BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING. (Hansard, 18 February 1879)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am about to lay upon the Table, and to ask your Lordships to give a first reading to a Bill to extend the jurisdiction of the County Courts in England. My Lords, the extension of the jurisdiction of the County Courts has been long under consideration. Various recommendations upon that subject were made by the Judicature Commission; and in the course of last Session three Bills were introduced into the House of Commons by private Members proposing extensions in different forms of the jurisdiction of County Courts. Those three Bills were referred to a Select Committee, and in course of the proceedings alterations were suggested in them and made on the part of the Government; but, owing to the state of Business, the one measure which sprung out of the three could not be proceeded with last Session. We 1395 have thought it desirable that the measure should be introduced this Session as a Government measure, and therefore I propose now to lay it on your Lordships' Table. I will not enter in any detail into the arguments as to the extension of jurisdiction, because I propose to move for the evidence taken before the Select Committee. Your Lordships will find that in the whole of this question, without any exception, there is a general recommendation in favour of the extension of jurisdiction. The extension which I propose is this:—To increase the jurisdiction of the County Courts from the sum of £50, at which it now stands, to the sum of £200; and we propose further that the plaintiff shall have the power of commencing actions in the County Courts for still larger amounts; but in that case there would be an absolute right on the part of the defendant, if he does not wish to have his cause disposed of by the County Court, to remove the case to the higher Courts. The Committee to which I have referred made some recommendations last year with regard to the increase of the salaries of the County Court Judges. Her Majesty's Government do not make any proposal on that subject in this Bill, because it remains to be seen what the effect of this change will be on the business of the County Courts. If it should have the effect—as it is very likely it will — of considerably increasing the amount of business to be transacted, it will be then for Parliament to consider whether some additional strength will not be necessary on the County Court Bench—whether it will not be necessary to increase the number of Judges. That would seem to be the more natural way to meet the difficulty than by an increase of the salaries of the present Judges.

As I have referred to this subject, I have thought it right to put down on the Notice Paper to call your Lordships' attention to the state of business in the higher Courts, which is closely connected with the subject. Your Lordships have possibly seen statements made as to the state of the legal business at the present time, and I am anxious to put your Lordships in possession of some accurate information on the subject, which may tend to remove misconceptions which have arisen about it. I will take the different Courts, from the highest to the lower Courts, in order to inform your 1396 Lordships how the business stands in those Courts. Commencing with your Lordships' House, the appellate business is certainly in a most satisfactory condition. At the beginning of the present Session of Parliament, which, for legal business, was in November last, there were only nine cases left for hearing. Some more were set down in November and December; but in the November sittings 12 appeals were heard; therefore, there were no arrears at the close of the winter sitting. The state of the appellate business, therefore, is such that I am happy to say it would be in the power of the House, with regard to a certain number of appeals presented from Scotland, connected with the lamentable failure of a bank in that country, to advance those appeals and hear them without delay. Turning to the Judicial Committee, at the commencement of the sittings of the present year there were in that Committee only nine cases put down for hearing. I go to the Court of Appeal. At the commencement of the year 1878 there were 175 cases for hearing—that is, both causes and motions; and at the commencement of the present year there were 224 cases. Of course, the cases which were ready forbearing were all heard, and there were new cases which will be heard in the course of the present year. It cannot be said that there is an arrear of cases there which have been standing for any length of time. As to the Court of Chancery, the number of cases ready for hearing at the commencement of the present year was somewhat less than at the commencement of the preceding one. In January, 1878, there were 528 cases for hearing; in January, 1879, there were only 512; and I have the authority of the Master of the Rolls for saying that already a great number of these have been heard, and that, although new cases are being set down, there are no arrears in the Court of Chancery. With regard to the Probate Court, at the beginning of 1878 there were 33 cases for hearing of probates, and at the beginning of 1879 there were 34 cases. As to the matrimonial cases, there were 141 at the beginning of 1878, and 104 at the beginning of 1879. In the Admiralty Court at the beginning of 1878 there were 11 cases, and at the beginning of 1879 there were 12 cases. That 1397 is the state of business in all of the Courts excepting those Divisions generally called Common Law Divisions— Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and the Exchequer. With regard to these Divisions, the first matter to which I wish to refer is the subject of Circuits, on which a good deal of observation has lately been made. Some time ago an opinion was expressed in the House of Commons in favour of having four gaol deliveries throughout the country in the course of the year; and there are at present, under recent arrangements, four Criminal Assizes. As to the expediency of that measure there has been a good deal of difference of opinion throughout the country. There is no doubt it entails much additional labour on the Judges, the jurymen, High Sheriffs, and others connected with the Assizes. On the other hand, it is certainly very difficult to say that the state of things which formerly prevailed was satisfactory—that prisoners should remain untried, and perhaps afterwards acquitted, for four or five, or sometimes six months together, and this at a time when, in one part of the country—at the Central Criminal Court—there is a gaol delivery every month. The additional tax upon the judicial time of an additional Criminal Circuit was not very great. The great argument against this Criminal Circuit is this:—It is said that criminal cases are so sifted before prisoners are committed for trial that, in almost all cases, the prisoners are convicted; that it