§ (1) It shall be lawful for His Majesty to appoint two judges of the High Court in addition to the number of judges of that court authorised to be appointed by the Judicature Acts, 1873 to 1902.
§ (2) The judges so appointed shall be attached to the King's Bench Division of the High Court subject to such power of transfer as is in the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873, mentioned, and the law relating to the appointment and qualification of judges of the High Court, to their duties and tenure of office, to their precedence [salary and pensions], and otherwise, shall apply to any judge appointed under this Section.
§ It shall be lawful for His Majesty, after the appointment of the said judges, to fill any vacancy occurring among the puisne judges of the King's Bench Division, provided that whenever after the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and eleven, the whole number of such puisne judges amounts to upwards of fifteen, such vacancy shall not be filled unless and until an address is presented from both Houses of Parliament representing that the state of business in the King's Bench Division requires that such vacancy should be filled.2014
§ Mr. WATT
moved in Sub-section (1) after "1902" ["authorised to be appointed by the Judicature Acts, 1873 to 1902"] to insert the words, "Provided that the judges so appointed shall not be more than fifty-five years of age at the time of their appointment."
I am not enamoured of this Amendment itself, but it must be read with an Amendment further down on the Paper, namely, that these judges should retire at seventy years of age. If I had put that Amendment on the Paper standing alone, I should have been met by the argument that if they were to retire at seventy, and had been appointed at a later age than fifty-five, then they would not have been entitled to any pension, and that would have entirely overriden my proposal that an age limit should be fixed for judges. I therefore thought it wise, in order to meet the argument which would be adduced against me, to suggest, as I do in this Amendment, that no man who is more than fifty-five years of age should be appointed to this post. I think it will be generally admitted that the judges of the land are, in many instances at any rate, too old. The average age of judges perhaps is not very high, but at least half of them have attained the Biblical maximum of three score years and ten. Indeed, in the part of His Majesty's realm from which I come the judges in many instances exceed even eighty years of age, and I venture to think that this question of the age of judges requires the immediate attention of Parliament. It is rapidly developing into a scandal. All the other, or practically all the other, subjects of the Crown have an age limit at which they 2015 are bound to retire. Those in the Army, Navy, and Civil Service are all bound to retire at early ages, and in the majority of cases the age of retiring is sixty-five. May I ask why a judge is not bound by the same rule? I feel that it is because their case in this House is so well represented by prospective judges that they are treated as an exceptional body. The question of an age limit for judges is more important than in the case of civil servants, because if a civil servant, say, the head of a Post Office department, is past his best and sleeps daily at his desk, no one is much the worse. The taxpayer does not get value for his money, but the taxpayer of modern days is getting used to that position. But in the administration of justice it is of vital importance that a judge should be at any rate awake.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Robson)
This is a Bill for the appointment of two judges, the appointment in each case being of a temporary character. There being now fifteen puisne judges in the King's Bench Division, two will be added; but as vacancies arise, if the number of judges left is fifteen or upwards, no vacancy can be filled except on an address by both Houses of Parliament, so that the Legislature will have a very vigilant and strong regard on any further and future appointments. It will be for the House to say whether the two next successive vacancies shall be filled up. A Committee sat for a very long time, heard a great deal of evidence, and devoted the greatest care to this problem in view of the arrears of business in the King's Bench Division, and decided that there should be at least two judges; but the Government, as represented by the Lord Chancellor, thought they ought not to add any greater expense than was inevitable. Therefore there is this provision, which occurs later in the Bill, stipulating that the vacancies should not be filled up except under the conditions I have mentioned. We are not therefore dealing with any general measure affecting judges as a whole. I am sure the hon. Member will agree that if it is desirable to limit the age at which judges may be appointed, or to fix the age at which they should retire, that should be done by a general measure and not by one which simply provides for the appointment of two temporary judges. No one would desire to have these two judges on a tenure different from that of any other judge.
§ Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR
I have heard the Attorney-General say the House is about to keep a very vigilant regard upon what is to be done in the future. Can that be expected after what we have witnessed this evening? The only objection which has been made to the appointment of more judges has been made by two laymen?
§ Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR
I am not aware whether the hon. Gentleman has put an end to his legal career, and I am not aware whether he has ever practised at the English Bar. I wish very much that some members of the English Bar had given us the benefit of their opinions on this Bill. I believe they are all, or mostly all, in favour of an increase in the number of judges. I am also aware that such journals as represent legal opinion in England have declared themselves in favour of an increase in the number of English judges, but I cannot believe that there is any foundation for the statement of the learned Attorney-General that this House is going to keep a vigilant look out in future and exercise the powers contained in this Bill. I do not see in the attitude of the House to-night ay warrant for that statement. When the Attorney-General rose to move the passage of this first Clause I expected him to make some statement which would have warranted the House in agreeing to the Clause. What does the Clause say? "It shall be lawful for His Majesty—"
§ The CHAIRMAN
I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman understands that there is an Amendment before the Committee to limit the age of the judges to be appointed to fifty-five years.
§ Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR
I am quite well aware that there is an Amendment, but the Clause itself refers to the number of judges to be appointed. I was not in the House when the Bill, as a whole, was first brought before the House, and therefore I had not the opportunity of making the observations I should have wished to make on the whole Bill, but on its introduction I understand the Attorney-General did not give any reasons whatever—
§ Sir W. ROBSON
The hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely mistaken. I spoke at considerable length, and it would be most unusual, certainly at this time, for me to repeat a Second Reading speech.
