HC Deb 11 February 1932 vol 261 cc1136-62
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Boyd Merriman)

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty representing that, the state of business in the King's Bench Division requires that a vacancy in the number of puisne judges of the King's Bench 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 (Consolidation) Act, 1925. The House will naturally expect from me a short explanation as to the necessity for this particular Motion. The position is that under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1925, the King's Bench Judges were fixed at 18 in number, that is the Chief Justice and 17 puisne Judges, with the proviso that if at any time there were 15 puisne judges on the bench, a vacancy should not be filled without an Address from both Houses of Parliament; but that, on the other hand, an Address, once made, should hold good for the year, and that any vacancy recurring within a year should be, refilled. I am merely paraphrasing the proviso, and I am not giving the actual words. Since 1925 there has been only one such Address, and that was moved exactly four years ago, in February, 1928, and thereby the number of puisne judges was brought back to 17. Since that time two vacancies only have occurred. The first within a year of that Address was refilled, leaving the number at 17. The second was caused by a resignation which occurred after the expiration of the year, and that vacancy has not been filled. The King's Bench Division is working at present at the strength of 16, in addition to the Chief Justice. If I have made myself plain so far, hon. Members will see that the next vacancy, whenever it occurs, unless this Motion is passed, cannot be filled at all. In other words if any of the judges who at the present moment—there are several who are entitled to retire on pension—were to elect to retire, or if any judge were unhappily to die, the position would be that the number would be automatically reduced to 15, and the vacancy could not be filled. That is the legal position.

May I address myself quite shortly to the two possible criticisms of this Motion. There may he some who are not convinced of the actual necessity for an additional judge. On the other hand, I can assure those who think that way that there are also many who think that we are not going far enough, and that this Motion is not going to do all that ought to be done. May I try to answer both those criticisms. I will put quite shortly the arguments in favour of the necessity for filling up this vacancy. I cannot help reflecting that it is only two weeks since I myself was in private practice in London, and it is not very long since I was intimately connected with the practice on the Northern circuit. The thing which strikes me about this business is the outstanding and striking contrast between the state of litigation in the provinces and the state of litigation in London. After all, the King's Bench business is the same whether it is done in London or in Manchester. The cases are of the same type, the litigants are of the same type, and the issues raised are exactly the same. Moreover, the judges are the same, whether they happen to be sitting in London or in Manchester.

If the House will allow me, I will draw a contrast between the state of business in the provinces and in London. I am speaking both from my own experience—and I have verified the facts up to date by official statistics—and from that of those who are actually practising at the moment. Take four big towns, Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, and Leeds. At Manchester and Liverpool there are four assizes in the year at which civil cases can be tried, and at Leeds and Birmingham three, and it is literally true to say that at any of those big towns any litigants who are minded to get their cases tried, and are not deliberately trying to hold them back, can be certain of getting a case tried within, at the utmost, three months of the time when it is ready for trial arid is set down for trial. I say at the utmost, but as a matter fact cases can be entered up to four days before an assize begins, and they are frequently disposed of, not in three months, but in less than three weeks from the time when they are set down.

That is the position of litigants in those towns, and the result, as hon. Members might suppose, is that, even in my short experience, in spite of the increase in the jurisdiction of the county courts, and in spite of the effect on litigation which trade depression invariably has, there are at the present moment long lists of cases for trial at every assize in all of those towns which I have mentioned. Why? Because litigants know two things. They know that they will get a speedy trial, and, what is not less important, they know almost within a week or two when that trial will take place. I need scarcely say that the convenience of both those facts is enormous. Perhaps I may just call attention to one very odd incident to which this has given rise. It is not at all an unknown thing for comparatively small assize towns near London, within the Home Counties, to find themselves flooded with a quantity of work the like of which they have never known before, and the explanation is that astute litigants or their advisers are setting down at these assizes cases which were intended to be tried in London. In other words, they are getting a purely artificial preference over contemporary litigants in London, at great advantage to themselves, but without, I need scarcely say, helping to solve the real problem with which we are confronted.

When to these facts which I have mentioned is added the fact that in quite recent years the divorce cases have fallen to be tried at the assizes, it is no exaggeration whatever to say that, taking only the four towns I have mentioned, it means, in terms of judicial time, that at Manchester and Liverpool four times a year two Judges are occupied for six or seven consecutive weeks, and at Leeds and Birmingham three times a year two Judges are occupied for two or three weeks each. Add to that all the other assize towns in the country, and it necessarily follows that a very large proportion of the Judges are kept out of London for long periods.

9.0 p.m.

I do not want the House to misunderstand what I am saying. It is in my opinion quite right that that should be the way in which judicial business is disposed of in the provinces, and I would not willingly be a party to any solution of our difficulties which involved a curtailment of the facilities in the provinces for prompt and careful trial. What is wrong is that this desirable state of things in the provinces should be attained at the expense of proper facilities for trial in London, owing to inadequate judicial strength. Having pointed out what is happening in the provinces, may I draw the contrast between that and the state of things at this moment in London? In London, there are over 1,000 cases of one sort or another awaiting trial at this moment, and, with the permission of the House, I will give the figures. There are 246 special jury actions, 486 common jury actions and 226 non-jury actions—a total of 958; and, in addition, there are about 120 appeals waiting to be disposed of by one or other of the Divisional Courts, which consist, as many hon. Members know, of two or more Judges sitting together; thus for the moment making it more difficult to find Judges for cases for dealing with which only a single Judge sits.

