SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT, 1873—THE ORDER IN COUNCIL—OFFICES OF THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE COMMON PLEAS AND LORD CHIEF BARON. (Hansard, 25 February 1881)

LORD DENMAN,

in rising to move— That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty that the Order in Council, a copy of which was laid on the Table of the House on 6th January 1881, for reducing- the number of Divisions of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice and for abolishing the titles of Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and Lord Chief Baron and reducing their offices to an equality with the offices of the other Judges who are not ox officio Judges of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, may not come into operation; said, he was afraid that it was useless for him to make the Motion, as he knew that what he said was not thought worthy of being listened to by their Lordships, and was sure not to be reported by the Press, although it would be reported truly in Hansard; but if he had been ruled to divide the House, he could not have renewed his Motion. It had been said that there was no precedent for renewing such a Motion; but there was none against it. The best measure for 1726 despatch of business was Lord Abinger's for sittings at certain times. At present, we had in the Queen's Bench Division one cause, No. 112, and, next to it, No. 400, and more marked "Exchequer." It had been said by an old French writer, that "Une courte injustice vault mieux q'une longue justice;" but, before Her Majesty's reign, a delay of two years might have occurred, and a defendant, for want of bail, might have been in prison all that time. The noble Lord now Lord Chief Justice of England had, on August 10, 1876, said that he thought the appointment of three additional Lords Justices in Ordinary a mistake, and much preferred the two Lord Chief Justices and the Lord Chief Baron sitting in rotation on review of causes. That noble Lord had lately committed a suitor, for saying that he was not fit for his position, that he, the suitor, had been swindled, and other unfounded slanders, to Newgate. He (Lord Denman) only recollected one instance of a person being sent to Newgate—whom he would not name—for striking a witness. If this address were postponed, the Order of Council must immediately take effect. Since the debate in "another place," the question of salary might be a difficulty; but to have two more Common Law Courts besides the Queen's Bench, with distinct heads, he thought worthy of every effort for them; but he could not refrain from repeating his protest against the abolition of the titles of Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and Lord Chief Baron.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I shall take the liberty of moving the adjournment of the House as the best and most proper mode of meeting this Motion under the peculiar circumstances under which it has been made. A few days ago the noble Lord moved a similar Motion, and then obtained leave to withdraw it. I find that there is no precedent for the renewal of a Motion 1727 once made and answered in your Lordships' House, and then, by leave, withdrawn at the request of the Mover. Some years ago a string of Resolutions were proposed by Lord Campbell which Lord Lyndhurst thought should not be made the subject of a vote, and he took the course of moving the adjournment of the House. Founding myself upon that precedent—though Lord Campbell's Motion was no precedent for that of my noble Friend—I shall follow the same course. I fully appreciate the excellency of the motives which have induced my noble Friend to take the interest he does in this matter; and if he thinks that he is not listened to, or that his views are regarded as unworthy of attention, I can assure him I always listen to him with respect. But on this particular occasion it would, I think, have been better if he had not attempted to make a new precedent which would be attended with some irregularity, and a great amount of inconvenience. I shall, therefore, move as an Amendment that the House do now adjourn.