855 War Department Post Office COMMONS} ber for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) in look- SIR JOHN LUBBOCK, admitting that the Government were not to be influenced in their decision of important matters of State policy by consideration as to the effect that policy would have upon the Stock Exchanges of Europe, regretted that when the arrangement as to the purchase of the shares had been completed it had not been at once made known. It was admitted that immense speculation occurred in different Egyptian Stocks, not in consequence of knowledge acquired at this side, but of telegraphic communications from Alexandria, and these might have been prevented by immediate publication. It was, however, an unusual transaction, and the Government had no precedent to guide them; but, at the same time, he was strongly of opinion that operations of this kind ought to be at once made publicly known. MR. BATES said, that as a matter of fact the transaction was made known when it was completed. MR. SAMPSON LLOYD, in reference to the supposition that this country was opposed originally to the construction of the Suez Canal, observed that that was altogether a mistaken idea. Had the opinion of the commercial community been taken on the subject, they would by a large majority have declared in favour of the enterprize as a great political and patriotic transaction, to use the words of the Premier. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister of the day did not take that view, but the preponderance of opinion in the country was the other way. Bill considered in Committee. (In the Committee.) 856 On Question, "That the Preamble be postponed," THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE QUER, in reference to the observations of the hon. Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock), to the effect that Her Majesty's Government ought to have made the purchase of the shares known the moment the transaction was completed, said that what occurred was this -On first receiving an intimation that the Khedive was willing to offer the shares on certain terms, Her Majesty's Government made an offer in return by telegram, and it was not until that offer was finally accepted that they were in a position to publish anything. But when they received notice that the Khedive accepted the offer, they made the fact known that same evening. As to Mr. Stanton, the third of the three directors whom they had a right to nominate, he had been selected by the Government as their representative upon the interior Committee of Management, which only consisted of five members, and would reside in Paris, because the business was carried on there, and not in Egypt. Preamble postponed. Clause 1 (Treasury to hold and use shares). In reply to Sir H. DRUMMOND WOLFF, THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, the Bill would give power to the Treasury to act in such manner as might seem to be necessary for the interest of the public. He thought it unadvisable either to raise or discuss at the present time difficulties that might never arise. Clause agreed to. Remaining clauses agreed to. Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow. WAR DEPARTMENT POST OFFICE (REMUNERATION, &c.) BILL-[BILL 206.] (Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. Gathorne Hardy, Lord John Manners.) COMMITTEE. ADJOURNED DEBATE. Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [6th July], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair" (for Committee on the War Department Question again proposed. MR. MELLOR proposed that the Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day two months, resolve itself into the said Committee," (Mr. Mellor,)—instead thereof. Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." THE ATTORNEY GENERAL believed that the several clauses he now proposed in connection with this Bill had been carefully considered by hon. Members. One of them was in page 6, after line 5, to insert— (Amendment of the Supreme Court of Judicature Acts in relation to Her Majesty's Court of Appeal.) "Whereas it is expedient to amend the constitution of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal in manner hereinafter mentioned: Be it Enacted, That there shall be repealed so much of the fourth section of 'The Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1875,' as provides that the ordinary judges of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal (in this Act referred to as the Court of Appeal') shall not exceed three at any one time. "In addition to the number of ordinary judges of the Court of Appeal authorised to be appointed by 'The Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1875,' Her Majesty may appoint three additional ordinary judges of that Court. "The first three appointments of additional transfer to the Court of Appeal as is in this section judges under this Act shall be made by such mentioned of three judges of the High Court of Justice, and the vacancies so created in the High Court of Justice shall not be filled up, except in the event and to the extent hereinafter mentioned. MR. W. H. SMITH explained that no person who had been employed as a telegraph clerk by any of the telegraph companies would receive superannuation allowance under this Bill, which was intended to remedy an irregularity in the appointment of the other telegraph clerks which