satisfactory result. The only remedy is, of course, more frequent sittings. Whether this is possible is for their Lordships to consider. As it was, the number of days of sitting increased from 101 in 1912 to 124 in 1913. The annual average of appeals to the Judicial Committee for the period 1909-13 is 120°6, and for the period 1904-08, 89.6; whilst that for petitions to the House of Lords is 89.8 and 812 for the corresponding periods respectively. The position to-day in the House of Lords is not far different from that in 1904, when petitions numbered 73 compared with 71 in 1913. But the relative position of the two tribunals in the amount of business brought before them has been reversed. At one time, in 1907, 1908 and 1909, business in the House of Lords very considerably exceeded that in the Judicial Committee. In 1913, however, it is practically half that of the latter.

Had it not been for 53 petitions pending at the commencement of the year, the House of Lords would nearly have cleared their list. Of the total to be heard, they disposed of 87, leaving only 37 pending as against 53. It must be noticed, however, that no less than twenty petitions fewer were presented during 1913. Here, too, the number of days when the House sat for judicial business increased from 86 days in 1912 to 115 in 1913. Of interlocutory petitions there was an increase from 88 to 114. Petitions to sue or defend in forma pauperis declined from 18 to 12, and in only two cases was the pauper successful. less than 10 he was found to have no primâ facie case. It is again observable that the number of successful appeals to the Judicial Committee is far greater than those to the House of Lords. The former are considerably more than half of the number heard and determined, while the latter are considerably less than half. Whether this indicates a higher degree of legal knowledge in the members of the Appeal Courts in the United Kingdom than in the Supreme

In no

Courts of India and the Dominions may be questioned.
With appeals from Provincial Courts of the Dominions in
increasing numbers, the cases are not really comparable.
With an increased attendance of the House, and a con-
siderable diminution of business, it is still satisfactory to
note that the improvement in the time-table, which has
been such a marked feature during the last decade, has
not only been maintained, but intensified. In 1902 the
majority of appeals took from one to two years, from the
date of the order of the Court below to the final adjudica-
tion in the House of Lords. Of the 64 petitions heard
in 1913, 61 were taken within three months after setting
down, two within six months, and only one more than
one year.
The Committee of Privileges have made no
progress, five peerage claims being still outstanding: one,
the Earldom of Airth, having been presented in 1906 and
the remainder in 1911.

Petitions for personal Acts presented in 1913 all received the Royal Assent the same year. Four were for divorce, two related to family heirlooms, two to trust estates, and one to Ascot. Altogether a picturesque and motley collection.

As already mentioned, appeals entered in the Court of Appeal increased from 775 to 865. With 228 left over from 1912, 1,093 were standing for hearing, of which 741 were disposed of, leaving 352 pending at the end of the year. In view of the fact that the Court sat nine days more-418 days as against 409 in 1912-this result cannot be described as satisfactory. The quinquennial average of arrears is only 1938. In 1912 this was only 1616. If this increase continues, Appeal Court III will have to be formed more frequently. Of the 850 appeals from judgments and final orders pending or set down during the year, 126 were withdrawn or arranged; 231 affirmed; 15 varied; 93 reversed; 16 new trials ordered; 26 struck out;

and 14 otherwise disposed of, leaving arrears of 329. Of these appeals, 127 were from the Chancery Division, and 194 from King's Bench Division. In the former Division 58 were affirmed and 32 varied or reversed. There were no new trials. In the latter, 71 were affirmed, 36 varied or reversed, and 10 new trials were ordered. In 1912 the comparison was largely in favour of the Chancery Division. This year the difference in the results are not so striking, though still favourable to the Chancery Division. In appeals from interlocutory orders, the advantage lies wholly with the Chancery Division. Whilst 33 orders were affirmed, only 9 were varied or reversed; whilst in the King's Bench Division, 52 were varied or reversed, as against 80 affirmed. Turning to the Statistics of the Supreme Court, we find that the continuous and persistent decline in the business of the Court during the last ten years has been maintained. Once more we have to record a decrease in proceedings begun from 5,566 in 1912, and from 6,779 in 1904, to 5,344 in 1913. Actions set down during the year numbered 501, which, with 190 left over from the preceding year, made 691 to be dealt with. Of this number 412 were heard, 135 otherwise disposed of, leaving 144 pending at the end of the year. The position therefore was more favourable than in 1912, and particularly so, inasmuch as the Courts sat fewer days-1,088, as against 1,140 in 1912. The arrears are now less than they have been since 1907 and constitute almost the exact average for the quinquennial, 1904-08, viz., 143·8. In every department of this Division the figures disclose a loss of business. "Never before," wrote Sir John Macdonell last year, "was the volume of business in this Division so small as in 1912." This record has now been. broken.