§ The CHAIRMAN
If the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to speak on the first Clause he can do so when I put the question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." At present we must confine ourselves to the Amendment.
§ Mr. MORTON
I desire to support the Amendment. The Attorney-General has given us no reasons whatever for not agreeing to an age limit. It is said that these are to be temporary appointments. I think that is an additional reason why we should limit the age at which they commence. What difference does it make whether the appointments are temporary or otherwise? What would the judges say if anyone "temporarily" took my watch? It may be said by some that we do not want any more judges. I believe that is right. But if we are to have more judges, let us have men who can do the work and not go to sleep on the bench as I have seen them, and then wake up and give a wrong judgment. Everybody knows that most of these appointments are political, and to a large extent what would be called "jobs" outside. One would think from the appointment of these judges that we had more money than we knew what to do with. As most of us know these judges have not got enough work to do, and take at least three months holiday in the year, and seeing also that we have a deficit of from twenty-five to thirty millions, I wish to know whether we have got any money to throw away?
§ Mr. MORTON
What I want is to carry this Amendment, so that at least if we are to have these judges they may commence at an age when they are fit to do the work. Otherwise it would be money wasted, and we have no money to waste. I hope therefore, although it is late at night, we shall endeavour to do our duty to the taxpayers and to the suitors. I am very sorry that the Government should try to force the Bill through the House at this late hour. It is a matter which ought not necessarily to be a party matter, and it should have been brought on earlier in the day.
§ Mr. MORTON
I thought I had a right to complain of the hour at which we are asked to discuss a matter of this sort. However, I will not pursue it further than to say that I hope, no matter how late it may be, the members of this Committee will do their duty to their country, and take care that old men who may not be able to either see or hear properly shall not be appointed judges.
§ Mr. LEHMANN
I am afraid that I shall not follow my hon. Friend in his Amendment. It seems to me that to adopt this Amendment would be to limit without any reason at all the field of selection for the two judges whom we have decided to appoint. It is absurd to suppose that even at this moment a man like Lord Halsbury at an age considerably over fifty-five is not perfectly capable of taking his seat and judging any question that may be submitted to him; and to say that no judge should be appointed over the age of fifty-five years is seriously to limit the field of selection and to make it a matter of absurdity.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
I hope the Amendment will be withdrawn, and that time will not be wasted on a division. If it is right to adopt the limit of fifty-five it ought to be done generally and not be made simply applicable to two men. If there is anything in the argument of the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment that the existing judges are senile or asleep, and you appoint two judges under the condition which the Amendment proposes, they would be altogether out of place on the Bench, because they would be altogether different in their method of dealing with the business.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
I think this is neither the time nor place to make exceptions with regard to the ages of the judges, and it ought to be done generally or not at all. This Bill is urgently wanted, and I hope hon. Members will not press the Amendment, seeing we have had a Division on the general question.
§ Mr. MARKHAM
When there is agreement between the two Front Benches I always make it my business to vote against them. I am quite sure that private members always suffer when the two Front 2019 Benches put their heads together. As to the age limit, why in the name of conscience should there be one law for the judges and another law for another set of public servants, who are required to retire at a fixed age? A working man is considered too old at forty. Looking down the Bench I see eminent King's Counsel, and, when there is this agreement, I wonder who is next to be appointed amongst them. Why should one set of
§ public servants be privileged to continue their work when in many cases, owing to advancing age, they are unable to do it? If you give that privilege to one set of public servants why not to another? I shall certainly support the Amendment and oppose this Bill at every stage.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes. 72; Noes, 198.2021
|Division No. 44.]||AYES.||[11.45 p.m.|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Radford, G. H.|
|Cator, John||Joyce, Michael||Reddy, M.|
|clough, William||Kilbride, Denis||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||Richards, Thomas|
|Crean, Eugene||Lundon, T.||Roche, John (Galway, East)|
|Davies, E. William (Eiflon)||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Seddon, J.|
|Delany, William||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Shackleton, David James|
|Doris, W.||Manfield, Harcy||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Duffy, William J.||Martin, J.||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)||Meagher, Michael||Stanley, Albert (Staffs. N.W.)|
|Edwards, Enoch||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Firench, Peter||Nannetti, Joseph p.||Sutton, John E.|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Newton, Harry Kottingham||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Gill, A. H.||Nolan, Joseph||Thomas, J. H. (Derby)|
|Glover, Thomat||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Twist, Henry|
|Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)||O'Doherty, Philip||Wadsworth, J.|
|Hancock, J. G.||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)||Walsh, Stephen|
|Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)||O'Neill, Charles (Armagh, S.)||Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)|
|Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)||O'Shee, James John||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||O'Sullivan, Eugene||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Henderson, H. (Berks, Abingdon)||Parker, James (Halifax)||Winfrey, Richard|
|Hodge, John||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)||Wing, Thomas|
|Hooper, A. G.||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Hudson, Walter||Pointer, Joseph||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr|
|Johnson, W.||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)||Watt and Mr. Markham.|
|Adam, Major W. A.||Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||France, G. A.|