Comparing like with like, and remembering that in the four big towns which I have mentioned you could be sure, from the moment that your case was ready for trial, of getting on in two or three months at the outside, the cases which are being tried to-day, or at any rate this week, in the special jury list and the common jury list in London, were ready and entered for trial in April of last year; that is to say, there is 10 months' delay between the moment at which a jury case is ready for trial and the moment at which it can hope to be heard at the earliest. These are not just chance figures. I have checked them from different sources, and there is no doubt whatever that that is the current delay in jury cases. Non-jury cases are not so bad; cases are being tried this week which were entered in October or November last; but it has only been possible to attain that result by the temporary loan of three Judges from the Chancery Division to assist in the trial of King's Bench non-jury cases. As a matter of fact, among the jury cases which are being tried this week there are two poor persons' cases. They neither gain nor lose any precedence among the general list of cases from that fact, and, as it happens, both of them were ready for trial and were entered 10 months ago. I cannot believe that, when Parliament set up elaborate machinery for enabling poor persons to get assistance and have their cases heard in the High Court, it was ever contemplated that, in addition to their other difficulties, there should be a delay of 10 months between the time when those cases were ready for trial and the time when they could at the earliest hope to be tried.

I hope that I have said enough to convince anyone that there is this necessity. May I just say a word to those who think that we are not going far enough? After all, there is this great merit in proceeding in the way in which we are proceeding, by Resolution. If this Address is passed, it operates at once, and the vacancy can be filled the next day. There is none of the delay that is inherent in putting legislation through its various stages at a time when the state of business in this House is notoriously crowded. But, apart from that, if I made myself clear at the beginning of my remarks it will be seen that we are really, from a practical point of view, doing rather more than getting one additional judge, because, if within the next few months there were a, resignation or a death and no Motion, we should actually be losing a judge. If we get this Motion, we shall not only be able to fill the present vacancy, but we shall be able to refill it if one or more vacancies occur. So that, from a practical point of view, it may almost be said that, if a resignation occurs, we shall in effect be getting two judges, as long as the resignation occurs within 12 months. But, even supposing we are not doing enough, I ask hon. Members not to allow their desire for more to prompt them to refuse what I firmly believe would meet a most urgent need.

Mr. BUCHANAN

I do not want to detract from the ability with which the hon. and learned Gentleman has made his speech. He has modified at least to some extent our views concerning the Motion. But that does not absolve me from a certain duty which I have to perform. I think it would have been only courteous for the Attorney-General to be here. After all, he is the chief of, the legal Department of the Government, and we might at least have had an apology for his absence. He knew that this Motion was coming on. The hon. and learned Gentleman's speech could not have been improved upon, but the Motion is in the Attorney-General's name, it was known that it was coming on, and it was known beforehand that he was not going to be present. I could understand illness or a sudden development in business, but to put down the Motion on a night when it is known that he is not going to be present is treating the House of Commons with contempt.

I think the Solicitor-General made one mistake. He proved either too much or too little. In effect, what he has said is that in the provinces there is no congestion of litigation but in London there is terrible congestion. What he has to prove is that one extra Judge is going to remedy that state of things. He obviously made an appeal to me and my colleagues. He says the poor person is being held up. Is this extra Judge going to meet that difficulty? Will it make the 10 months, which are now affecting the poor woman in London, the three months that are only going to apply in the provinces? I could have understood the Motion if coupled with it you had said, "Our predecessors neglected this problem. The position is so bad that we are going to take very early steps to reorganise it." Then there would be a case for what you are moving, but you are still only going to reduce the 10 months to eight and the problem for the poor person remains substantially the same.

There is an impression abroad nowadays that Judges are not ordinary citizens. With due deference to them, Judges on the bench are immune, but only to administer the law, and it is not part of a Judge's duty to do anything on the bench other than his legal work. There is a growing practice, which is to be deprecated, of Judges doing things other than their legal work. Judges seem to think it is not for them to administer the law as we make it. Politicians are as good as Judges. Why should I be ashamed of working at my job? Why should we be subject to the cheap sneers of Judges on the bench, as we are? I have worked on unemployment insurance, and I think my opponents will give me credit for not being a fool. Why should I be subject in my making of the laws, to comments from the bench, which has no right to make them? I should be called to order if I criticised a Judge. Judges must learn that, apart from administring the law, they are merely citizens. I must say to the credit of Scottish Judges, with whom I differ far more than I agree, that they have never turned the bench into a cross between a publication of Rothermere and a pantomime. The Press send special correspondents to take every sentence of particular Judges. I am not going to argue about birth control and the rights and wrongs of it, but it is a question for the politicians to deal with. The Judges would get on much more quickly with their work, and would lessen considerably the 10 months for the poor woman if, instead of passing stupid, silly infra dig remarks, they devoted their time to the job they are paid for.

