would not grudge £10,000, or even | suitors might have the greatest pos£20,000 a-year for additional Judges, sible facility in getting their rights adwho would save enormous cost and delay justed. to suitors. The Judicature Act was passed to produce a fusion of Law and Equity, so that the same Judge might be able to try all the questions connected with a case; but the system did not work in the way which had been expected, and Equity Judges now sent down issues to be tried at the Assizes by the Common Law Judges. It was not fair that one class of Judges should be able to relieve themselves at the expense of another, and he could easily understand that there should have been some feeling on the part of Judges who were helpless in the matter, because they had a loyal desire to finish the business of their Circuits, and were not men to " scamp their work. In conclusion, he was sorry the measure could not be postponed till another year, when they might have more satisfactory legislation than that now before them. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, that the Amendment which stood in his name was the result of the opinions expressed by the great bulk of the legal Members of the House, who ought to share the responsibility. It was admitted that the Intermediate Court of Appeal needed strengthening and improvement; and everybody admitted that the Bill would effect this object. Everybody agreed that to increase the number of Judges without such a step being necessary, would be the wrong thing to do. He would prefer that the new clauses which he had proposed should stand as they were on the Paper without being amended. If any further alteration were found necessary in the future they could be made with more confidence after they had gained the advantage of experience. MR. WHALLEY said, the late Lord Westbury had written to him expressing his deep regret that he was unable to appear in his place in Parliament to protest against the revolutionary, and, as he termed it, "most disastrous " scheme. MR. BULWER, as one of the legal Members of the House, disclaimed being in any way responsible for, or favourable to, the Amendments that had been proposed. For his part he protested against Amendments effecting so important an alteration in our judicial system being introduced and discussed in a thin House at that period of the Session. The House should not suppose that the legal profession were in favour of the changes, for from all the learned Gentlemen and MR. NORWOOD felt, as a member of the mercantile community, that the operations of the Judicature Act, whatever might be the cause, had not given satisfaction to the public. Considerable alarm existed lest we should be placed under very serious disadvantages in our judicial procedure, consequent upon the new Acts. So far were the advantages promised to suitors from being realized that there was now almost as much difficulty in knowing what Court to apply to as ever there had been; the Long Vacation was longer than ever, and the suitors had none of the facilities for having their cases tried which they had so much reason to hope would be afforded to them. He could not disguise from himself the fact that out-of-learned Judges he had consulted, with doors it was asserted too frequently that the Judges had really not shown that anxious desire to accommodate themselves and the business of their Courts to the new system which might have been fairly expected from them. When the Act came into operation, counsel were refused information when they applied to the Bench for it, and one Judge boasted that he had not yet read the provisions of the Act. The Judges might have, by consultation among themselves, removed many of the difficulties which had arisen. They were salaried officers of the State, and it was their duty to regulate the business of their Courts, so that VOL. CCXXXI. [THIRD SERIES.] the exception of some hon. and learned Gentlemen in that House, he had not heard a single voice in favour of them. One main argument urged in their favour was that Judges sitting alone in the Equity Courts gave entire satisfaction, and, if so, it was asked, why should not Common Law Judges do the same? He denied that Equity Judges sitting alone did give satisfaction; but even if they did there was no analogy whatever between the cases upon which, as a rule, they had to decide and those that came before a Judge and a jury. How, he would ask, was a long legal argument to be satisfactorily conducted at 2 F 66 MR. GREGORY presumed it was a meeting of the members of the Bar, as he was not present; but he believed that he represented the views of one branch of the Profession (the solicitors) and the interests of the other. The object of his Amendment was simply to render the measure permissive, and to give time for the further consideration of the question. MR. NEWDEGATE remarked that constant efforts had been made to sub Court of Chancery, and he believed that the effect of the clause proposed by the Government would be to intercept the proceedings at Common Law. He would vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Sussex rather than sanction a system of which all the Judges disapproved. Nisi Prius, and the time of the jury | any measure which had received the apwasted in listening to what they