|Addison, Dr. C.||Carlile, E. Hildred||Gelder, Sir W. A.|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Castlereagh, Viscount||Goldsmith, Frank|
|Allen, Charles P.||Cautley H. S.||Greenwood, G. G.|
|Anderson, A.||Cave, George||Grenfell, Cecil Alfred|
|Archer-Shee, Major M.||Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)||Gulland, John W.|
|Armitage, R.||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.|
|Baird, J. L.||Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.||Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)|
|Baker, H. T. (Accrington)||Chambers, J.||Hamersley, A. St. George|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury E.)||Chancellor, H. G.||Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)|
|Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)||Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rostendale)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Chapple, W. A.||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Clancy, John Joseph||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry|
|Barclay, Sir T.||Clyde, J. Aven||Haworth, Arthur A.|
|Barnston, H.||Collins Sir Wm J. (St. Pancras, W.)||Hayden, John Patrick|
|Barne, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Healy, Maurice (Cork, N.E.)|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Courthope, G. Loyd||Heath, Col. A. H.|
|Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)||Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Henry, Charles S.|
|Beale, W. P.||Craig, Norman (Kent)||Higham, John Sharp|
|Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)||Crawshay-Williams, Eliot||Hillier, Dr. A. P.|
|Bentham, G. J.||Croft, H. P.||Hogan, Michael|
|Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish||Crossley, Sir W. J.||Hohier, G. F.|
|Bird, A.||Dairymple, Viscount||Hope, Harry (Bute)|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Horner, A. L.|
|Boyton, J.||Dawes, J. A.||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey|
|Brackenbury, H. L.||Denman, R. D.||Hughes, S. L.|
|Brassey, H. L. C. (N'thamptonshire, N.)||Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott||Hunt, Rowland|
|Brassey, Capt. R. B. (Banbury)||Dixon, C. H.||Illingworth, Percy H.|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Elverston, H.||Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel|
|Brunner, John F. L.||Falconer, J.||Jackson, Sir J. (Devonport)|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Fenwick, Charles||Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Ferent, T. R.||Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)|
|Jessel, Captain H. M.||Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Jones, Edgar (Meifhyr Tydvil)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Stanier, Beville|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)|
|Keswick, William||O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)||Stewart, Gersham (Cheshire, Wirral)|
|Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.||Strauss, A.|
|Knight, Capt. E. A.||Paget, Almeric Hugh||Summers, James Woolley|
|Lambert, George||Palmer, Godfrey||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.||Tennant, Harold John|
|Leach, Charles||Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridse)||Thynne, Lord A.|
|Lehmann, R. C.||Perkins, Walter F.||Toulmin, George|
|Levy, Sir Maurice||Peto, Basil Edward||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|Lewisham, Viscount||Pollock, Ernest Murray||Valentia, Viscount|
|Llewelyn, Major Venables||Pringle, William M. R.||Verrall, George Henry|
|Lockyer-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)||Proby, Colonel Douglas James||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Low, Sir F. (Norwich)||Quilter, William Eley C.||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)|
|Lynch, A. A.||Raffan, Peter Wilson||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Mackinder, H. J.||Rawson, Colonel R. H.||White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport)|
|Macmaster, Donald||Pees, J. D.||White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)|
|Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Rice, Hon. W.||White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)|
|McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Whitehouse, John Howard|
|M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lines., Spalding)||Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)||Williams, A. N. (Plymouth)|
|Masterman, C. F. G.||Robson, Sir William Snowdon||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)|
|Meysey-Thompson, E. C.||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)||Williams, P. (Middlesborough)|
|Middlebrook, William||Roe, Sir Thomas||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Millar, J. D.||Ronaldshay, Earl of||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Morpeth, viscount||Rothschild, Lionel de||Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)|
|Muldoon, John||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)|
|Muspratt, M.||Rutherford, Watson||Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)|
|Nellson, Francis||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)|
|Newman, John R. P.||Sanderson, Lancelot|
|Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)||Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Master|
|Norton, Capt. Cecil W.||Shortt, Edward||of Elibank and Mr. Fuller.|
§ Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), after the word "precedence," to insert the words "salary and pensions." —[Sir W. Robson.]
§ Mr. C. E. PRICE
moved, after the word "section" ["appointed under this section"], to add the words, "Provided that the judges so appointed shall retire at the age of seventy years, and provided also that they shall not be entitled to a pension unless they have filled the office for fifteen years."
The Amendment just divided upon referred to the age at which men should be appointed to the Bench; this Amendment refers to the age at which they should retire. I speak rather from the Scottish point of view. It is well known that in Scotland the age at which men have retired has been nothing short of a scandal. We are told that it would be better to wait for a general measure. Unfortunately, it is exceedingly difficult to get a general measure of this kind before the House and time to discuss it; therefore it is very desirable that we should take advantage of the present opportunity to assert this principle. I would say, in the interests of the Bar, as well as in the interests of the Courts of Justice, that it is advisable that there should be this age limit. For one thing, if men retired at that age promotion would flow more quickly. It is important, too, that when a business man brings a 2022 case before the Courts in which his interests may be vitally affected, that the judge on the Bench should have his wits about him, and be one who commands respect.