I turn to another matter. What are the ages of the judges? We are entitled to know. There is a feeling abroad that you can say and write what you like about a politician, but you must never ask a question about a judge. I am entitled as a business man to ask that question. [Interruption.] The amount of money a man spends is not the test of a business man. A man may spend £1,000, and if he gets a good return for it, the money has been well spent. My mother taught me that to spend a shilling wrongly is waste. The amount is not the criterion; it is the return. What are the ages of the judges? We have 15 or 16 judges, one of whom is at least 80 years of age. Is there any man in this House running any kind of business who would allow a man of 80 years, however able he might be, to carry on in his work?

Mr. O'CONNOR

I am sure that everybody practising at the Bar will agree with me when I say that that particular judge is probably the best of the whole lot.

Mr. BUCHANAN

I expected that remark; I have heard it before. I am told that this particular judge gives judgments which are far superior to those of other judges, and that his clear-minded judicial summaries are models. But in the Civil Service you come along and say to the model civil servant who has reached the age of 65, "It is time to go." I say frankly to the hon. and learned Member opposite that the average member of the community at 80 is finished in any walk of life. While the hon. and learned Member is lucky in picking out an exception, I contend that at 80, 75 or even 70, the average man is finished. It is time that an age limit was applied to judges. What is one of the complaints made at the Bar? Barristers in Edinburgh are walking up and down the courts without any work to do, and here one meets with the same sort of complaint. Barristers are complaining about scarcity of briefs. Why should we keep an 80-year-old man on the ground of indispensability when there are younger men capable of undertaking judicial duties? I could point out young, capable men, though it would be a political offence to do so, in this House, who could with capacity and knowledge occupy these positions. Why should we not be able to retire the older judges and allow younger men to take their place?

I think there is a tendency in the Department presided over by the hon. and learned Gentleman and his chief to put minor offences before these people. I am not as familiar with the English Bar as I am with the Scottish Bar, but I assume that, although our phrases and terms are different, in the long run there is not much difference in practice. The procurator-fiscal and the Lord Advocate in Scotland decide in which court a person shall be tried, and also decide upon the Statute under which the indictment shall be framed. Men and women are often tried before judges, particularly on the criminal side, when they might well have been tried in lower courts. This is very often the case in regard to offences of a minor political character. One of the reasons why I was most annoyed at the Government for taking our time was that I had intended by Motion to challenge the whole position. I cannot do it here. There must be numbers of cases of comparatively minor offences which could quite well be tried by the lower courts. The judges themselves are responsible for throwing extra work upon the Court of Criminal Appeal. We had a classic case the other day where a judge actually sentenced a man in defiance of his superiors. That means added work for his superiors.

The Solicitor-General will get the Address. He has moved it with a speech of some persuasion, and, I have no doubt, a good deal of sense behind it. He should be prepared, not only to ask for one miserable judge, but to go into the whole of our judiciary. The whole business needs re-casting. The duties of the judges need re-casting. I say frankly to the Solicitor-General, that if there is any judge to-day abusing his duties—and I maintain that in a certain case there is an unanswerable case—the Solicitor-General, in addition to asking for this Address, might well devote his time in an effort to bring about a re-casting of the whole judiciary with the object of finding out whether the poor persons' legislation is acting properly, whether it is not possible to establish an age limit for judges, and whether cases cannot otherwise be dealt with, and, above all, to see whether when judges are appointed they do the legal work. The work of framing the laws of this country is apportioned to other men as good, honest and clever as the judges. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would do this, it would possibly lessen the need for additional judges.

Mr. O'CONNOR

Lest the roving eye of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) should have seemed to have set on me in some of the remarks he made, may I at once say that I have no desire either now, or, I trust, at any time in the future, to adorn the judicial bench.

Mr. BUCHANAN

May I be allowed to interrupt the hon. Gentleman and to point out that he is not the only barrister?

Mr. O'CONNOR

I quite understand that, but I wanted to make it perfectly plain, in the remarks with which I propose to trouble the House, that, at any rate, I disclaim that destiny whatever other ambition I may hold. The Solicitor-General has made out, as the House will recognise, an absolutely unanswerable case for an additional judge to the King's Bench. The state of business, as everybody in daily practice in the courts knows, is utterly congested, and it is impossible to go through the work without this addition.

As long ago as 1892 the Council of Judges, presided over by Lord Justice Bowen, after an inquiry into the defects of legal administration—and the structure of the King's Bench and the whole circuit system is in existence at the present time—produced a report in which they unanimously recommended that matters should be so arranged that never at any time should there be fewer than eight King's Bench judges in London dealing with the work. That was in 1892, when presumably the business of the City was very much less than it is at present, and when the strain on the time of the courts was considerably less. Take the position on the King's Bench only last week. On 1st February there were six Judges sitting there, of whom three were sitting in the Court of Criminal Appeal, so that they were not dealing with civil work. On the Tuesday there were four, on the Wednesday four, on the Thursday three, and on the Friday three. That is either three or four judges sitting on the whole of the King's Bench work, whereas as long ago as 1892 it was recommended that there should not be fewer than eight judges on King's Bench work, acting independently from those on circuit. Obviously, that cramps and hinders justice in many ways.

