than an account of all the Admiralty cases, as well as the Prize causes. Thus, in cases of collision and seamen's wages there is a concurrent jurisdiction with the Courts of Common Law. It would be important to compare the proceedings in these concurrent courts, were it only to show what preference is given by suitors to the one or the other jurisdiction; and these returns should manifestly not be limited by the duration of the present lamentable hostilities. On the Courts of Bankruptcy we happen to have returns dated some years back, not from any systematic course of furnishing this important information, but because there chanced to be a Commission appointed for inquiring into the state of the Bankruptcy judicature, and also a Committee moved for by my noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards), who had doubts, or more than doubts, on the new system of class certificates. Much evidence wan examined for many days by both Commissioners and Committee; and I will venture to affirm that a great part of it might have been obtained by an inspection of tables, if we had possessed anything like those of France, on the same subject. The Commission obtained very full returns; they are the only ones ever made, although the new judicature has been in existence and in full operation for a quarter of a century. They have never been continued since the Commission acted three years ago: they are liable to all the objections of being occasional, imperfect, one-sided, as compared with the full and regular tables of the French Government; though they are
1692
of use as far as they go, and for the period, now gone by, to which they relate. Than the French nothing certainly can be more admirable; they are full to minuteness of detail, and except that they omit the expenses of parties (the defect, and the only one, in the other tables of civil proceedings), they may be truly said to exhaust the subject. Thus, to give a summary, and no more: taking the year 1853—there were 2,126 bankruptcies; of these 319 for less than £200 (I translate into our money); 468 between £200 and £400; 348 between £400 and £2,000; 200 between £2,000 and £,4000. The assets amounted to £1,320,000, of which £480,000 real estate: debts £4,480,000, of which £520,000 secured by mortgage. Then the dividends are given in minute detail, so that at a glance you can tell how many, and in respect of what debts, received so many shillings in the pound (or sous in the franc) under the heads of various sums. I can imagine nothing more worthy of praise than this class of their statistics; but, indeed, the whole of the great work is an object of admiration and of envy—a work renewed regularly year by year ever since the department was finally formed in 1829, Napoleon having begun it in the consulship, and afterwards more fully arranged it in 1811; but the execution of this important design was not consummated before his fall. The precious volumes which are its yearly result, and which, considering the infinite number and minuteness of the details, are of no startling size, two moderate quartos only, are accompanied with the Minister's full and somewhat special report, on the great value of which, for purposes of practical legislation as well as for administrative uses, I have already more than once commented.
Let me set before your Lordships, in conclusion, the remarkable picture which they present of the general state of litigation for the last thirty years, before the war broke out. Notwithstanding the great increase in the numbers of the people, the number of causes had apparently somewhat fallen off, a real diminution of no inconsiderable amount, if we keep in mind the progress of the population. But in one class of causes there was no decrease; commercial causes had doubled. Heaven be praised! Humbly, devoutly, but most I heartily, let us pour forth our gratitude to the Great Disposer, for this happy consummation—happy for England, for Europe, for the civilised world, for France herself,