were proval of Her Majesty's Judges. He not expected to understand? And if regretted that the last speaker was not the question were reserved for the sub- present at the meeting of the Profession sequent consideration of a single Judge, which recommended the clause with reand important interests depended upon markable unanimity. it, it was contrary to all experience to suppose that the suitor against whom the decision was, would be satisfied with it, and, if not satisfied, he would be driven not as at present to the Court in Banco, but at a great increase of expense to the Court of Appeal. He ventured to prophecy that it would soon be found, if these Amendments became law, that the disposal of all business before a single Judge was neither "practicable nor convenient," and we should have to fall back upon the proviso empower-ordinate the Common Law to that of the ing Divisional Courts to be held to replace the Courts in Banco. The proposal of the Attorney General was, in effect, to abolish the Court in Banco, and thus deprive the suitor of his First Court of Appeal. The inevitable result would be that the New Court of Appeal would be overwhelmed with the business which would flow into it, for that Court could only sit in two Divisions. further subdivide it would be to diminish its authority, and if it consisted of but a few Judges it would have no greater weight than the existing Courts in Banco. Lord Westbury, to whom the hon. Member for Peterborough had alluded, once said that the reason why a certain Lord Chancellor generally called in one of his legal brethren to sit with "that he was afraid to be left alone in the dark." The Attorney General proposed that for the future all our Judges should be left alone in the dark. It was, perhaps, a minor consideration, but not to be left entirely out of view, that, under our present system, our Judges acquired no inconsiderable portion of their education by sitting with their brethren in Banco. He hoped the Attorney General would hold his hand, and be content with the Bill as it came from the House of Lords. him was, To SIR WILLIAM HARCOUBT said, with regard to the statement as to the disapproval of this measure by the Judges, that, he was afraid, was a statement that must be made with regard to every measure that ever had been or ever would be proposed for the reform of the law. Looking back over many years of legal changes, he could not see Question put, "That the word 'shall' stand part of the Clause." Noes 36: Majority 58. Ayes 94; MR. CHARLEY said that, as his Amendment to the Attorney General's new clause had been practically before the House, as well as that of the hon. Member for West Sussex (Mr. Gregory), and as he wihsed to economize time, he would not persevere with the clause which he had previously moved. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved the following new clause :(Regulations as to business of High Court of Justice and divisional Courts of High Court.) "On and after the first day of December one thousand eight hundred and seventy-six, every action and proceeding in the High Court of Justice, and all business arising out of the same, except as is hereinafter provided, shall, so far as is practicable and convenient, be heard, determined, and disposed of before a single judge, and all proceedings in an action subsequent to the hearing or trial, and down to and including the final judgment or order, always excepting any proceedings on appeal in the Court of Appeal, shall, so far as is practicable and convenient, be had and taken before the judge before whom the trial or hearing of the cause sional courts of the High Court of Justice, may took place; Provided, nevertheless, That divibe held for the transaction of any business which may for the time being be ordered by MR. WHALLEY strongly objected to rules of court to be heard by a divisional court; the Amendment. He thought that when and any such divisional court when held, shall be constituted by two judges of the court and it was proposed to change the whole no more, unless the president of the division to system of their jurisprudence, they which such divisional court belongs, with the should be guided by the best authorconcurrence of the other judges of such division, ities in the course they were asked to or a majority thereof, is of opinion that such take. divisional court should be constituted of a greater number of judges than two, in which case such court may be constituted of such number of judges as the president, with such concurrence as aforesaid, may think expedient: nevertheless the decisions of a divisional court shall not be invalidated by reason of such court being constituted of a greater number than two judges; and 66 Rules of court for carrying into effect the enactments contained in this section shall be made in manner provided by 'The Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1875,' on or previously to the first day of December one thousand eight hundred and seventy-six, but may afterwards be altered in manner provided by the said Act; and "There shall be repealed on and after the eleventh day of January, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven, so much of sections forty, forty-one, forty-two, forty-three, fortyfour, and forty-six of 