is rare there is an acquittal; and that, inasmuch as the form of imprisonment before trial is less severe than after conviction, and as the length of time the person is in prison is always taken into account in the sentence, it is no hardship to remain in gaol a certain number of months before trial. That had considerable weight with me; but I have looked into the statistics of those who are tried and acquitted, and the result turns out to be something different from what I expected. I have taken the Return for the Criminal Assizes in last October and November, and I find that none of the prisoners then tried were out on bail—they were all in prison. I find 484 persons were tried, and of these 353 only were convicted, and 125 were acquitted. The proportion is one in four acquitted; and it cannot be said that the state of things would be satis- 1398 factory which would lead to the detention of these 125 for a great number of months without trial. This does not include those offenders who are out on bail; although, no doubt, it is hard for any persons charged with the commission of offences, even though such persons may have been admitted to bail, to be kept without trial for several months. The result, therefore, is that I think we shall never return to a system of having less than four gaol deliveries in the course of each year. This is a state of things to which we must make up our minds, and I cannot think that it will be so great an additional tax upon judicial time as that we shall not be able to meet it. Let me now pass to the question of the times at which the Circuits of the Judges should take place. We have, at present, four gaol deliveries in the course of the year; and along with them there are two Circuits upon which civil business is tried in all the counties of England, with the exception of some parts of Yorkshire and Lancashire, where civil business is taken at a third Assize in each year. With regard to the most convenient periods of the year for the trying of civil actions at Assizes, I have seen some complaints as to the times which have been adopted; but I cannot think that there was any choice in the matter, inasmuch as it would have been altogether unadvisable to have two Civil Assizes in the counties occurring within three months of each other; and they have therefore been placed, in June and July, and January and February. It has been urged against this that the result of the practice in the present year has been that nearly all the Judges have been absent from London from the middle of January until far on in February. This is quite true, and that thereby three Divisions in London have been weakened. But it must be remembered that if the learned Judges were not absent during the period to which I have alluded, they would have had to leave London about the middle of February and to have remained away until well on into March. The result of the present arrangement will be that the Judges, instead of returning to London at the end of March, will be back in their Courts near the close of February, and will sit there continuously until July, with the excep- 1399 tion of the Criminal Assizes about Easter, which will not withdraw more than about six Judges from town. Although, therefore, there has been for a short time a dislocation of the usual arrangements in the London Courts, the result will in the end be the same as it has been hitherto. I must not forget to add that there have been special circumstances which have added to the inconvenience, and the circumstances of Justices Lush and Stephen being withdrawn from judicial work by their labours as members of the Commission appointed to consider the Criminal Code —labours from which the country will, I believe, reap very great advantage, but the performance of which has, as I have said, withdrawn those two learned Judges for a time from the performance of their judicial functions. This, I hope and believe, is a circumstance not likely to occur again. With regard to the amount of civil business remaining to be disposed of in London and Middlesex, I find that on the 11th of January, 1878, there were 1,164 causes ready for trial as against 957 on the corresponding day of the present year. There were on Monday last 843 causes ready for trial; and I have the best authority for saying there is every reason to believe that between this time and the month of July all these causes will have been tried, in addition to any new ones which may arise in the meantime. Having said thus much, I should like merely to add—and I hope your Lordships will agree with me—that I think the statement I have made affords no ground for the demand that additional Judges should be appointed, or the statement which is sometimes made that the present judicial strength of the country is not equal to all the work that has to be done. In addition to the reasons which I have stated as accounting for the temporary delay in the transaction of legal business which has recently occurred, there has been the practice— a practice which, I hope, is now disappearing—of two or more Judges sitting in Courts where one only was necessary. This will effect a saving of judicial time; and I hope that the Bill which I have this evening laid on the Table with reference to County Courts will be the means of providing some further assistance, inasmuch as it will have the effect of withdrawing some of the more 1400 trifling—I might, perhaps, say frivolous —causes from, the Superior Courts. And if the proposal of Her Majesty's Government, which I explained to your Lordships last night, is accepted, the additional Judge appointed would, being a Judge of the High Court, be available to assist in discharging the work which devolves upon the Judges of the Superior Courts. In these circumstances, it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose any addition to the number of Judges in the High Court of Justice. They would not shrink from such a duty if they thought there was any occasion for it; but they do not think that any such occasion has at present arisen.

The only other observation which I have to make is that I think the transaction of business in the Courts would be much facilitated if steps were taken to inform the Profession and suitors at the earliest possible period as to the times and places at which the various Judges in the Common Law Divisions would sit, and as far as practicable, as to the cases likely to come before each Divisional Court. I trust that in some way this object will be attained, and if it is I think your Lordships will have reason to think that in all respects the working of the Judicature Acts has been satisfactory. With this explanation, I will now only ask your Lordships to read this Bill a first time, and, in conclusion, say that if the Bill passes into law it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce, before the Session has advanced very far, a measure for consolidating the whole of the Acts of Parliament now in force relating to County Courts.