Hon. Members know there was an important Memorandum prepared by the Associated Chambers of Commerce relating to legal business and the one thing upon which they put their fingers firmly and pre-eminently over all others was this matter of delay—litigants not knowing when cases were going to he heard, hanging about the courts wasting precious time, and, in fact, even taking a compromise simply because they could not afford to wait for justice. That is a scandalous position with which all of those who practise in the courts are perfectly familiar, and is going on every day. Only to-day I heard a similar case of a litigant who had to compromise because he had been kept hanging about in the courts for so long that it paid him to take less rather than to wait until he could get justice.

9.30 p.m.

I agree with the hon. Member for Gorbals that this is only tackling one end of the problem. It is not dealing radically with it at all, and I want to urge upon the Solicitor-General that it is the business of the Government, as soon as an opportunity comes, to undertake very radical interference with the whole judicial system. The defects have been clearly pointed out from more quarters than one. The Solicitor-General will be the last person to suggest that the appointment of one, two or even three judges alone could succeed in expediting satisfactorily the work in the King's Bench Division in London. Various other matters have been touched on. There is the question whether the Long Vacation of 10 weeks is too long. Many of us, especially junior silks, think it is a good time too long, because by that time the resources of counsel are completely dried up, and they are unable to level out that income which should be spread over the whole year. Then interlocutory proceedings are absolutely farcical in the present state of affairs and many of them could be cut down by half. The system of pleading is archaic and mediaeval in many respects, so that only the pleader can understand the alchemy of the stuff he is dealing with, and very often even he cannot understand it himself, so that an enormous amount of time is wasted in dealing with this type of procedure. There is a whole volume of matters that must be approached and grasped radically if we are to get justice moving swiftly, promptly and efficiently in this country in accordance with the lustre and traditions of justice of which we are rightly proud.

There is another matter on which the hon. Member touched. He said that there were too many old judges. It is a salutary tradition in this House that the judges are immune from criticism except on those special occasions when an Address is presented to both Houses for their removal, but it would be, in my view, a misfortune if it should not be possible for those who are best acquainted with the work of the courts to volunteer temperate, responsible and reasonable criticism on what they see every day in their legal work. One cannot put judges in glass cases and remove them entirely from the sphere of public observation. Speaking with a sense of responsibility and, I trust, temperately, I endorse what the hon. Member for Gorbals said. He wanted to know the average age of the King's Bench Division judges. The average age at the present time is 65. There is no judge under 50, and only two between 50 and 60. Even going back no further than 1914, the average age was 62, and in that year there were five judges between 50 and 60, and at least one under 50. Speaking as temperately and responsibly as I know how to do, that is not unconnected, in my view, with the state of congestion, because you cannot expect either that robust and continuous good health at that average age that you would get among men who were some years junior, nor, indeed, can you expect alertness in taking down evidence—for there is a mass of evidence which is taken down in longhand by the judges—nor that flexibility and speed of operation of the mind that you would get if the average age was seven or ten years younger. I think the matter wants looking into from that point of view.

I think that the reason why there is a growing increase in the average age of the judiciary on the King's Bench side, at any rate, is because they are not paid salaries which are commensurate with the office they adorn. The salaries are not adequate to draw to that office, in the prime of their ability and the very height of their powers, the very best man at the Bar. Hon. Members may think the salary is high or that the reward of the Bar is too high, but it is an open market, and they are getting exactly what the market rate is. At the present moment probably more than one case is going on in this term in which the advocates of the Bar will gain in the course of one case more than the judges who are trying the case will get in a whole year.

If we expect to retain the high standard of which we are so justly proud in this country, we must reconsider the question of judicial salaries. We must reconsider that question if we are to get the best brains and the biggest brains, not at the moment when they are beginning to think that their powers of earning an enormous income are beginning to decline, but at the time when they are at the zenith of their power and able to look forward to many years of most fruitful service that they can offer to the country. In saying that, I am making no criticism of the present King's Bench judges, most of whom were appointed at a time when the real wage was not as low as it is now. As regards the particular instance that the hon. Member for Gorbals had in mind, of one judge over 80 years of age, I can assure him that there are, as he says, very few men who maintain to that advanced age that amazing vigour, that perspicacity, that clarity and that level of even-handed justice—

Mr. BUCHANAN

I do not say that.