I regret to say, speaking of Scotland, that the way men here cling to their posts has very largely destroyed confidence in the Courts of Justice. It is a very sad fact that there has been a reduction in the cases which have been brought before the Courts of Law. The figures show that they are fewer every year. The reason is that there is not that confidence in the decision of the judges which there was in former times. I know that many of the biggest business men in the country when they have a dispute do not bring it before a Court of Law, but before the Chairman of a Chamber of Commerce. They have every confidence in the justice of their business colleagues. Therefore I sincerely trust that business men in this House will vote for this, because there is so much at stake. Reference has been made to the ex-Lord Chancellor. He is a credit to his profession to retain his faculties so long, but he is an exception. We have the principle laid down in every other department of the State, and I certainly think we ought, in this light, to take the matter into consideration and take a course that will commend itself to the business men of the country.
§ Sir W. ROBSON
Is undoubtedly worthy of consideration from this House at any time at which this House is able to consider it. But I must repeat that all proposals of this kind are very appropriate to a general measure, though not appropriate to this particular measure. Let me, however, say something upon the merits of the proposal itself. As to the compulsory superannuation of judges at the age of seventy, I have no doubt that many hon. Members think with considerable certainty that at seventy any man should retire from an active life, if it lays any undue strain upon his physical or mental faculties. In the majority of professions and trades I suppose that is the case. There are, however, a few occupations in which at seventy a man does not feel the necessity for a bigger share of activity for the purposes of such movements as his business requires. It by no means applies in all professions that a man at seventy has come to an end of his usefulness. I do not think that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway will apply the opposite to this House. Some of the most respected Members—certainly some of the most distinguished—have long passed the limit imposed by the Psalmist of three score years and ten, and in this connection we have all watched with interest the late Lord Chancellor. We have heard to-night of some judges who have slept at their work. In a very lengthy experience now I have known some extremely rare cases where judges have indulged in somnolence in some few moments of temporary abstraction perhaps in the afternoon, but I do not think they were above seventy. I do not think somnolence is always peculiar to age. It certainly is not so in this House, where I believe somnolence prevails to a larger extent in the performance of duty than in any other assembly in the whole world.
On the other hand, I could give instances, if I were called upon to do so, where the most effective, vigilant, and acute judges on the Bench are to be found amongst judges advanced in years. The best judges in our High Courts are to be found among the older men. I believe the experience is invariable that seventy does not constitute an age limit for the Judicial 2024 Bench. Speaking from experience I say that judges do not frequently remain longer upon the Judicial Bench than their intellectual activities justify. I have known judges of extreme old age, and suffering from extreme physical weakness, display the most amazing intellectual activity. That is the experience both of the Bar and the Country. Do not let us hastily deprive ourselves of the great judicial experience and knowledge and judgment of such members of the Bench. My hon. Friend spoke of business leaving the Courts because, as he said, some of the Commercial classes lost confidence in the judges. I venture to say it is a very great misfortune that business has been leaving the Courts, but it is not leaving the Courts for the reason suggested by the hon. Member. Cases are admittedly and notoriously diminishing in number because there are not enough judges— because people put their cases down and have to wait six months for judgment; and because they very frequently get their judgment when it is useless to them. Again and again we have had cases where the amount at stake was considerable, and where a person before receiving his money has been subjected to the most severe business strain, and all because he is unable to get the money to which he is entitled in time owing to the overcrowded and congested state of the Courts. If the hon. Member talks of business leaving the Courts, and commercial men losing their confidence in the Courts, it is not because we have too many judges, but because we have not enough judges.
§ Mr. MORTON
The Attorney-General has given us no reason for refusing to accept this Amendment. He says we ought to deal with this point generally, but I should like to ask him if he is willing, on behalf of the Government, to undertake to bring in a Bill to do this. I note there is no answer to that question. Nobody knows better than the Attorney-General that a private Member of this House never could expect to carry through such a Bill as he has suggested. I believe the age limit now for professional services is sixty-five years, and it is not considered in the Civil Service or any other service that they ought to continue their duties after the age of sixty-five years unless specially appointed. We are asking that a judge may sit until he is seventy. I regret that this measure has not been brought forward earlier so that we should have had a proper opportunity of discuss- 2025 ing it, without wearying anybody. I am sorry the Government, in asking for more judges, have not found an opportunity before this of settling the question of the age limit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide."] As this Amendment, in my opinion, is in the best interests of the nation, I hope it will be carried. I know that at the present time there are a good many cases kept out of Court because they have no particular faith in the judges, and that may refer very largely to the age of the judges. Surely on every ground it is not right to keep judges sitting in the Courts after they are seventy years of age. I hope the Committee will agree that this age limit ought to be inserted.
§ Mr. MARKHAM
moved in the proposed Amendment, to omit the word "seventy," and to insert instead thereof the words "seventy-five."
The Attorney-General said that private Members ought to deal with this question by general legislation and not by Bills of the character he has introduced. But it is not possible for a private Member to get an opportunity of raising the whole question of our Judicature. It is a question which can only be dealt with by the Government, and therefore we who do not answer the Whip of either of the two Front Benches have to take any opportunity of dividing when we think the proposals of the Government do not accord with the interests of the nation. The Attorney-General said that city and business men are on the shelf at seventy, but that judges are still in full possession of their faculties then and can go on longer. He gives away the whole of his case and justifies what we say—that the appointment of these two judges is necessary. The Attorney-General, in fact, said the old judges were the better men on the Bench.
§ Mr. MARKHAM
I am in the recollection of the House, and I think hon. Members will bear me out when I say that
§ the Attorney-General said some of the best judges of the day were old men.