prevented their salaries being passed by the Public Accounts Committee. In consequence of the irregularity to which he referred there were now 3,600 persons in the Government service who were not entitled to be paid their salaries, and it would be a grievous "Her Majesty may by writing, under her injustice to them if the measure were sign manual, either before or after the comrejected, inasmuch as they were no par-mencement of this Act, but so as not to take ties to the irregularity in question, and had taken their appointments on the faith that they were to receive superannuation allowances. The irregularity he referred to was these persons being appointed without having passed the necessary Civil Service examination, for which, however, another examination more suited to their offices had been substituted. Since the present Government had been in office these irregular appointments had ceased to be made. It was true that many of these persons had entered as learners, but they had subsequently become clerks. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to. effect until the commencement thereof, transfer Divisions of the High Court of Justice, that is to the Court of Appeal from the following to say, the Queen's Bench Division, the Common Pleas Division, and the Exchequer Division, such of the judges of the said Divisions, not exceeding three in number, as to Her Majesty may seem meet, each of whom shall have been a judge of any one or more of such Divisions for not less than two years previously to his appointment, and shall not be an ex-officio judge of the Court of Appeal, and every judge so transferred shall be deemed an additional ordinary judge of the Court of Appeal in the same manner as if he had been appointed such judge by letters patent. No judge shall be so transferred without his own consent. "Every additional ordinary judge of the said Court of Appeal appointed in pursuance of this Act shall be subject to the provisions of sections twenty-nine and thirty-seven of The Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873,' and shall be under an obligation to go circuits and to act as Commissioner under commissions of assize or other commissions authorised to be issued in pursuance of the said Act, in the same manner in all respects as if he were a Judge of the High Court of Justice. "There shall be paid to every additional ordinary judge appointed in pursuance of this Act, in addition to the salary which he would otherwise receive as an ordinary judge of the Court of Appeal, such sum on account of his expenses on circuit or under such commission as aforesaid, as may be approved by the Treasury upon the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor. "Each of the judges of the High Court of Justice who is in pursuance of this Act transferred to the Court of Appeal, by writing under the sign manual of Her Majesty, shall retain such officers as are attached to his person as such judge, and are appointed and removeable by him at his pleasure, in pursuance of The Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873,' and the officers so attached shall have the same rank, and hold their offices by the same tenure, and upon the same terms and conditions, and receive the same salaries, and if entitled to pensions be entitled to the same pensions, and shall as nearly as may be perform the same duties as if the judges to whom they are attached had not been transferred to the Court of Appeal. "Subject as aforesaid, the provisions of the Supreme Court of Judicature Acts, 1873 and 1875, for the time being in force in relation to the appointment of ordinary judges of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, and to their tenure of office, and to their precedence, and to their salaries and pensions, and to the officers to be attached to such judges, and all other provisions relating to such ordinary judges shall apply to the additional ordinary judges appointed in pursuance of this section in the same manner as they apply to the other ordinary judges of the said Court. "For the purpose of a transfer to the Court of Appeal under this section service as a judge in a Court whose jurisdiction is transferred to the High Court shall be deemed to have been service as a judge in any one or more of such Divisions of the High Court as are in this section in that behalf mentioned, and for the purpose of the pension of any person appointed under this Act, an additional ordinary judge of appeal service in the High Court of Justice, or in any Court whose jurisdiction is transferred to the High Court of Justice or to the Court of Appeal, shall be deemed to have been service in the Court of Appeal.)" The particular object of this clause was to materially strengthen the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Intermediate Court of Appeal. Clause (Amendment of the Supreme Court of Judicature Acts in relation to Her Majesty's Court of Appeal),-(Mr. Attorney General), brought up, and read the first and second time. MR. CHARLEY moved to leave out, in lines 11, 12, and 13— "and the vacancies so created in the High Court of Justice shall not be filled up, except in the event and to the extent hereinafter mentioned." Applications at Chambers had been greatly increased in number under the new Acts, while there had been no corresponding increase in the number of Judges; and there was now almost