Mr. O'CONNOR

—which the judge whom the hon. Member had in mind has shown throughout his career. It would be a misfortune if it were thought that merely on the point of age there was any identification of any particular individual in that respect. For these reasons, I suggest that while an unanswerable ease has been made out for the address by the Solicitor-General, so ably and eloquently, the House ought to be apprised of these facts, because they are fundamental to any radical treatment of the judicial system, and they are fundamental if we are to maintain that system at the traditionally high level that it has enjoyed for so many years. The House of Commons some day will have to consider this practical question: first, what are we to do to reorganise the procedure of the law from end to end, and, secondly, are we to pay our judges a salary which will attract to that office the very best men who can be drawn from the ranks of the legal profession?

Mr. TINKER

I want to say a few words on this matter, because, in the past, we have had cause to complain in Lancashire of cases that have been sent to London to the Court of Appeal having been held up for a considerable time. I refer to compensation cases. Many times they have been held up for months, and our men, who are not alive to what is really the cause, have felt that something requires to be altered. To-night the Solicitor-General has put a very good case with regard to the congestion in the courts, and has shown that something requires to be done in order to get through the cases. I support the appointment of another judge, and, in doing so, I want to take advantage of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Gorbals. I agree with practically all that he said, but I shall not agree with him if he votes against the appointment. I know one or two judges who were in the House of Commons before they were appointed. One judge who was recently appointed was a Member of the House of Commons, quite a decent chap, but no better than the ordinary man. In debate he did not take any outstanding position; in fact, he was not as good as many speakers in the House. Perhaps he was listening to what was said. That is the type of man we get as judges.

I maintain that when the judges are on the Bench they have no right to go outside their judicial powers and to comment on general matters. There have been several of these cases recently where the judge, apart from the decision that he ought to give or has given, has taken it upon himself to deal with other matters. That does not help the dignity of the Bench. I, along with others, believe in the standard of our English law, but I have seen judges dealing with cases, and, while I have been well satisfied with their legal work—

Mr. MAXTON

You have never been in the dock.

Mr. TINKER

As long as I can avoid it I shall not go there. There is a certain standard of English law which is in the public mind, and that standard can only be retained if the judges deal with the business which they are sent to the Bench to transact. When such comments are made by the judges, we have no opportunity of dealing with them on the Floor of the House of Commons. For some reason or other, if we attempt to deal with the work of the Bench the Speaker rules us out of order. Therefore, it is only on occasions such as the present one that we get a chance of stating our case. I agree with the hon. Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) that there ought to be some recasting of the whole position in regard to the judges. We have judges 80 years and 70 years of age. In every other walk of life a man is supposed to have finished when he gets to that age. I do not see why a judge should be something exceptional. The length of the vacation also requires thorough examination. The whole question needs to be put before the House of Commons, and if extra help is required in the courts the House will be prepared to give it. No one has any desire that litigants should be held up from getting their rights for 10 and 12 months. Therefore, the Government ought to let us know the whole position, and when we know the whole position I am sure that everyone will be prepared to deal fairly with the judges.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS

Lest I should be outdone in modesty by the hon. and learned Member for East Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor), let me say that I am not eligible, from lack of seniority, for the Bench. I congratulate the Solicitor-General upon his introduction of the proposal. I think he won the hearts of everybody in the House, including the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) whom I shrewdly suspect, with others, of a nefarious conspiracy to oppose this proposal at the start, but the Solicitor-General addressed him in language which appealed to him, and which he could understand, and from being an enemy he turned into a friend. That is a great compliment to the Solicitor-General. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) says it was a miracle. I am glad that the miracle has happened.

Although an unanswerable case has been presented to us, it is only a small part of a very great problem. There is absolutely no doubt that a great scandal has arisen in our Courts, which is not often made apparent to the House or the country. I suppose that one of the things of which we are most proud in this country is the administration of the law. That is what the British nation is famous for throughout the world, and it is what has made as much as anything else for the British Empire's magnificent influence throughout the world.

What are the inherent qualities of our justice? We have spacious courts, great and wise judges, juries who are not afraid to do their duty, and have not been afraid to do their duty for hundreds of years. We have a great treasure in our administration of justice, far superior to that of our sister nation in America where owing chiefly to the laws' delays a great disrespect is growing up for the law and the people are turning to other means of enforcing their rights. But in spite of this magnificent system of law it is impossible for it to have any value unless it can be made available for the common people. It is like gold in an inaccessible mine, or in the Bank of France; it cannot be won, and therefore, it is useless. It has been often said that it is better to have bad law than no law at all. I say that it is better to have bad and inefficient justice than no justice at all. There is no doubt from the figure given by the Solicitor-General that in London especially there is a tremendous congestion in the courts and people are unable to get justice.

We must always remember that although the law is impartial, and our trials impartial, there is always a real distinction between the ability of the rich and the ability of the poor to get justice. I sometimes doubt whether my profession has done nearly as much for the poor in this country as the medical profession. I wonder whether my profession has done as much as the profession of law in France for the poor, where it is the advocate's glory to serve the poor. I know that there are many brilliant and honourable exceptions, but for the main part the work for the poor in my profession is done by the beginners. They begin in this way, but there is a gradual and insensible change as they get on and nearly always they leave to new beginners in the profession the work for the poor. These delays fall more grievously on the poor as compared with the rich, and that is why it is most important that we should do our utmost to see that there is expeditious justice.

