SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT tinued from time to time till now. (1873) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL. CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS' AMENDMENTS. Commons Amendments considered (according to Order). That having been done, in the Autumn of the same year the Judicature Commission was appointed to consider, among other subjects, the number of the Judges. The Commission recommended LORD SELBORNE complained that no increase; but they did recommend the Amendments were presented in an that three Judges should be taken analmost, if not wholly, unintelligible form, nually from among the number of the and pointed out that the existing prac- Puisne Judges, and made for the year tice of the House as to Bills of impor- members of the Court of Appeal accordtance, returned with extensive amend- ing to the constitution of that Court ments and alterations from the Com- which they recommended. In 1869 the mons, was highly inconvenient. Unless deliberate opinion of that Commission the alterations made, with their whole con- was that 12 Puisne Judges were adetext were clearly indicated in a reprint, quate to discharge the business of the there was a danger of the House passing Courts of First Instance; and the scheme over slips and errors which would have to of the Act of 1873 was, in that respect, be amended subsequently. There were in perfect harmony with the Report of two points in these Amendments of cri- the Commission in 1869. That Report tical importance, on which he deemed it was signed-without any difference of an imperative duty to offer some obser- opinion on this point-by all the emivations. The first related to the repeal nent Judges, and other members of the of that portion of the 15th section of Legal Profession, who sat upon the the Act of 1873 which provided that no Commission. The operation of the Act new appointment of Puisne Judges of 1873, and also of the present Bill should be made to the Queen's Bench, would relieve the Judges from attendCommon Pleas, or Exchequer Division ance in the Court of Exchequer Chamof the High Court of Justice till the ber, which usually involved the attendnumber of Puisne Judges should be re- ance of five or six Judges for four or duced to 12. The House of Commons five weeks in the year. It should also had repealed that limitation on the num- be observed that the change made ber of the Puisne Judges. It was very by the Act of 1873 would not be sudmuch to be regretted that before the den. At present there were 15 Judges; working of the new system could be and, as the process of reduction to 12 tried, there should be any alteration in would be gradual, Parliament would that respect. It tended more than he have an opportunity of interposing, if could wish to encourage and confirm an necessary, whenever there was any actual idea, which previous experience only experience of any evil resulting from gave too much colour to, that no reform the reduction. He did not doubt that of the law could be reconciled with there was a considerable pressure and public economy-that whenever there block of business at present; but he were increased establishments those aug- could not help looking at that in conmentations must be made perpetual, and nection with some extraordinary and resistance would be offered to every exceptional cases, such as the Tichborne attempt to effect further improvement Case, which, on the first trial, occupied with the least possible amount of cost one Judge for nearly a year, and on the to the public. To increase the number second occupied three Judges for nearly of Judges, unless it was really necessary, another year. Again, it had been the would not tend to increase the estimation general rule, subject, no doubt, to exin which they were held. It would not ceptions in cases of emergency, that the tend to greater expedition, energy, and three Judges chosen in each particular efficiency in the disposal of business. In year to try Election Petitions should 1867 three new Judges were added to not go Circuit; while they were not on the existing number, expressly that they Circuit they had the time at their own might do the business of the Election disposal, and he had been told that some Petitions-business which only occupied of those Judges who would be the last a short period of their time, except in to neglect their duty had found leisure, the year immediately after a General during those intervals, to visit remote Election. The Act which added them parts of the world. It had been recomwas a temporary one, and was con-mended by a Committee of the House of Commons that two Judges should always sit together to try Election Petitions; but if Election Petitions were not very unlike other cases, there would be quite a luxurious waste of judicial power if this recommendation were adopted. If, however, the Committee considered this recommendation a reasonable one, they must also have considered that there could not be such a heavy pressure on the Common Law Judges. He would not object to have 18 Judges, or any number that might be required, if experience proved it necessary; but, until the Act of 1873 was in operation, there could be no such experience. The new arrangements and the extension of the Chancery practice of single Judges sitting and if there was to be a permanent Court of Intermediate Appeal the reason why single Judges should sit would obtain additional force-would be found, in his opinion, to remove that pressure of business which was complained of. He came now to the second important point. Considerable changes had been made by the House of Commons in the constitution of the Intermediate Court of Appeal. From the ordinary channels of information, he had seen that, according to an Amendment proposed by the Attorney General, instead of three additional Judges, only one was to be nominated by the Crown, while one or more Judges might be borrowed from the Court of Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer should it be necessary, to assist in the Court of Appeal. The Bill, as it left that House, proposed five ordinary and five ex officio Members of the Court of Appeal. He doubted at the time the sufficiency of such a tribunal; but now there were to be five ex officio and only three ordinary Judges. Judges of First Instance were to be borrowed from their respective Courts; and if they could be so borrowed as to be substantially available for the increase of the strength of the Court of Appeal, this circumstance strongly confirmed his impression that it was not clear that the present number of Judges in the Courts