§ Mr. MARKHAM
Well, I do not wish to quarrel about a word, but I think the hon. and learned Gentleman had better look out for squalls when he gets into court, and meets some of the younger men. He went on to speak of a natural age limit. I do not know what is his idea of a natural age limit, but I think the case would be met by moving an Amendment to the Amendment to make the age seventy-five. He also said that owing to the non-appointment of these judges, business men were being ruined, and that there was an overcrowded state in the Courts. He has only to accept our Amendment, that the judges should take fewer holidays, and the same number of judges could accomplish more work. The late Lord Chancellor is an exceptional man, a man of great ability, and perhaps one of the wonders of this or any other period of our judicial life; but we have to deal with the general case. I think my Amendment is eminently reasonable, and I hope the Attorney-General will agree to it.
§ Sir W. ROBSON
The proposal of the Government is that the two judges shall be put on exactly the same footing—for better or for worse—as the other judges; that they should come in under the same conditions as to salary, age, and pension. I do not think I should like to suggest to the judges that seventy-five is under all circumstances, the proper age for retiring.
§ Amendment, as amended, put: After the word "section" to insert the words, "Provided that the judges so appointed shall retire at the age of seventy-five years, and provided also that they shall not be entitled to a pension unless they have filled the office for fifteen years."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 91; Noes, 121.2027
|Division No. 45.]||AYES.||[12.16 a.m.|
|Addison, Dr. C.||Brassey, Capt. R. B. (Banbury)||Crawshay-Williams, Eliot|
|Baker, H. T. (Accrington)||Carlile, E. Hildred||Crean, Eugene|
|Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)||Cater, John||Dairymple, Viscount|
|Balcarres, Lord||Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.||Davies, E. William (Eiflon)|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Chapple, W. A.||Delany, William|
|Sarnston, H.||Clough, William||Doris, W.|
|Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish||Clyde, J. Avon||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)|
|Bird, A.||Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Falconer, J.|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Flavin, Michael Joseph|
|Gibson, James P.||Mackinder, HaLford J.||Strauss, A.|
|Glover, Thomas||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Goldsmith, Frank||Manfield, Harry||Sutton, John E.|
|Hammersley, A. St. G.||Martin, Hon. J.||Taylor, John w. (Durham)|
|Hancock, J. G.||Morton, Alpheus Cieophas||Thomas, J. H. (Derby)|
|Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Twist, Henry|
|Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)||Newman, John R. P.||Wadsworth, J.|
|Heath, Col. A. H.||Newton, Harry Kottingham||Walker, Colonel W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Henderson, H. (Berks, Abingdon)||Nolan, Joseph||Walsh, Stephen|
|Henry, Charles S.||Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Hillier, Dr. A. P.||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Watt, Henry A.|
|Hogan, Michael||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)||White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport)|
|Hudson, Walter||Pirle, Duncan V.||Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)|
|Jackson, Sir J. (Devonport)||Reddy, M.||Williams, A. N. (Plymouth)|
|Jessel, Captain H. M.||Rendall, Athelstan||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Johnson, W.||Rice, Hon. W.||Winfrey, Richard|
|Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)||Richards, Thomas||Wing, Thomas Henry|
|Kilbride, Denis||Roche, John (Galway, East)||Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)|
|Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Lardner, James Carrige Rustic||Rutherford, Watson|
|Lewisham, Viscount||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr|
|Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)||Stanier, Beville||Charles Price and Mr. Markbam.|
|Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester).||Stewart. Gersham (Cheshire, Wirral)|
|Adam, Major W. A.||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Pollock, Ernest Murray|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)||Pringle, William M. R.|
|Allen, Charles P.||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)||Quilter, William Eley C.|
|Anderson, A.||Haslam, Lewis (Honmouth)||Radford, G. H.|
|Archer-Shee, Major M.||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||Raffan, Peter Wilson|
|Baird, J. L.||Haworth, Arthur A.||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Higham, John Sharp||Rawson, Colonel R. H.|
|Barclay, Sir T.||Hohier, G. F.||Rees, J. D.|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Hope, Harry (Bute)||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Horner, A. L.||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)||Hughes, S. L.||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Beale, W. P.||Illingworth, Percy H.||Rothschild, Lionel de|
|Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)||Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel||Runcimm, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Bentham, G. J.||Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)||Sanderson, Lancelot|
|Boyton, J.||Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)||Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.|
|Brackenbury, H. L.||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Shackleton, David James|
|Brassey, H. L. C. (N'thamptonshire, N.)||Lambert, George||Shortt; Edward|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Leach, Charles||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Brunner, J. F. L.||Lehmann, R. C.||Summers. James Woolley|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Levy, Sir Maurice||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Lewis, John Herbert||Tennant, Harold John|
|Cautley, H. S.||Llewelyn, Major Venables||Thyune, Lord A.|
|Cave, George||Low, Sir F. (Norwich)||Toulmin, George|
|Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)||Macmaster, Donald||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Macnarmara, Dr. Thomas J.||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|Chambers, J.||M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lines., Spalding)||Verrall, George Henry|
|Chancellor, H. G.||Masterman, C. F. G.||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Middlebrook, William||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Morpeth, Viscount||White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Muldoon, John||White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Craig, Norman (Kent)||Muspratt, M.||Whitehouse, John Howard|
|Dawes, J. A,||Neilson, Francis||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)||Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)|
|Dixon, C. H.||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Williams, P. (Middlesborough)|
|Elibank, Master of||Paget, Almeric Hugh||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Elverston, H.||Palmer, Godfrey||Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)|
|Fenwick, Charles||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.||Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)|
|Ferens. T R.||Perkins, Walter F.|
|France, G. A.||Peto, Basil Edward||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.|
|Gelder, Sir W. A.||Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Fuller and Mr. Gulland.|
|Gill, A. H.|
Question, "That the word 'five' be there inserted in the proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. RAWLINSON
moved in Sub-section (2) to leave out the word "January" [" provided that whenever after the first day of January"], and to insert instead thereof the word "August."