My heart was so full of this subject to-day that I could not refrain from speaking in this Debate. To-day I happened to appear for a poor person; perhaps I ought not to say that, but for a person who is not wealthy, a Scottish plaintiff whose cause of action was in London and whose case was fixed for to-day. He came down in a small motor car with his three witnesses, but owing to a case lasting longer than was anticipated his case was not reached to-day and he had to go back to Scotland in his small car in the cold and snow to be sent for in the middle of next week, when his case may or may not be heard. That is an example of hundreds which are bringing the administration of the law into hatred and contempt at the present time.

Mr. BUCHANAN

One judge would not cure that.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS

My hon. Friend is wrong. One judge can cure a great deal of that delay, and several judges could cure a great deal more, but I quite agree with the hon. Member that it is essential that this matter should be examined and dealt with radically. If the great Lord Bowen said in 1892 that it was essential to have eight judges sitting permanently in the King's Bench Division it is surely much truer to-day. Those who are in the trade union movement are jealous of our rights and ancient institutions, and no doubt the circuit system is much beloved by the legal profession. It has many characteristics which make it very attractive to us, but if the circuit system stands in the way of the expeditious progress of business in London, then the circuit system must be reformed. Very likely the contrast between the lack of congestion of business in the country and the congestion of business in London should be further examined, and although in circuit towns the system has already been reformed, further reform may be necessary. It may be that there is not enough business to warrant the prolonged stay of His Majesty's judges in these circuit towns when there is so much work waiting for them in London. That is one of the many things which must be looked into. This is a matter which really cannot wait; it is a real grievance of the people of this country. Our great national poet was right when he classed among those things which make life intolerable the law's delay, and placed it between the "pangs of despised love" and "the insolence of offices."

Mr. LOGAN

I consider it a privilege to be able to speak to-night on the question of the appointment of a judge, because things have arisen recently which prompts me to take advantage of this opportunity of giving vent to feelings which have been subdued in regard to one holding high judicial office. I understand this is an appointment of the Crown, and I take it that the appointment will be made by the Prime Minister. It is to relieve the congestion of business. Members of the judicial bench should not have the mind of the herbalist, and utterances from those who occupy high positions, who are looked upon with awe by the rank and file of the country, should be in keeping with the dignity and prestige of the English bench and the English judiciary. They should not be indiscreet in dealing with matters of great importance as far as morality is concerned. If there is any place where men should be chary of language it should be in our courts. Men who are learned in the law should not insult the intelligence of masses of the people by giving utterance on the bench to things with which they are not concerned in the administration of justice.

This is an appointment which is about to be made. My remarks may not be relevant to those who are already on the bench, but they are totally relevant to the appointment that is to be made. We have a right to point out that at least some respect should be paid to the opinion of the public. An injudicious remark passed by someone on the bench is not a remark which I in the House of Commons can ask him to withdraw, and, therefore, I raise my voice now so that those outside administering justice will be able to understand that there is a public opinion which is not in agreement with the indiscreet observations of some of our judicial men. I want to call the attention of the Solicitor-General to this appointment. I am fully convinced that it is necessary, having regard to the congestion of business, and I should never vote against anything which would tend to relieve that congestion. The appointment will be made by the Prime Minister, and I will call his attention to this point: that if judges will get on with the business for which they have been appointed and leave quack remedies to the herbalist, it will be much better for the English people.

Mr. KNIGHT

I do not wish in any way to impede this Address, which every man of experience will support, but I want to make a general observation suggested by some of the remarks that have been made during the discussion. Let me say, first, that there is one unfortunate circumstance which has contributed to this congestion and which the learned Solicitor-General did not mention. That is the deplorable condition of illness during the last 12 months, if not longer, among His Majesty's judges. Undoubtedly that has contributed to the congestion of business, and it has called for the remedy which is before us now. But there is this general observation: This House has repeatedly given its attention to deficiencies in the administration of justice, civil and criminal. If my memory serves me rightly, the last occasion on which this House had an inquiry into the work of the High Court was several years before the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. O'Connor), who represents Nottingham with me, came to the Bar. I think it was in 1912, and it is an amazing circumstance that every one of the recommendations of that inquiry was disregarded. The result has been that the system of administration has been continuously neglected over a series of years.