of First Instance was absolutely required for the discharge of the business there. For his part, he regretted greatly the increase in the Court of Appeal Judges taken from the Court of First Instance, there being only three permanent Judges; it looked exceedingly like a modification of the present Court Lord Selborne of Exchequer Chamber, the constitution of which was certainly not satisfactory. He could not help disapproving the changes made by the Bill; and the only satisfactory thing, to his mind, was that the measure was only to last for a single year, and that in another Session the whole subject might be dealt with in a manner unprejudiced by anything which was done now. As it was, the entire question affecting the Courts of Appeal was left in an imperfect and provisional state. He did not wish to see this question become the subject of legislation every year; but he did hope that next year the subject would be dealt with, not, as it had now been dealt with, under mixed political and professional influences, reflecting no mature or deliberate judgment either of the Government or of the Legislature, but with the sole aim of providing the best Appellate system for the administration of justice. THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, that if the hour had been earlier and the audience more encouraging, he should have been glad to enter at length into some of the points mentioned by his noble and learned Friend. He entirely concurred with him in regretting the form in which the Bill came back to that House. The record of Amendments did not accurately represent the Amendments actually made in the other House, and such inaccuracies ought to be prevented for the future. By the omission of the word "not" the Lord Chancellor had been made one of the permanent Judges of the Court of Appeal. As to the length of the Amendments, deducting the clauses sent down in red ink, which came back as Amendments, but were only technically so, the real Amendments made in the other House might be comprised in a couple of pages. One material Amendment was that by which the present number of Puisne Judges was kept at 15, instead of being reduced to 12. He was bound to say that there was the strongest possible feeling against this reduction, not only on the part of the Judicial Bench and at the Bar, as represented in the House of Commons, but also among the Representatives of large communities like Lancashire. He believed the number of Judges might be reduced, as a matter of trial, to 12 Puisne Judges, if the Assizes were excluded; but he had satisfied himself that with only 12 Puisne Judges the Circuit work could not be done, even if only one Judge were left to do the Chamber work in London. His noble and learned Friend had dwelt on the evil of any unnecessary multiplications of Judges. Now, he must express his belief that the number of Judges could not be reduced to the lowest point compatible with efficiency until we had broken the system up which prevailed in the Common Law Courts of having more Judges than one to sit as Judges of First Instance. That system, he thought, could not continue to exist. At present the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was the most extravagantly paid Court in the country, for there were four paid Judges, costing the country £20,000 a-year, to dispose of only 100 cases in a year. With respect to the Appellate Court, the whole change consisted in this-that instead of the Crown appointing three extra Judges, each of the Divisions should be asked to appoint a Judge to assist the Court of Appeal, when necessary. He denied altogether that the Court of Appeal would be in any degree a weak one. He proposed to make some further Amendments, in order to correct some of the obvious mistakes left in the clauses, and also to vary the Amendment concerning costs, by giving a discretionary power to the Judge on good cause being shown. LORD DENMAN said, that he had from the first opposed this legislation, and he should be glad if this Bill could be postponed till next Session, because the Commons Amendments were referred to a copy of the Bill, which did not correspond with the pages and lines of the Bill, so that it was impossible for this House fairly to consider the alterations made. He did not think that the Bill would work well; and he was surprised at the speech of the Prime Minister at a recent dinner, in which he congratulated himself and the Government on passing it in a few days. Several Amendments agreed to, with Amendments; and some disagreed to; and a Committee appointed to prepare reasons to be offered to the Commons for the Lords disagreeing to the said amendments: The Committee to meet forthwith: Report from Committee of the reason prepared by them; read, and agreed to; and a message sent to the Commons to return the said Bill, with the reason. House adjourned at Eleven o'clock, till BURNTISLAND HARBOUR BILL. CONSIDERATION OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS. Amendments read. Lords' Amendments considered. MR. ANDERSON said, he must ask the House to disagree with the Amendments of the House of Lords on this Bill. The reasons for his doing so were somewhat peculiar. The Bill had passed through the House of Commons without opposition, and when it left there, it was a perfectly innocent measure, with which no one could find any fault. After it came before Committee in the other House, certain Amendments were introduced by the promoters which would have a very serious effect on the shipping and trading interests of the county of Fife. These Amendments were introduced without Notice, and if the parties interested had been aware of such intention, the Bill would have been opposed in the House of Commons. No opportunity, however, was given them of opposing it. The first Amendment was one which imposed on the ratepayers of Burntisland the liability of making good any deficiency in the sinking fund. A Petition signed by 70 or 80 ratepayers had been sent up, in which they protested against the Amendment on the ground that, as they derived no benefit from the harbour, they ought not to be taxed for its maintenance. The next Amendment was even more objectionable still. The railway rates were fixed by an Act of Parliament in 1858; but they were so high as to be impracticable, and a new arrangement was entered into in 1872, which was made statutory in 1873, stipulating that certain rates, and | man of Committees in the Lords, they none higher, should be charged. That came to the conclusion that it was disagreement had been acted upon since tinctly for their interest that the Bill that