HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, CHANCERY DIVISION (ADDITIONAL JUDGE). (Hansard, 3 August 1899)

§ THE EARL OF HALSBURY
My Lords, the main proposition contained in the motion which stands on your Lordships' Paper in my name—namely, that the state of legal business requires an additional Judge—was confirmed fourteen years ago by a strong Committee to whom the question was referred, and since that time the matter has become more urgent, arrears accumulating at an increasing rate. Your Lordships will probably entertain no doubt that such a motion should be made, and that is really the whole case so far as relevant matter is concerned; but I observe that in another place opportunity was taken advantage of to raise a great many other questions, on some of which I propose to say a few words. With regard to the number of circuits, I am prepared to admit that in the arrangement of civil cases by diminishing the number of circuits there would be convenience, and no doubt it would avoid waste of judicial time. Efforts to try the experiment have been made more than once, and have as often been successfully resisted. In the administration of criminal justice I am not in favour of any such change. I do not believe that anything gives greater popularity and confidence in the administration of justice than the fact that in turn Her Majesty's judges go on circuit. When it is suggested that less important cases might be dealt with 1258 by some other expedient, it should be remembered that, however humble a man's position, his liberty is as important as that of any other subject, and I do not believe that to get rid of trifling cases by remitting them to quarter sessions, or any other tribunal, would be a course that would command such confidence as is now entertained by the great bulk of Her Majesty's subjects in the administration of justice. Something like amalgamation of counties for civil trials might be arranged, and I once attempted to procure an Order in Council diminishing the number of places to which judges should go, but county after county resisted the alteration, and in the result I had to abandon the attempt. That with fewer circuits prisoners would be tried more rapidly is a proposition that cannot be maintained. Again and again during the past fourteen years I have noticed a strange reluctance of magistrates to admit prisoners to bail; why, I do not know. Until Jarvis's Act was passed the criminal law was such that for a large class of offences prisoners had a right to bail, and actions were brought against magistrates for refusing bail or exacting unduly high bail. There seems, however, to be a persistent determination not to admit to bail, and this has been remarked upon by the Lord Chief Justice and many other judges. It may be a question whether it will be necessary to revert to a state of the law in which prisoners would have a right to bail. Next session I hope to introduce a Bill to relieve to some extent the work of judges by a system whereby prisoners disposed to plead guilty can be sentenced at once and not be detained. The system now is that a judge, finding a prisoner has been a long time in prison, passes a comparatively light sentence because he takes the length of time he has already been in prison into account, but the effect is that people not taking account of this practice are sometimes startled at what seems an inadequate sentence. I contemplate by the Bill I have mentioned an avoidance of this. It has been suggested that a large number of the less important criminal cases might be remitted to quarter sessions, but admirable as the jurisdiction of these magistrates is, it is not desirable that the more serious classes of offences should be committed to that jurisdiction. Nor is it desirable to remit minor civil cases to county courts. Those 1259 courts are already overcrowded, and the many duties devolving upon county court judges are gradually squeezing out the original intention of those courts. I have a strong suspicion that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find the alteration a source of considerable expense These matters are not altogether relevant to the motion, but discussion in the other House has led me to refer to them.