The Bill, as the hon. and learned Attorney-General has pointed out, is a temporary one, and after the 1st of January next year, no other extra judges will be 2028 appointed unless an address is presented from both Houses of Parliament as to the state of business in the King's Bench Division. The effect of my Amendment is to extend the temporary period from January to August. If you are to have two extra judges they will not have an opportunity of clearing off arrears unless you give them a longer 2029 period than to January next year. In. the discussion on the Second Reading not only the Government but practically everyone else was in favour of amending the Bill in some such way as this. Undoubtedly the Amendment carries out the recommendation of the Committee and the intention of the introducer of the Bill.
§ Mr. FLAVIN
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman consider whether the main object of the Amendment is not the possibility of having two Tariff Reformers appointed as temporary judges?
§ Sir W. ROBSON
I do not think we could quite carry self-sacrifice to that extent. The Amendment was suggested from various quarters on the Second Reading, and it was suggested that we had not allowed quite sufficient time for the operation of the two judges. The extension proposed is; in the view of the Government and most of those who know the state of business in the Courts, a very moderate one, and I hope the Committee will agree to it.
§ Mr. MARKHAM
The opposition to the Bill continues to grow steadily, and if we only had time to go on till August, Government stock would be a long way below par. I shall divide against the Amendment.
§ Mr. C. E. PRICE
The Attorney-General said the reason there was a reduction of cases coming before the Courts was on account of the fewness of judges.
§ The CHAIRMAN
That observation was not made on this Amendment, and it is not in order to refer to it.
§ temporary, though the Attorney-General has not explained that to us, but that is what we understand when we know where it comes from. Apparently there is an arrangement between the two Front Benches. We have known of these arrangements before, especially when they want to manufacture offices and salaries. It is an extraordinary state of things, especially after the way we have generally supported the Government that they refuse to consider an Amendment, but at once give way to the enemy. That shows that there is some backstairs arrangement. This reminds us again that when we have the two Front Benches agreeing, honest men are put between the devil and the deep sea. It is most unfortunate to find this Government deserting Liberals, and especially Scottish Liberals. Scotland is practically the only part of the United Kingdom where you can get good Liberals from.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member has been speaking for some time, but he has not said a single word about the Amendment.
§ Mr. MORTON
I am objecting to the insertion of the word "August." It is the month when we want to take a holiday. On this Amendment I do not think the Government are treating their own followers fairly. There appears to be an arrangment between the two Front Benches against the best interests of the nation.
§ Question put, "That the word 'January' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 25; Noes, 171.2031
|Division No. 46.]||AYES.||[12.35 a.m.|
|Adam, Major W. A.||Hudson, Walter||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)||Twist, Henry|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Lardner, James Carrige Ruthe||Watt, Henry A.|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)|
|Hancock, J. G.||Martin, J.||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Harvey, E. T. (Leeds, W.)||Nolan, Joseph|
|Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.|
|Henry, Charles S.||Parker, James (Halifax)||Markham and Mr. Morton.|
|Addison, Dr. C.||Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Bentham, G. J.|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish|
|Allen, Charles P.||Barclay, Sir T.||Bird, A.|
|Anderson, A.||Barnston, H.||Birrell, St. Hon. Augustine|
|Archer-Shee, Major M.||Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Boyton, J.|
|Baird, J. L.||Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Brackenbury, Henry Langton|
|Baker, H. T. (Accrington)||Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)||Brassey, H. L. C. (N'thamptonshire, N.)|
|Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)||Beale, W. P.||Brassey, Capt. R. B. (Banbury)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)||Brotherton, Edward Allen|
|Brunner, J. F. L.||Hohler, G. F.||Rawson, Colonel R. H.|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Hope, Harry (Bute)||Rees, J. D.|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Horner, A. L.||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Hughes, S. L.||Rice, Hon. W.|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Illingworth, Percy H.||Richards, Thomas|
|Cautley, H. S.||Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)||Jackson, John A. (Whltehaven)||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.||Jessel, Captain H. M.||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Chambers, J.||Johnson, W.||Rothschild, Lionel de|
|Chancellor, H. G.||Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)||Rutherford, Watson|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Chapple, W. A.||Lambert, George||Sanderson, Lancelot|
|Clough, William||Leach, Charles||Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.|