1693
above all—indicating, as it full surely does, the vast increase of trade, the application by that great people of their indomitable energies, their varied ingenuity, their untiring industry, their matchless perseverance—to the blessed pursuits of peace; for of commerce, we may say, as a great orator of ancient times did of his own art: "Pacis comes, otiique socia, et jam bene constitutœ reipublicœ alumna"—"the offspring and the pledge of peace abroad, order at home."
My Lords, I will not further weary you by reading these Resolutions which I now move; they embody the recommendations I have made, and show how these may best be carried into effect. I have had, in framing them, not only the example of the French Statistical Department and its labours, and the co-operation of my colleagues in the Statistical Committee of the Law Amendment Society—more especially, I have had the invaluable assistance of Professor Levi, whom I have long known, and than whom I have never met with a person of greater ability and more extensive information on all subjects connected with the science and statistics of commercial law, whereof he is the distinguished teacher, or one of industry more indefatigable. In framing the Resolutions which relate to the Admiralty and Consistorial Courts, we have had the aid of my friend, Mr. Rothery; and what concerns the Bankruptcy Court has been settled by communication with persons of that department. From the Statistical Department of the Board of Trade, under Mr. Fonblanque's able superintendence, I have derived liberal and valuable assistance, and his correspondence with Professor Levi on Judicial Statistics, is one of the two papers for which I have now to move you: the other is, Lord Ebrington's letter to Lord Palmerston, on the same subject. The Resolutions I only desire may be laid on your table and printed, and I shall move that the debate on them may be adjourned.
The noble and learned Lord then moved a series of Resolutions, defining the Returns which were required; but these were withdrawn on the resumed debate on the 13th March, and the following extended Resolutions substituted:—
I. "That a Judicial Survey should be made, to be continued quinquennially; showing—
"(1) The Number of Courts in the United Kingdom; (2) The Geographical Limits of their respective Jurisdictions; (3) The
1694
Nature of the Subjects they have to deal with; (4) The Number of the Judges and Officers attached to them, whether salaried or not; (5) The amount of Salaries and Fees received by such Judges and Officers; (6) The Funds out of which they are paid; (7) The amount of Business brought before them; and—(8) The Proportion of such Courts to the Population, and Character of each County or District."
II. "That as respects Criminal Statistics accurate Tables should be annually prepared; showing—
"(1) All Offences brought within the Cognisance of the Police, classified under different Heads; (2) The Number of Persons apprehended and charged with Crimes and Misdemeanors; (3) The Number of those summarily proceeded with, distinguishing those discharged and punished; (4) The Number of Persons committed and bailed for Trial to Sessions and Assizes; (5) The Number of Recognisances estreated for Nonappearance; and—(6) The Courts to which they stand so committed and bailed."
III. "That such Tables should show all such Particulars as may be obtained relative to the Individuals so committed, as to their—
"(a) Sex; (b) Age; (c) Degree of Instruction; (d) Condition, whether single or married, and, if married, having Children or not; (e) Place of Birth; (f) Place of Domicile; (g) Trade and Occupation; and (h) Antecedents of the Criminals, showing in case of Recommittals how many Times they have been committed, the Crimes they had committed, and the Punishments they had undergone."
IV. "That the above Information and Particulars should be given in relation to the different Classes of Crimes, and to the Counties where they have been committed."
V. "That the Causes of Crime, as far as they may be traced or ascertained, should also be given in connection with such Classification of Crimes and Criminals."
VI. "That the Number of Offences detected and undetected, and Number of Persons committed for Trial, should be shown in proportion to the Population of each County; distinguishing Crimes committed by the Rural and by the Town Population."
VII. "That the Results of the Trials should be given; showing—

"1. The Number of Persons acquitted; distinguishing—

"(a) Number found not guilty on Trial;

(b) Number with regard to whom no Bill was found; and—(c) Number against whom there was no Prosecution.

"2. Number of Persons convicted; and—

"3. The Kind of Punishments or Fines awarded in relation to the different Crimes; the same classified by Counties, and distinguishing the Courts by which the Punishments or Fines are awarded."

VIII. "That Accounts should be given of the Execution or Commutation of Punishments or Fines, whether by Death, Transportation, Penal Servitude, or otherwise; and, in the Case of Transportation, to what Penal Colony the Criminals have been sent."
IX. "That the Number of Tickets of Leave granted to Criminals in the Prisons of the United Kingdom or condemned to Penal Colonies should be given; showing—

"1. The Crimes such Criminals had committed;

"2. The Punishments to which they had been condemned; and—

"3. The Length of Time they had already been punished."

X. "That Accounts should be given of the Number of Coroners' Inquests or Inquiries for Murders, Homicides, and Accidental Deaths, stating the Causes of Death, and also of the Number of Suicides in each County, and in each Month of the Year."
XI. "That Prison Returns should be prepared; showing—

"1. The Number of Prisoners entered and disposed of, according to their—

"(a) Sex; (b) Age; (c) Place of Birth; (d) Trade or Occupation; (e) Crime; and—(f) Punishment.

"2. The Number of Recommittals in the respective Prisons;

"3. The Duration of Punishment the Prisoners have already suffered, and that which they have yet to undergo;

"4. The System pursued as to separate Imprisonment, or otherwise;

"5. The Nature of Employment of Prisoners, and the Amount of their Earnings, distinguishing the Mode in which such Earnings are disposed of;

"6. The Degree of Instruction, religious and industrial, possessed by the Prisoners on their entering and on their leaving the Prisons;

"7. The State of Health; showing—

"(a) The rate of Mortality; (b) Cases of Insanity; (c) Diet; (d) Ventilation and Warming; and—

"8. The Cost of Prisons."