Most respectfully I would urge the Government to use this opportunity for reviewing the conditions of judicial business, so that complaints which have properly arisen as to delay may be avoided in future. I ask the Government to undertake a general inquiry into the arrangement of the administration of justice, civil and criminal. Owing to neglect, partly due to pressure of other business in this House—neglect of the accumulated grievances and inefficiencies arising out of the administration of justice—the law itself has lagged behind public opinion. It has not only lagged behind public opinion, but it has lagged behind scientific opinion in various directions. So serious has that lag become that in recent years His Majesty's judges on the Bench have seen fit to point out ways in which the present law does not respond to immediate social necessity. Veiled complaints have been made tonight of the activities of a particular judge who has given—it is common knowledge—considerable affront to clerical quarters. In my opinion that learned judge has done great public service in pointing—

Mr. BUCHANAN

My indictment was much more formidable. I know that the clerics have a powerful organisation to state their case, but when the judge states his view about unemployment and the dole and the legislation passed by this House, my reply is that that, is not his job but mine.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. KNIGHT

I had not in mind the circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I am referring to a series of recent judgments in which the learned judge took the opportunity of reviewing the necessity for bringing the law up to date, for dealing with conditions which are not at present being properly attended to; and in doing that the judge, in my opinion, performed a great public service. After all, the law is a matter not merely of Statutes but of ensuring that justice shall be properly framed and properly administered, and in the deplorable absence for nearly a generation of any effective attempt to improve the law it is an advantage that the country should have the guidance and assistance of judges in pointing out the defects of the present administration.

Mr. LOGAN

I do not wish to have a personal argument or to advertise particular judges. I contend that judges are on the Bench to deal with the law and not to talk about the defects of the law.

Mr. KNIGHT

With very great respect —I am speaking with long experience—it is an advantage, where the law falls short, to have the judges, experienced persons, pointing out ways in which the law and its administration might be improved, and where the country has the advantage of those efforts by the judges I think we ought to applaud them.

Mr. MAXTON

My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), who was responsible for starting the Debate on this subject, has been fully justified in doing so, even supposing that the reply of the learned Solicitor-General has made those of us here feel that we would not be justified in the circumstances in carrying our opposition to a Division. But I invite the learned Solicitor-General to realise that in letting this matter go through without prolonged discussion and without a Division, we are not departing in any way from the view that we still hold. We believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made out a case to-night for the speedy appointment of another judge to relieve the congestion in the courts and to hasten the administration of justice, but we do not think that he has made out the case that the administration of justice in this country is on a sound or businesslike footing. While I can understand the encomiums passed by the hon. Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) and by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks) on the law and the judicial Bench, I cannot join with them. I do not think the system better than that in any other country in the world. We say that very easily here about nearly everything that we do, and certainly we can point to many weaknesses in the American judicial system at the present time; but I am far from being satisfied that we have a system that can be defended as being above reproach. I think it is slipshod, careless and very frequently biased.

I interjected when my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) was saying some kind words about the judges. I told him he had never been in the dock. You need to be there only once, looking at one of those fellows, to take a somewhat more detached view of the great unbiased nature of many judges. This I want to put to the Solicitor-General and to hon. Members who have supported him. We are laymen. One hon. and learned Member spoke of the legal fraternity as a trade union. I do not know exactly how it works. The hon. Member for Leigh said, quite rightly, that this will be a Crown appointment, but we are all well aware that the faculty, or whatever it is called here—the organisation, the union—will have its views to present to the Crown and will have those views very fully considered. Indeed, I think it would be most unusual for the Crown to reject a nominee who had the backing of the union. In this Debate it has come out that the whole English judicial procedure is on a most unbusinesslike footing, one department being overworked and another department underworked. It is working on methods and systems which have centuries of tradition behind them.

I do not understand from any knowledge which I possess that litigation has increased in recent years. I hear, on all sides, complaints from members of the Bar that there is a great scarcity of work. Yet there are overworked judges, there is congestion in the courts, there is a 10 months lag and the legal profession who run the whole show—the bench, the courts, the defence, the prosecution—have never come forward to the Government or to this House with suggestions or plans for putting the thing on an intelligent basis. The only practical proposal put before us is that if we want to get plenty of judges and good judges, we shall have to raise their wages. I do not believe that. I do not believe there has ever been a vacancy on the judicial bench which there has been any difficulty in filling. I hope it is true that there are men in this country prepared to hold these positions, which are absolutely essential to our national life, because of the value of the task to be performed, without giving any very great consideration to the financial reward attached. If that ought to be true about any branch of public work, it ought to be true of the men whom we promote to this important public service and to whom are given the power of life and death over their fellows. While we give the Solicitor-General his Motion, readily and freely I ask him not to take that as meaning that we are carelessly departing from the very serious claim which we have made, that our judicial system should be put on a higher and better level.

Sir S. CRIPPS

Before referring to two points which have already been mentioned, I wish to congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General on his return to that position which he now once again adorns. I support very willingly the Motion because there can be nothing more unjust than delay in litigation, but I should like to emphasise two points. The first is as regards the age of judges and I mention it without any possible comment on any holder of the office. I hope that the Solicitor-General will consider, with his Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, the possibility, at some not distant date, of having a regulation as to a retiring age for judges. Secondly, I ask him to tell us something definite about the steps which are being taken to amend the procedure in the Courts. Some time ago as the hon. and learned Member for Nottingham (Mr. Knight) said, a report was put before the Lord Chancellor by the Cham- bers of Commerce. I am glad to say that at the same time the Bar Council sent a request to the Lord Chancellor that some steps should be taken to deal with the matter of procedure in the light of that and other complaints which had been made. I believe that steps were initiated to deal rapidly as far as possible with the position, so long as it did not entail legislation, for which there was no time. I should be obliged if the Solicitor-General would tell us whether those steps are being actively pursued, so that we may hope, before the end of the legal year, to have same real reforms to do away with the terrible complications and difficulties which litigants now experience in trying to get justice from our Courts.