|Clyde. J. Avon||Lehmann, R. C.||Shackleton, David James|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Levy, Sir Maurice||Shortt, E.|
|Courthope, S. Loyd||Lewis, John Herbert||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Craig, Captain Jamet (Down, E.)||Lewisham, Viscount||Stanier, Beville|
|Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)||Llewelyn, Venables||Stewart, Gershom (Ches., Wirral)|
|Crawshay-Williams, Eliot||Lockyer-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)||Strauss, A.|
|Dairymple, Viscount||Low, Sir F. (Norwich)||Summers, J. W.|
|Dawes, J. A.||Mackinder, H. J.||Sutton, John E.|
|Delany, William||Macmaster, Donald||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott||M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lines., Spalding)||Tennant, Harold John|
|Dixon, C. H.||Masterman, C. F. G.||Thynne, Lord A.|
|Elibank, Master of||Middlebrook, William||Toulmin, George|
|Elverston, H.||Morpeth, Viscount||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Falconer, J.||Muspratt, M.||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|Fenwick, Charles||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Verrail, George Henry|
|Ferens, T. R.||Neilson, Francis||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|France, G. A.||Newman, John R. P.||Walsh, Stephen|
|Gelder, Sir W. A.||Newton, Harry Kottingham||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)|
|Gibnn, James P.||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Gill, A. H.||Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Glover, Thomas||Paget, Almeric Hugh||White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)|
|Goldsmith, Frank||Palmer, Godfrey Mark||White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)|
|Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.||White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)||Perkins, Walter F.||Whitehouse, John Howard|
|Hamersley, A. St. George||Peto, Basil Edward||Williams, A. N. (Plymouth)|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)||Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Williams, P. (Middlesborough)|
|Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Pirie, Duncan, V.||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Pointer, Joseph||Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)|
|Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||Pollock, Ernest Murray||Wing, Thomas|
|Haworth, Arthur A.||Pringle, William M. R.||Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)|
|Heath, Col. A. H.||Quitter, William Eley C.||Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)|
|Henderson, H. (Berks, Abingdon)||Radford, G. H.|
|Higham, John Sharp||Raffan, Peter Wilson||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.|
|Hillier, Dr. A. P.||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel||Fuller and Mr. Gulland.|
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'August' be there inserted."
moved, "That the Chairman do now report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
There are several more Amendments on the Paper, and it is now nearly a quarter to one o'clock. We have been sitting here all day, and we have done a great deal of business, besides which it is very early in the Session to begin these late hours. There is no immediate hurry for this Bill, and a number of Members from Scotland would toe the better if they are allowed more time to think it over. I do not think, if we report Progress, that it would delay the Measure in any way, and I cannot conceive why we should go on any longer. The eleven o'clock rule was passed to enable us to get away in reasonable time, and, if it is to be suspended, it ought to be towards the later portion of the Session and not in the early part; we do not want the experience which we had in the last 2032 Parliament. I think we ought to close this discussion now in order that we may be fresher for the closing months of the Session. It is a very bad precedent to keep: these long hours, all the more that it is quite unnecessary. On these grounds, and on the ground that the Scotch Radicals are objecting to this Bill, I beg to move, "That the Chairman do now report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ Sir W. ROBSON
I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not press his Motion to a Division. I do not wish to speak disrespectfully, but I hardly think that he puts it forward seriously. We have now only one uncontested Amendment remaining. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] It is absolutely uncontested. It has nothing whatever to do with the ages or the salaries or the numbers of the judges, and the House of Commons will exercise full control in the appointment of new judges whenever the number exceeds-fifteen, or whenever the number has 2033 reached fifteen, instead of having to wait until the number exceeds fifteen. The Amendment is merely to give effect to the recommendation of the Committee, and certainly there could have been no possible objection to it had it been introduced at an earlier stage. I hope, therefore, that we will be allowed to proceed, and that the Motion will not be pressed to a Division. I hope, therefore, we may be allowed to finish this part.
§ Mr. MARKHAM
I hope my hon. Friends on this side will vote against this, because it is evidently a move on the part
§ of our friends the enemy opposite to put the Government in a minority on this Question. There are far more serious things than this Bill. Although the two Front Benches have joined hands to make judicial places for their own friends, that it not sufficient reason for me to vote against the Government to the point of turning them out on this matter.