In the King's Bench Division, although there has been a decline in civil business in some departments, it has not been so marked as in the Chancery Division nor so severe.

The decrease in the issue of writs has only been slight, 60,511 as against 60,789 in 1912. In 1904 the number was 72,816. The decrease in summonses before Masters and District Registrars was somewhat larger, 31,398 as against 32,791 in 1912. On the other hand, the figures for the proceedings in Court do not vary much from those for 1904 and compare favourably with the average for the quinquennial period 1904-08. Actions entered for trial in London and Middlesex, on circuit and before the Official Referees, numbered 3,251, compared with 3,644 in 1912 and 3,553 in 1904. Of these 2,359, as against 2,107 in 1912 and 2,345 in 1904, were disposed of. The amount recovered in all actions, except actions for possession, costs, &c., was £668,722, an increase upon 1912 of no less than £149,283. The average for the quinquennial period 1908-13 is £622,152, and for that of 1904-08 is £741,333. The average amount for actions for 1913 is £459, and for the quinquennial period 1908-13 £458, compared with £560 for that of 1904-08. The latter average, however, is somewhat misleading, as it is due to one year, 1907, when the amount recovered was £1,571,374, nearly three times that of any other year in the period. It has been alleged that damages awarded by juries have tended lately to increase. Omitting 1907 and 1909, when the amount was £755,949, 1913 is the best year since 1904. This increase is said to be particularly observable in actions for libel and slander, which numbered no less than 383, or over 9 per cent., in 1913. In libel the average amount recovered per action was £235 compared with £221 for 1912, and with the annual average of £285 for the quinquennial period 1908-13. The annual average for the quinquennial period 1904-08 was £489, but here again the average is disturbed by the exceptional year 1907, when the average amount per action was £1,392. The position in slander actions is similar. The average

amount recovered per action is £85 compared with £64 in 1912, and with the annual average of £55 for the quinquennial period 1908-13. The annual average for the quinquennial period 1904-08 was £70. The comparatively insignificant amounts recovered in slander actions, compared with that recovered in libel, will be observed, showing the more serious view which juries take of the written word. Of the total number of actions tried on circuit, a heavier percentage-19 per cent.-were for libel and slander. In libel actions the average amount recovered per action on circuit was only £162 compared with £289 in London and Middlesex. In slander actions the figure is £71 compared with £117. If we take the five years 1909-13, the amount recovered for slander averages £82 per case, whilst on circuit it averages only £44. It is therefore quite clear that provincial juries view both these offences more leniently than London and Middlesex juries. On circuit, no verdict for £500 and over for slander was given in 1913, and, with the exception of 1912, none since 1904.

The amount, however, recovered in the King's Bench Division by trial by a judge or by a judge and jury is comparatively small. Out of a total of £4,400,402, only £353,141 were recovered in the former way, while the amounts recovered by default of appearance and under Order XIV were £2,231,021 and £1,368,063 respectively. The average amount per action recovered by default of appearance was about £127, and by Order XIV about £266. There is practically no change in the proportion of actions tried by a judge and jury and of those tried by a judge without a jury. In each case the figures are well above the annual average for the quinquennial period 1909-13. It is satisfactory to note that the arrears are nearly half those for 1912, 470 compared with 864. The annual average for the quinquennial period 1909-13 is