'The Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873,' as is inconsistent with the provisions of this section." MR. GREGORY moved to omit from the clause the condition " so far as is practicable and convenient," which he thought would render the clause valueless. SIR HENRY JAMES thought a hard-and-fast line was undesirable, and he hoped the Amendment would not be accepted. Amendment negatived. MR. WATKIN WILLIAMS moved the following Amendment to the clause, in line 22, after "shall be made," leave out to " said Act and," in line 25, and insert "On or before the first day of December, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-six, and may be afterwards altered, and all rules of court to be made after the passing of this Act, whether made under The Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1875,' or this Act, shall be made by any three or more of the following persons, of whom the Lord Chancellor shall be one-namely, the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice of England, the Master of the Rolls, the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer, and four other judges of the Supreme Court of Judicature, to be from time to time appointed for the purpose by the Lord Chancellor in writing under his hand, such appointment to continue for such time as shall be specified therein." THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, he had carefully considered the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Denbigh, and he must say he considered it an improvement. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved the following new clause : (Power in certain events to fill vacancies occasioned in High Court of Justice by removal of judges to Court of Appeal.) "Whenever any two of the said paid judges of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council have died or resigned, Her Majesty may, upon an address from both Houses of Parliament, representing that the state of business in the High Court of Justice is such as to require the appointment of an additional judge, fill up one of the vacancies created by the transfer hereinbefore authorized, by appointing one new judge of the said High Court in any Division thereof; and, on the death or retirement of the remaining two paid judges of the said Judicial Committee, Her Majesty may, upon the like Address, fill up in like manner another of the said vacancies, and from time to time fill up any vacancies occurring in the offices of judges so appointed." Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved the following new clause :— (Increase of allowance to retired Indian and Colonial Judges attending the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.-3 and 4 W. 4, c. 41, s. 30.) "Whereas by the thirtieth section of the Act of the Session of the third and fourth years of the reign of King William the Fourth, chapter forty-one, and intituled 'An Act for the better administration of Justice in His Majesty's Privy Council,' it is provided that an allowance of four hundred pounds a year may be made to two members of His Majesty's Privy Council, having held such office of judge as therein mentioned in every year during which they attend the sittings of the Judicial Committee of the said Council as an indemnity for the expense which they may thereby incur, and whereas it is expedient to increase such allowance, be it enacted that the said section shall be read as if the words 'one thousand pounds' had been inserted therein in place of the words four hundred pounds.' MR. WHALLEY observed that the power of appointing a deputy-registrar would be open to very grave objection. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, | deputies for the administration of justice that the hon. and learned Gentleman was open to grave objection and abuse. appeared to fear that the retiring allowance would not secure Judges in this department. If the retiring allowance was increased to £1,000 a-year, he thought there was a probability of their having too many applicants for the position. MR. WHALLEY opposed the clause. It was entirely inconsistent with our ordinary practice. Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved the following new clause :— (Continuation until 1st January 1878, of s. 34 of 38 and 39 Vic. c. 77, as to vacancies in legal offices.) "Whereas by section thirty-four of 'The Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1875,' it is enacted that upon the occurrence of any vacancy in an office coming within the provisions of section seventy-seven of The Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873,' the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain may, with the concurrence of the Treasury, suspend the making any appointment to such office for any period not later than the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven, and may, if it be necessary, make provision in such manner as he thinks fit for the temporary discharge in the meantime of the duties of such office, and it is expedient to extend the said period as hereinafter mentioned: Be it therefore enacted as follows: "The said section shall be construed as if the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and seventy-eight were therein inserted in lieu of the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven." Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL then moved the following new clause :— (Appointment of deputy by district registrars.) "A district registrar of the Supreme Court of Judicature may from time to time, but subject to such regulations as the Lord Chancellor may from time to time make, appoint a deputy, and all acts authorized or required to be done by, to, or before a district registrar may be done by, to, or before any deputy so appointed." Clause brought up, and read the first time. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time." MR. GREGORY opposed the clause, and urged that the system of appointing SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN considered that the appointment of a deputy should not be made without the sanction of the Lord Chancellor. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL thought that, under proper regulations, the appointment of a deputy might prove beneficial. MR. GREGORY still urged his objec tions to the clause. This power of ap pointment was unlimited, and he hoped the clause would be reserved for further consideration. (Enforcing payment of costs.) "Where, in any appeal to the House of Lords, the House of Lords shall order or adjudge any costs to be paid by any party or parties to such appeal to any other party or parties thereto, the cause, matter, or other proceeding in which the dered by the House of Lords, be remitted back said appeal shall have been had, shall, if so orto the Court of first instance for the purpose of enforcing the payment of such costs, and such last mentioned Court shall in such case issue such process for the recovery of such costs as shall be necessary and in accordance with the usual practice of such Court in enforcing the payment of damages or costs ordered to be paid by an order or judgment of such Court." THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, believing the provision unnecessary, could not agree to its adoption. Clause negatived. MR. CHARLEY moved the following new clause:: (Writs of Assistance to be issued to all the Judges of the Supreme Court.) "Writs of Assistance, under the Great Seal, shall be issued out of the office of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, commanding the attendance in the House of Lords of all the Judges of the Supreme Court of Judicature, to treat and give advice in Parliament in the same manner in all respects in which writs under the Great Seal have heretofore been issued out of the office of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, commanding the attendance of the Justices of either Bench, the Barons of the Exchequer and the Master of the Rolls, to treat and give advice in Parliament." The hon. Member said, that it was purely owing to the historical accident that the Equitable Jurisdiction of the House of Lords was only 200 years old, while the Common Jurisdiction was coeval in its origin with the Constitution, that the Equity Judges were not summoned to advise the House of Lords. Now that Law and Equity were fused, it was important that the advice of the Equity Judges should be obtainable by the House of Lords. A similar clause to the one which he proposed was read a second time in the House of Commons on the Motion of Sir Edward Sugden (afterwards Lord St. Leonards) many years ago, and would be found in the Appendix to Sugden on "Property." THE ATTORNEY GENERAL objected to the clause, on the ground that it was an interference with the procedure of the House of Lords. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow. CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL. On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Bill to consolidate and amend the Law relating to Election Petitions and the inquiry into and prevention of corrupt practices at Parliamentary Elections, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL and Mr. Secretary CROSS. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 291.] House adjourned at half after One o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS, Wednesday, 9th August, 1876. MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILLS Committee Report-Erne Lough and River* (189); Ardglass Harbour (193); Metropolitan Board of Works (Loans)* (190); Tralee Savings Bank * (202). Report-Exhausted Parish Lands* (186). Third Reading-Savings Banks (Barrister) (198); Superannuation (Unhealthy Climates)* (199); Bishopric of Truro (201); Juries Procedure (Ireland) * (196), and passed. Their Lordships met;-And having gone through the Business on the Paper, without debate Committee Report-Expiring Laws Continuance [281]; Bow Street Police Court (Site) (re-comm.) [257]. Considered as amended-Sheriff Courts (Scotland) [289]. * [189]; Considered as amended-Third Reading-Appellate Jurisdiction [111]; Legal Practitioners Third Reading-Suez Canal (Shares) [43], and passed. War Department and Post Office (Remuneration, &c.) [206]; Parochial Records Companies Acts (1862 and 1867) Amendment [211], and passed. Withdrawn-Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) [161]; Prisons (re-comm.) [284]; University Education (Ireland) * [150]. * [283]; MILITARY PRISONERS-CASE OF GUNNER CHARLTON.-QUESTIONS. SIR EDWARD WATKIN asked the Secretary of State for War, What is the position of the case of Gunner Charlton; |