XII. "That special Returns should be given respecting Juvenile Delinquents; showing—
"(a) The Sex; (b) Age; (c) Degree of Instruction; (d) Trade or Occupation; (e) Having Parents living or not, and which Parents; distinguishing, in Cases of Recommittals—(f) The Crimes they had before committed; (g) The Punishment they had suffered; and—(h) How many Times they have been committed."
XIII. "That Returns should be given of the Number and Capacity of Reformatory Schools established in proportion to the Population of each County and District."
XIV. "That the same Returns should show the Number of Youths admitted and disposed of, distinguishing Vagrant Children and Juvenile Offenders; and the same classified according to their—
"(a) Sex; (b) Age; (c) Degree of Instruction, religious and industrial, possessed by the Youths on their entering and on their leaving the Schools; and also the Number of Youths compulsorily detained, and the Number whose Entrance was voluntary, and the Nature of the Discipline used in the Schools; (d) Trade or Occupation."
XV. "That the same Returns should be given with respect to similar Establishments for adult
1696
Criminals, distinguishing those for Females from those for Males."
XVI. "That as regards Civil and Commercial Judicial Statistics, all Courts of Justice, of whatever Nature, should be required to give annually Returns of their working; showing—

"1. The Number of Plaints entered;

"2. The Number of Appearances;

"3. The Number of Causes tried;

"4. The Number left in arrear;

"5. The Nature of the Causes tried, classified under distinct Heads, such as Causes—

"(a) of Property; (b) of Wills; (c) of Divorce; (d) of Bills of Exchange; (e) of Insurance, &c., &c.;

"6. The Amount of Property in Dispute;

"7. The Number of Motions for new Trial;

"8. The Number of new Trials;

"9. The Courts to which the Appeals were carried;

"10. The Courts from which they were brought;

"11. The Number of Judgments affirmed or reversed;

"12. The Causes of the Reversals;

"13. The Duration of the Suit, and Appeal (if any);

"14. The Costs allowed upon Taxation;

"15. The Number of Juries summoned;

"16. The Number of Causes tried without Juries; and—

"17. The Number of Interlocutory Orders."

XVII. "That the Admiralty Courts should give Returns of—

"1. The Number of Causes instituted, distinguishing Proceedings in rem and in personam;

"2. The Nature of the Causes;

"3. The Number of Causes settled before Hearing;

"4. The Number of Causes brought to Judgment;

"5. The Duration of the Suits where Judgments have been given;

"6. The Amount at which the Actions were entered;

"7. The Number of Causes decided in favour of Plaintiffs;

"8. The Number of Causes decided in favour of Defendants;

"9. The Number of Causes where Appeals have been made;

"10. The Courts to which such Appeals have been asserted;

"11. The Number of Judgments affirmed and reversed;

"12. The Number of Causes referred to the Registrar and Merchants;

"13. The Amount reported by them to be due;

"14. The Number of Cases in which the Reports were or were not confirmed by the Judge; and—

"15. The Amount of Costs allowed upon Taxation."

XVIII. "That the Ecclesiastical Courts should give Returns;

"1. As regards Testamentary Matters;

"(a) Of the Number of Grants of Probate and of Administration; (b) The Number of Cases in which Probate or Administration has passed unopposed; (c) The Number of Cases in which they

1697
were opposed; (d) The Duration of the Causes; (e) The Number of Causes appealed; (f) The Courts to which such Appeals were brought; (g) The Results of such Appeals; (h) The Cost of Suits.

"2. As regards Matrimonial Causes;

"(a) The Number of Cases, distinguishing those instituted by Husband and by Wife; (b) The Number of Judgments for Husband and for Wife; (c) The Number of Causes appealed; (d) The Courts to which such Appeals were brought; (e) The Results of such Appeals; (f) The Duration of Suits; and—(g) The Cost of Suits.

"3. As regards Ecclesiastical Offences;

"(a) Number of Cases; (b) The Nature of the Causes; (c) The Number of Judgments for Plaintiffs and Defendants; (d) The Number of Appeals; (e) The Courts to which such Appeals were brought; (f) The Results of such Appeals: (g) The Duration of the Suit; (h) The Cost of the Suit.