time, and the traders very seriously should be allowed to pass. A very special objected to an Amendment now intro- agreement was entered into between the duced into the Bill, which would throw the Town Council and the North British agreement over. The traders trusted to Railway Company in regard to the rates the Town Council of Burntisland; and charged for coal and other matters; but until quite lately the Town Council of that, he repeated, was a special agreeBurntisland was perfectly firm about it. ment. As he understood the case, it They insisted that the Bill should be came to this-that those Petitioners were withdrawn, if the railway company in- not parties to the special agreement sisted upon upsetting that agreement; made between the Town Council and and it was only so late as the 30th of the North British Railway. They July last that the Town Council, in conwere outsiders. They were customers, sequence of influence brought to bear no doubt, of the railway, but they upon them, passed a resolution agreeing were protected as all customers of other to withdraw their opposition. The 30th railways were protected namely, by July was only the other day. The pro- ordinary rules. Moreover, under the prietors were an unorganized body, and Bill they would be specially protected in it was impossible for them to get up an that respect under the clause inserted opposition on the spur of the moment to by the House of Lords. Special provia Bill passed by a Committee of the sion was made that the rates should not Lords. They were unable to oppose it be raised to such a degree as to injure themselves, but they trusted to the House the harbour; and, in case of a difference, of Commons to refuse to sanction an a special reference was to be made to Amendment so extremely unjust as that. the Railway Commissioners, not only It raised rates so much that it would under the general law, but under the prove to be a great grievance. The coal particular agreement. He ventured to proprietors for whom he was then think that those third parties, who were speaking-had an "output" of 800,000 no party to the agreement, should stand tons per annum; and out of that quan- exactly as the customers of any other tity 400,000 tons were shipped. Therefore, railway would stand; he could not see the amount that they would be taxed that it was fair they should at the last in respect of that Amendment would moment interfere, with the result of amount to many thousand pounds an- throwing upon his constituents a very nually. There was another Amendment, heavy expense. which raised the shipping rates from 1d. to 2d., or 100 per cent; and the harbour rates on ships were raised from 4d. to 6d., or 50 per cent. The two last Amendments were not of so much importance to his constituents as the first Amendment, but he thought he had shown sufficient cause why the House should disagree with the Amend ments. SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL said, that the burgh which promoted the Bill was one he represented. He did not propose to go into any details. The general question appeared to be this-the burgh having gone to a very large expense in respect of the Bill, it would be in a very great difficulty if it were thrown out at the last moment. The burgh was not anxious that the Amendments should be introduced; but having been introduced, and having received the sanction of Lord Redesdale, the very experienced ChairMr. Anderson MR. ADAM said, he trusted the House would not permit the Bill to be thrown out, because of the objection of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson). That would be a very unusual and a very unfair course. It had gone through all its stages, and at the last moment it was met by opposition from third parties who had no direct interest in the matter. If they appeared at all, they ought to have appeared before Lord Redesdale, and it was unfair to appear at the last moment, when it was perfectly certain the result of any opposition must be to throw the Bill out altogether, and say that they had not been sufficiently heard. It was all very well to say they did not know what was going on before Lord Redesdale; but he knew from correspondence which he had seen in the Scotch newspapers, that these facts must have been known to the gentlemen who now appeared long before they made another move. asked the House to consider the very injurious effect the stopping of the Bill would have on the public interests of the county of Fife. It was a great coal-producing county, with an extensive seaboard, and it had not got a single harbour in which big ships could get. If that Bill were thrown out just when they expected to get a good harbour and good ships and he thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Anderson), instead of representing coal proprietors in the county, more probably represented some individual interests amongst those coal proprietors the effect would be that the harbour would not be made for a couple of years after it should be, and the whole public interests would be injured to an extent which it was impossible to estimate. He trusted the House would agree to the Amendments. He House of Parliament to introduce an MR. RAIKES said, he quite agreed with his right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. Adam), that it was a very unusual circumstance that the House should be engaged in discussing Amendments made in the other House of Parliament on the 9th August; but he (Mr. Raikes) would not say that appeared quite to sustain him in the position which he understood the right hon. Gentleman to take up-namely, that if the House took the course of disagreeing to proposed Amendments, the House should be responsible for the loss of the Bill. He had had the matter particularly under his own consideration while it was in the House of Commons, for there it was an unopposed Bill, and therefore it was referred to him in his capacity of Chairman of Ways and Means. It passed before him without any suggestion of Amendment, and it left the House as an unopposed Bill. Under those circumstances, he did not think that upon that House would rest the responsibility of the failure of the Bill consequent on its restoration to its original shape. The question raised by these Amendments was really an important one. The first Amendment was called Clause 9 A, which provided additional security for the formation of a sinking fund by hypothecating the revenues of a town, and giving the rates as additional security for the sinking fund. If that was an English Bill it would not be competent for the other VOL. CCXXVI. [THIRD SERIES.] 2 C As re |