THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that on a previous night he had stated in answer to a Question of a noble and learned Lord (Lord Westbury) that he would to-night make a statement as to the course he intended to pursue with regard to the Appellate Jurisdiction. He now gave Notice that he would on Thursday, the 11th April, move the following Resolution—
That it is expedient that one Imperial Supreme Court of Appeal be established which shall sit continuously for the hearing of all matters now heard by way of Appeal before this House or before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; and that the Appellate Jurisdiction of this House be transferred to such Supreme Court of Appeal.He did not mean to enter into discussion of the subject on the present occasion. He thought it desirable that their Lordships should have a further opportunity of discussing the subject or Resolution before they came to consider the legislation he should propose. He could not 379 see his way to the establishment of an effective Court of Appeal without first obtaining the concurrence of their Lordships in the Resolution. He did not propose it as a mere abstract Resolution—he had his Bill ready, and would on the evening he had named enter fully into the subject. He had now to refer to a former statement of his to which his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns), who was not now present, called attention on Tuesday evening. When on a former occasion he stated that on coming into office he found the appeals to that House two Sessions and a half in arrear, he certainly was not for a moment thinking of throwing blame on his noble and learned Friend, who had preceded him in the office of Lord Chancellor; nor was he claiming any merit for himself, but only explaining that notwithstanding the desirability of establishing a more complete Court of Appeal than now existed there was not in that House such an arrear of appeals as might have been supposed. He wished to show that those arrears had been very much cut down. In 1868–9 the case of Miss Sheddon, which lasted 28 days, interfered very much with the hearing of other appeals; there was also the Wicklow Peerage case, which occupied 10 days in that Session, and stood over as a remanet to the Session of 1869–70; so that instead of there being 38 appeals, which had been the number waiting to be heard in 1868–9, there were 63 waiting to be heard in 1869–70. In addition, there was the Wicklow Peerage case, which, as a remanet, occupied eight days. The usual number of appeals, so far as he could make out, was about 31 or 32 a-year. It would not be easy to ascertain exactly what cases were remanets of the previous Session and what were not. From a note appended to a Return he had had prepared, it appeared that some of those to which he referred were remanets from 1864 or 1865. In consequence of the extraordinary arrear of 63 cases having come under his notice in 1869–70, he made a statement that the appeals were two Sessions and a half in arrear—he ought rather to have said two Sessions and a quarter; at all events, the unusual number of 49 appeals were got through in the Session of 1870. This was not due to any exertion on his part, but to the assistance given by the noble and learned Lords who sat with him 380 when those appeals were being heard. At the beginning of this Session there were four old appeals standing over, and only 18 arrears from last Session, which he might call somewhat about half a-year's arrears. Since the beginning of the Session they had been so reduced that, including the old ones, only nine or ten now stood over. This would give himself and the Law Lords an opportunity—and it was not so common a one—of proceeding with new appeals in the Session for which they had been presented.