JUDICIAL VACANCY. (Hansard, 29 September 1942)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON)
My Lords, I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty representing that the state of business in the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division requires that a vacancy in the number of Puisne Judges of that Division should be filled, and praying that His Majesty will be graciously pleased to fill such vacancy accordingly, in pursuance of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Act, 1937. The tragic and mysterious death by drowning of the late Mr. Justice Langton, whose loss is so deeply deplored by his friends and by all who knew his admirable judicial qualities, has caused a vacancy in the list of High Court Judges in the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, and the Act to which I refer in my Motion requires that an Address should be presented to His Majesty in the terms set out in my Motion by both Houses of Parliament if the vacancy is to be filled. If your Lordships will resolve on this Address to-day it is intended to move a similar Motion, I understand, in the House of Commons, and then it will be possible for a new appointment to be promptly made.
Only very few words, I think, are needed to show that it is necessary to fill the vacancy. The matter stands thus. Your Lordships may recall that in 1937 Parliament amended our law of divorce by passing the Act which is sometimes called from the name of its first mover, the A. P. Herbert Act. It was the Act which extended the list of separate causes for divorce to cover cruelty, insanity and desertion. It was rightly anticipated at the time that this change would increase the number of divorce cases to be dealt with, especially in the years immediately following as there were at the time heavy arrears in this class of case awaiting trial. Consequently, since that time (1937) this Division of the High Court—one of the three Divisions—has been staffed by a President and four other Puisne Judges, and that number four is now reduced by Mr. Justice Langton's death to three. The question is, should we restore the number to four?
413 There are at the present moment waiting for trial in the Division 935 undefended cases of divorce as against 976 at the corresponding date in 1937, and in addition there are 673 defended cases awaiting trial as against 550 at the corresponding date in 1937. It is obvious therefore that the Division at the moment so far as these matrimonial causes are concerned has regained, roughly speaking, the position—the not very satisfactory position—which it occupied immediately before the two Acts of 1937 came into operation. The figures certainly show that the Division has not been over-staffed. It still has to face a substantial arrear of cases which certainly require five Judges in the Division if we are to achieve prompt justice in this important branch of the Division's work.
I must say for myself that it does seem to me that of the different kinds of litigation which have to be dealt with in the High Court the postponement of the hearing and disposal of divorce cases is most unfortunate, particularly in time of war when unhappily a number of homes may be broken up. It is for that reason that I have concerned myself with the help of some of my friends who were good enough to take an interest in the matter to try to get more rapid machinery at work particularly for the benefit of those serving in the Forces. It is important to emphasize that every Judge in this Division of the High Court is called upon to undertake as the occasion occurs work in all three departments, Probate, Admiralty and Divorce. The late Mr. Justice Langton was an Admiralty specialist, but he himself undertook from time to time many cases in other branches of the Division's work.
As for Admiralty cases there is also a consideration about war-time more particularly to emphasize there. The loss of the learned Judge will be very severely felt unless the vacancy is promptly filled, for in time of war, when ships sail in convoy and without lights, Admiralty litigation increases. All experience shows that, in the last war as well as in this war. In time of war it is essential that the Admiralty work of the Division should be so provided for that it can be dealt with promptly, so that an Admiralty case that is ready can be taken at the moment when the necessary witnesses are available because their ship is in a home port. To be able to take the case at once is one of the contributions that the law can make to the quick turning round 414 of ships so that men can be released for the purpose of further serving their country. I repeat that the new Judge will of course be available for, and in the course of his duty will undertake, subject to the direction of the President, cases in all branches of the work of the Division. I beg to move.

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
My Lords, I only wish in supporting the Motion of my noble arid learned friend to say on my own behalf, and I think also on behalf of other noble Lords who were well acquainted with the late learned Judge, that we sincerely associate ourselves with the words that have fallen from the Lord Chancellor with reference to the loss of that eminent Judge.

§ LORD WRIGHT
My Lords, I also agree with everything the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord. Chancellor, has said both with regard to the late Mr. Justice Langton—a very old friend of mine—and with regard to the importance of the appointment at the earliest possible moment of a new Judge in that Division.

§ LORD CLAUSON
My Lords, I would also like to associate myself with what has been said about the late Mr. Justice Langton, with whom it was my privilege to serve during almost the whole time that he was upon the Bench.