§ * LORD COLERIDGE
My Lords, the fact that the noble Lord has gone beyond the terms of his motion tempts me to make a few observations. It will be seen that this motion appoints a judge for the Chancery Division. It is in that Division that the greatest block has occurred, and one of the chief reasons for it has been the fact that there are two scales of costs—one set on the Common Law side and another set on the Chancery side. Solicitors find that the scale of costs on the Chancery side is much more remunerative to them, and this has led to the Chancery Courts being blocked by a great number of actions that are in their nature Common Law actions which should be tried on the Common Law side. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has spoken, without giving any very great hope of reform, of the various suggestions that have been made. I can assure the noble and learned Lord that something will have to be done. The block in the Law Courts is universally recognised. Some time ago it was suggested that everything could be put right if we had continuous sittings in London, but that scheme has hopelessly broken down. The theory was that throughout the legal year there should be always at least three courts sitting: one for special jury cases, one for common jury cases, and one for non-jury cases; but, as I have said, that has hopelessly broken down. Last week, day after day passed in this the metro- 1260 polis of the greatest Empire in the world without a single special jury court, or a single common jury court, or a single non-jury court sitting. If you are to have continuous sittings in London working with the circuit system you must, increase your judicial staff. I think the old system was best under which circuits were contemporaneous and under which, when the judges went on circuit, the courts in London were closed. When the judges returned they were all at full work until the circuit started again. It. is recognised that twelve judges will do far more work in a fortnight than six judges can perform in a month. When a number of courts are sitting and the judge has power to send a case over to another court, business is expedited, but under the present system it often happens that your case is putdown, your witnesses come up, everything is prepared for trial, you are in the list, and you find, when you ought to be called on, that your judge has gone off on circuit, and the whole thing is put back. With circuits and business in London going on at the same time neither is thoroughly well done. The general council of the Bar have made a most reasonable suggestion. They have recommended that a Commission should sit to inquire into the whole question, and I understand that Sir Edward Clarke in another place implied that Her Majesty's Government did not view unfavourably the communication from that body. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has admitted that there is dissatisfaction with the present system, but I am afraid he does not give us much hope of immediate reform. I would suggest that the noble and learned Lord should consider whether or not some inquiry could be made with a view to a remedy being found for the present state of things, which is universally recognised to be thoroughly unsatisfactory.

LORD TEYNHAM
There was a case called the Brinsmead piano case, in which judgment was delivered by Mr. Justice North. A leading article appeared the next morning in the Morning Post, in which the fact was commented upon that the action was tried in the autumn of last year, and the judgment only then delivered. I think that is an argument in favour of the noble and learned Lord's motion. There was another case, Shaw 1261 v. Holland and Others, in which the fair dealing of certain persons had been called into question, and in which large sums of money had become involved. The trial took place as long ago as July of last year, and not only has the judgment not been delivered, but the parties have not received any intimation from the learned judge that he will give judgment in the near future. I do not think I am going too far in saying that cases of this kind constitute a public scandal. The Chancery judges may be overworked, but I think it is hard to believe that Mr. Justice North has not had time between last year and now to give judgment in this case. I am glad that this motion has been moved, because it will render less excusable the scandals of which I have spoken.

§ THE EARL OF HALSBURY
I admit that the effort to combine the circuit system and the London business has, to some extent, been a failure; but I think it is a mistake to say that it has completely broken down. It was felt that the delay which occurred often meant serious injury to commerce, and that some improvements might be made. The motion I have submitted to your Lordships, which is the result of a fourteen years' agitation, is a step in this direction. What the noble and learned Lord (Lord Coleridge) has pointed out as having occurred during the last week has been exceptional. It is exceptional to find no judge doing judicial work in London even dining the time of circuit. It is an observation constantly made, but inaccurate, that there are two scales of costs on the Chancery and Common Law side. I am bound to admit, however, that, though the scales of costs are the same, they are more charitably administered in one branch of the Court than another. That is true, and probably on that ground there is a greater preference for the Chancery side. But all the law can do is to lay down the scale of costs, and the scale as laid down by the law is the same in both cases. I think the suggestion as to an interchange of the Common Law and Chancery Taxing Masters might deserve consideration. I am not sufficiently aware of the cases mentioned by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Teynham) to say whether the delay which has taken place is justifiable, but I would point out that sometimes cases involve very long 1262 consideration. I think it is only just to the learned judge concerned to say that the delay is certainly not due to any want of industry or attention to his duties. A more hard-working judge than Mr. Justice North is not to be found, and I suppose that there must be some exceptional circumstance to account for the delay that has arisen.