Mr. ATKINSON

If there is any criticism to be levelled against this Motion, it is that it does not go far enough, probably because of the necessity of economy more than the fear of having more judges than we could keep busy. But I think it is true to say that we should not be afraid of having too many judges. It is better occasionally to have an idle judge than always to have waiting litigants. Many people arbitrate and few are satisfied with the results. The bulk arbitrate because they know that they cannot get a speedy decision at law. I think that must be the experience of all of us. I do not think that our judicial system deserves the criticisms which some have made against it to-night but one criticism which is well-founded is that of the delay always associated with it.

Captain CROOKSHANK

I wish to ask two questions. I do not know whether the Solicitor-General will be able to answer either of them. I observe that unlike other legal speakers the hon. and learned Member from Nottingham (Mr. Knight) did not put in a disclaimer that he did not desire judicial office. [Interruption.] The hon. and learned Gentleman has answered on behalf of the Solicitor-General. The second question which I would put is this. Is it a pure coincidence that this Motion should be moved to-night within a fortnight of the resignation from office of Sir William Jowitt? If there is any connection between the two events I would state to the Solicitor-General that there are some of us who would take grave exception to that appointment, should it be made.

Mr. CLEMENT DAVIES

I wish to join the hon. and learned Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson) in saying that we ought to accept this Motion but that we do not think, as members of the Bar, that it goes far enough. As the hon. and learned Member said it is better to have an idle judge than waiting litigants. Litigation should be made as cheap and as expeditious as possible for the litigants, and if anybody ought to bear the expense the State ought to do so. We have often had complaints from litigants whether plaintiffs or defendants, prosecutors or prisoners, that delay causes them more anxiety than the actual decision itself. I appeal also to the Solicitor-General to inquire further, not merely into the appointment of High Court judges, but into the question of relieving High Court judges of many of the duties which they, to-day, perform.

A great deal of the work which they now have to perform could very well be performed by the county court judges, and whereas this House is now asked to sanction the appointment of another High Court judge, the county court judges are being taken away from the small towns, where they ought to be at the service of litigants, to larger towns, with the result of imposing more expense upon the litigants. Many a county court judge could deal with cases which are now being dealt with by the High Court judges. The limit of the jurisdiction of a county court judge is £100. That could very easily be extended, but I ask the Government, through the Solicitor-General, not to close the doors of some of these circuit towns to the county court judges. In my constituency we now have a county court judge sitting in a market town 15 miles away from where he used to sit, a place to which it is difficult to travel for many people in the district, with the result that litigation is made very expensive. The amount in dispute may be about £2, but the cost of going there and spending the whole day there is thrust upon the litigants and their witnesses. It would throw no more cost upon the county court judge or the Government to ask him to go to the town where the litigants themselves are. It has made debt-collecting more expensive, and it has made the small disputes, which mean so much to the people in the villages, more expensive. Litigation ought not to be expensive to the litigant, and if anybody ought to pay, it is the State, which ought to stand as the arbitrator between litigants.

In regard to arbitration, my hon. and learned Friend and I know that arbitration is the most expensive form of litigation. There ought to be less arbitration, and the State itself ought to appoint the arbitrator, namely, judges, who should always be at the disposal of litigants, so that they can make sure of them at any time to do justice between man and man. I ask the learned Solicitor-General to consider the position to-day of the County Court judges, and to see whether their jurisdiction could not be extended to relieve the High Court of a number of cases with which the High Court ought not to be troubled.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I have no right to address the House again, but if the House will allow me to reply to one or two points that have been raised, may I say, first of all, that nobody could complain of the tone or temper in which this Debate has been conducted, and I may say at once that the modesty of the demands which we are presenting to the House must in no way be taken to imply that we are indifferent to the necessity for reorganisation in any of the ways to which attention has been called. May I in particular assure the late Solicitor-General that the inquiries as to the possibility of internal reorganisation without legislation are, I understand, being actively pursued? Nor are we indifferent to the vital necessity, by whatever means may be found most suitable, of avoiding delay in litigation.

I entirely assent to what the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said. The request that we are now making will by no means fill the whole gap. It would be idle to pretend that the appointment of an additional judge will at once reduce the arrears in London so that they become comparable with the state of business in the provinces. But this, at any rate, is true: The presence of an additional judge will render it much more possible to keep a continuous flow of business going in London. As long as that is possible, we may hope at any rate very substantially to reduce the arrears before the end of the present legal year. I hope that, after the very thorough and useful discussion which has taken place, this Motion will be passed.

Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty representing that the state of business in the King's Bench Division requires that a vacancy in the number of puisne judges of the King's Bench 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 (Conssolidation) Act, 1925.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Forward to