as much difficulty in getting a case heard at the time appointed at Chambers as in getting a case heard at the time appointed in Court. On Circuit, owing to the paucity of Judges, Queen's Counsel sat and tried cases both at Nisi Prius and on the Crown side. To compel a prisoner to be tried before a Queen's Counsel, instead of one of the Judges of the land, amounted to something like a denial of justice. At quarter sessions Recorders and Chairmen sat, who had had much experience, to try minor offences; while on Circuit charges of the gravest importance were tried by Queen's Counsel, who had had no experience at all of criminal law. The inconvenience of appointing Queen's Counsel to try cases at Nisi Prius was shown at the late Manchester Assizes, where an eminent Queen's Counsel having been appointed to try a case of compensation for injuries sustained on counsel for the plaintiff refused to apa railway, the pear before him, the reason being that the commissioner was counsel himself for a railway company. He had no objection to the transfer of the three Judges, but he objected to transferring them without filling up the vacancies so created. In the face of the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) that there would be 1,000 remanets by the 1st of November next, in Middlesex and London only, it seemed an extraordinary thing to take away three of the Judges of First Instance and not fill up the vacancies so created in the Court below. He desired also to point out that the Court of Appeal sat during Circuit, and it seemed a strange way to strengthen the Court of Appeal to transfer to it Judges, who would be liable to go Circuit, and thus absent themselves for a considerable portion of the year. In the Court of Appeal also, the Judges, who went Circuit, could not sit on appeals from their own decisions on Circuit. THE CHAIRMAN, in putting the Question, observed that the hon. Mem MR. GREGORY said, he had hoped that the Attorney General would have made some statement as to the manner in which he proposed to work the new system which he would inaugurate. The Attorney General constituted another division of the Intermediate Court of Appeal by the appointment of three additional Judges, and for this purpose to abstract three Judges from the Court of First Instance. Whether this was wise or necessary was a matter of considerable doubt. There was a considerable block in the administration of justice a very large arrear in the Common Law Courts and also in the Court of Chancery, which had been materially increased by the fact that that Court had to take vivd voce evidence. The obligation of the Court of Chancery to try out causes, instead of sending issues of fact to other Courts, greatly retarded the progress of business in the Chancery Courts, while the Vice Chancellors had not sufficient time to devote to matters which deserved their personal attention in Chambers; and, as was well known, there was also a block in the Common Law Courts. Under these circumstances, it certainly appeared to him. that it was unwise to abstract Judges from the Courts of First Instance, without making any further provision for the business that was now so much in arrear; and he therefore proposed to leave it optional to take the Judges for the Court of Appeal from the High Court, instead of making it compulsory, by substituting the word "may" for the word "shall." Those who were chiefly pre ber (Mr. Gregory) had an Amendment | resulted. to propose in line 11, which must pre- judiced were the suitors and others who cede that of the hon. and learned Mem- desired to appeal to the Courts of Law. ber for Salford. About six weeks ago attention was called to the number of cases then waiting to be heard. In the Intermediate Court of Appeal there were 54 cases in arrear, and in London and Middlesex alone there were between 500 and 600 cases awaiting trial at Nisi Prius. He believed that at the beginning of the new legal year there would be fully 1,000 Nisi Prius cases in arrear. Matters were in this position when Lords Justices James and Baggallay wrote a letter stating that it was impossible, in the present state of the Appellate Court, to get through the business. That letter was communicated to the 18 legal Members of the House, and the conclusion which they came to was embodied in the Amendments of the Attorney General. It was then suggested that it was necessary to do two things-to increase the strength of the Court of Appeal by adding to its numbers, and its stability by ceasing to borrow Judges from the Primary Courts. No one could doubt that the Appellate Judges should be Appellate and not Primary Judges. The question then arose whence this additional strength should be derived. Some thought that it would be better to add at once two or three Judges to the Court of Intermediate Appeal. Every unnecessary addition to the number of Judges was, however, objectionable on two grounds, because it made all the other Judges do less work than need be, and because it lowered the standard of judicial qualification. When a greater demand was made on the Profession by creating 24 Judges where 12 used to be the number, a lower standard was inevitable. The best number of Judges was the number required to do the work, and no more. He considered that the additional strength required in the Court of Intermediate Appeal could be obtained from the Common Law Bench, where at present there was a great waste of judicial power. for example, in Nisi Prius cases, should there be seen the spectacle of three Judges sitting with the greatest solemnity to hear cases which men of the most ordinary intellect would decide offhand in their counting-houses? In the Court of Chancery a single Judge was sufficient for such causes. Why, he Amendment proposed, in line 11, to leave out the word "shall," and insert the word "may."