XIX. "That the Courts of Bankruptcy should give Returns of—

"1. The Number of Bankruptcies in each County or District;

"2. The Amount of Bankruptcies under different Heads;

"3. The Amount of the Debts, distinguishing those secured from those upon personal Obligation;

"4. The Amount of Assets, distinguishing real from personal;

"5. The Amount of Dividends paid, under proportional Heads;

"6. The Trades of the Bankrupts;

"7. The immediate or proximate Causes of Bankruptcies;

"8. The Amount of the Expenses to the Bankrupt Estate of working the Fiats."

XX. "That the Privy Council should give Returns of—

"1. The Number of Cases entered;

"2. The Number of Cases disposed of;

"3. The Number of Cases left in arrear;

"4. The Nature of the Causes;

"5. The Colonies or Dependencies from which Appeals are sent;

"6. The Courts from which Appeals were brought;

"7. The Number of Cases decided in favour of the Appellants;

"8. The Number of Cases decided in favour of the Respondents;

"9. The Amount of the Cause;

"10. The Duration of the Suit;

"11. The Cost allowed upon Taxation."

XXI. "That the House of Lords should give Returns of—

"1. The Number of Causes entered;

"2. The Number of Causes disposed of;

"3. The Number of Causes left in arrear;

"4. The Nature of the Causes;

"5. The Number of Divorce Bills introduced, distinguishing those introduced on behalf of Husbands and on behalf of Wives;

"6. The Number of Divorces granted;

"7. The Number of Divorces refused;

"8. The Number of Cases decided in favour of Appellants;

1698

"9. The Number of Cases decided in favour of Respondents;

"10. The Amount of the Causes;

"11. The Duration of the Suits;

"12. The Costs allowed upon Taxation."

XXII. "That the Prize Courts should give Returns of—

"1. The Number of Vessels captured, distinguishing, under different Heads, the Tonnage, Flag, and Nature of the Cargoes;

"2. The Names of the capturing Ships;

"3. The Duration of Suits, from the Day of Capture and of Commencement of the Suit to the Day of Adjudication;

"4. The Grounds of Capture;

"5. The Number of Vessels condemned;

"6. The Number of Cargoes condemned;

"7. The Number of Vessels restored;

"8. The Number of Cargoes restored, distinguishing the Countries to which Vessels and Cargoes respectively belong;

"9. The gross Proceeds and Payments there out;

"10. The Costs allowed upon Taxation;

"11. The Number of Causes appealed;

"12. The Court to which such Appeals were carried;

"13. The Results of such Appeals."

XXIII. "That the British Consuls and Ambassadors in all foreign Countries should send Returns of—

"1. The Number of judicial Acts performed by them;

"2. The Number of Marriages celebrated before them;

"3. The Number of Protests of Masters of Ships, and other Acts regarding Salvage, Insurance, &c.;

"4. The Number of Cases brought before them in a judicial capacity."

XXIV. "That all such Returns should be Tabulated in some uniform Manner, so as to admit of Comparison with each other."
XXV. "That the same Returns should be given for England, Scotland, and Ireland, and published simultaneously."
XXVI. "That a Department for the Collection of Judicial Statistics should be formed in connection with the Home Office, or other Statistical Department already in existence, to which all such Returns should be annually transmitted, except the quinquennial Account respecting the Judicial Organisation; and that the same Department should make an annual Report to Parliament at a stated Time, presenting such Returns in a collected Form, illustrative of the State and Progress of the Administration of the Law throughout the United Kingdom."
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that his noble and learned Friend had taken a very fair course in not asking their Lordships at present to pronounce any judgment on his Resolution. He was not aware that there was any alteration in the mode of giving the Criminal returns since 1840, and he could not believe that for a paltry saving of some £80 or £90 a year any useful information would be omitted. As to the Returns from the civil courts he did

1699
not see any difficulty or objection to giving them regularly, instead of moving for them every Session. Those Resolutions referred to matters of the greatest importance, and were worthy of the cordial attention of their Lordships, and he could assure his noble and learned Friend that they should receive his most earnest attention.
Further debate adjourned sine die.
House adjourned till To-morrow.