-(Mr. Gregory.) SIR HENRY JAMES said, that large issues were raised by the clause and the Amendments, and sooner or later they must be discussed. When the Judicature Act came into operation last November, there were sham arrears, which were soon disposed of; but under the working of the Act it had been found that the Judicial Staff was not equal to the demands made upon it, and it was no exaggeration to say that a dead-lock had Why, asked, instead of having an increased | number of Judges, or else by distrinumber of Judges, should they not, by buting the work so as to enable 15 accepting the second Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, economize judicial strength without affecting the public interest? If one Judge could dispose of cases of vastimportance in the Court of Chancery, why should not one Judge sit in a Court of Law and dispose of cases there? He was bound to say that these views having been expressed by the legal Members of the House the Attorney General had promptly taken steps, by placing his Amendments on the Paper, to carry them into effect. He wished the Court of Appeal to be like the Court of Bankruptcy, with greater weight and greater effect. The Amendments to be proposed by the Attorney General would be most beneficial to the Bench and to suitors generally, and he hoped that Members of his Profession would assist the Government in carrying them into effect. MR. STAVELEY HILL was ready to assent to the first clause proposed by the Attorney General, but in the interest of the public he could not support the second clause, by which, if it were passed, a Court of Law sitting in Banco would consist of one Judge only. He asked, was the practice in Chancery so entirely satisfactory that they could make conformable to it their practice in Common Law? He compared the position of a Vice Chancellor in dealing with a case with the position of a Judge and a jury, and he said that a suitor who went away from a Court in Banco, whether the verdict had been for him or against him, went away with a more complete satisfaction as to the result of the case than a man who went out of the Vice Chancellor's Chamber. He understood that this Act was to do something for suitors, but it began by giving three weeks more vacation than they had formerly. While he assented to the first clause, he as completely dissented from the second. MR. MORGAN LLOYD said, it was admitted on all hands that the present Court of Appeal could not keep up with the business. It was also agreed that an addition must be made to the Court of Appeal, such as was now proposed by the hon. and learned Attorney General. The only remaining question, therefore, was how this was to be done. There were only two ways in which it could be done; either by increasing the Judges to do the work now done by 18. Now, the former alternative was out of the question, inasmuch as the Government had declared that under present circumstances they would not increase the number. He thought, therefore, the proposal that they should sit separately was one which ought to be tried. For his own part, he preferred a Judge sitting alone to a Judge sitting with another, or with two other Judges. When alone, one Judge had a full sense of his responsibility, which, if not lost, was weakened by association with another Judge. If he went wrong he could be set right by the Court of Appellate Jurisdiction. There was another improvement which might be adopted with advantage-namely, to make venues local, inasmuch as the accumulation of business in London was in a measure the result of the abolition of local venues. He trusted the Amendments would be accepted. MR. GRANTHAM thought that justice ought to be rendered to the Common Law Judges for the manner in which they had sought to fulfil their duties under the new system. He held that a great deal too much stress had been laid upon the working of the new system, with a view to its depreciation. It was not fair to say that the work had diminished, while the block had increased. The work disposed of now was far more important than under the old plan. The new system of pleading made it far more necessary to expose at once the ground of defence than was formerly the case, and these actions were brought to a speedier issue. A greater display of causes used to be made, because attorneys wished to make a show of the causes entered for trial, and the consequence was that many were entered which never were brought to a decision. He contended that the new system should have a fair trial. Many motions at Common Law of inferior importance might be made before a single Judge, and he would instance the example of cases brought before a Judge at Chambers to show how matters might be disposed of which would be considered of more importance if they were brought before a tribunal composed of more than a single person. As to the question of expense, he believed that the public |