§ Question put, "That the Chairman do now report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 57: Noes,. 128.2035
|Division No. 47.]||AYES.||[12.45 a. m.|
|Archer-Shee, Major M.||Hamersley, A. St. George||Rice, Hon. W.|
|Baird, J. L.||Henderson, H. (Berks, Abingdon)||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)||Hillier, Dr. A. P.||Rothschild, Lionel de|
|Balcarres, Lord||Hope, Harry (Bute)||Rutherford, Watson|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Horner, A. L.||Sanderson, Lancelot|
|Barnston, H.||Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)||Stanier, Beville|
|Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish||Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)||Stewart, Gersham (Cheshire, Wirral)|
|Bird, A.||Jessel, Captain H. M.||Strauss, A.|
|Boyton, J.||Lewisham, Viscount||Sutton, John E.|
|Brassey, H. L. C. (N'thamptonshire, N.)||Llewelyn, Venables||Thynne, Lord A.|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Locker-Lampson, G. (Selisbury)||Twist, Henry|
|Carille, E. Hildred||Mackinder, H. J.||Verrall, George Henry|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Morpeth, Viscount||Walker, Colonel W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Cautley, H. S.||Newman, John R. P.||Walsh, Stephen|
|Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.||Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)||White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport)|
|Clyde, J. Avon||Paget, Almeric Hugh||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Perkins, Walter F.||Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)|
|Dixon, C. H.||Peto, Basil Edward|
|Goldsmith, Frank||Quilter, William Eley C.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain|
|Hall, D. B. (Isle of wight)||Rawson, Colonel R. H.||Craig and Viscount Dairymple.|
|Adam, Major W. A.||Gill, A. H.||Martin, Joseph|
|Addison, Dr. C.||Glover, Thomas||Masterman, C. F. G.|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Middlebrook, William|
|Allen, Charles P.||Hancock, J. G.||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Anderson, A.||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)||Muspratt, M.|
|Baker, H. T. (Accrington)||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)||Nellson, Francis|
|Barclay, Sir T.||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Newton, Harry Kottingham|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)|
|Beale, W. P.||Haworth, Arthur A.||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)||Heath, Col. A. H.||Palmer, Godfrey|
|Bentham, G. J.||Henry, Charles S.||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Higham, John Sharp||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Hogan, Michael||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Brackenbury, H. L.||Hohier, G. F.||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Brunner, J. F. L.||Hudson, Walter||Pointer, Joseph|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Hughes, S. L.||Pollock, Ernest Murray|
|Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)||Illingworth, Percy H.||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel||Pringle, William M. R.|
|Chapple, W. A.||Johnson, W.||Radford, G. H.|
|Clough, William||Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)||Raffan, Peter Wilson|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tyncmouth)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Rees, J. D.|
|Craig, Norman (Kent)||Lambert, George||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Crawshay-Williams, Eliot||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||Richards, Thomas|
|Dawes, J. A.||Leach, Charles||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas||Lehmann, R. C.||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Elibank, Master of||Levy, Sir Maurice||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Elverston, H.||Lewis, John Herbert||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Falconer, J.||Low, Sir F. (Norwich)||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Fenwick, Charles||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.|
|Ferens, T. R.||Macmaster, Donald||Shackleton, David James|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Macnarmara, Dr. Thomas J.||Shortt, Edward|
|France, G. A.||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Gelder, Sir W. A.||M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lines., Spalding)||Summers. James Woolley,|
|Gibson, James P.||Markham, Arthur Basil||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Taylor, John W. (Durham)||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Watt, Henry A.||Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)|
|Tennant, Harold John||White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)||Wing, Thomas|
|Toulmin, George||White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)||Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)|
|Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Whyte, Alexander-F. (Perth)|
|Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander||Williams, A. N. (Plymouth)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.|
|Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)||Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)||Fuller and Mr. Gulland.|
|Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.||Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)|
Question, "That the word 'August' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'August' be there inserted."
§ Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR
I heard the argument advanced by the Attorney-General that it was so late that we ought not to proceed with our Amendment or further discuss the Bill. I protest against such an argument. This is a new Parliament, and it is too soon for it to be considered so effete that it cannot consider serious business between twelve and one o'clock.
§ Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR
There is something to be said in reference to an argument used by the Attorney-General.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The remarks, whoever made them, were made on the motion to report progress. The only question now is whether we should insert the word "August."
§ Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR
In speaking to the very first Amendment that was moved by the hon. Gentleman on the other side, the Attorney-General did use the words, "at this late hour of the night." However, I will not pursue that, for I desire to oppose the insertion of this Clause in the Bill.
§ Sir W. ROBSON
moved in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "upwards of'" ["such puisne judges amounts to upwards of fifteen."] I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but it is in order very briefly to explain the purport of this Amendment, which is simply designed to give effect to the powers which the Committee desire the House to possess, that there shall be no further increase of the number of judges until Parliament has been consulted and has 2036 approved. The Amendment is intended to make it clear that Parliament shall have the power to prevent the continuance of these two extra judges after the necessity for them may have passed away. If the two judges should succeed with clearing off the great arrears of work, their places will not be filled until Parliament consents. It is in order to give full effect to that power of Parliament that this little verbal alteration is being made.
§ 1.0 A.M.
§ Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR
I desire to apologise to you, Sir, in the Chair, for having misunderstood the question that you were putting from the Chair at the time. I take up the argument against the whole of the Bill. It assumes a certain state of things: "Provided that whenever after the first day of January, 1911 "—now August—"the whole number of such puisne judges to upwards of fifteen…" The reason why I submit to the Committee that no judges are really needed at all is that the Amendment assumes a time when business will not be congested. Why is business in the High Court congested? The business of the High Court is entirely a matter of management. The High Court is divided into three great divisions—the Court of Appeal, the Court of Chancery, and the Common Law Court. Take the Court of Appeal. There is no congestion of business there at the present time. Why? Because the Court of Appeal is managed so that there shall be no congestion of business. The same applies to the Chancery Court. Why is the Common Law Court so congested? It is all because there is not applied to it the same principles of management that are applied to the Court of Appeal and the Court of Chancery. There is another Court at the end of this building. Why did there used to be very great waiting and delay in the cases being heard there? Sometimes when a suit went up to the other place suitors had to wait for years before it was heard. I understand that the list in another place has been quite recently cleared more than two or three times. The Court of Appeal might also be taken as an example, because that was in a congested condition not many years ago, but 2037 the Judges of the Court of Appeal put their backs into the work, and they have reduced their arrears very considerably, so that at the present time the Court of Appeal is, so far as business is concerned, in a very satisfactory condition. This state of things in regard to the Court of Appeal in this building and the Court of Appeal branch of the High Court reminds me of a quatrain I came across a short time ago either in reading one of the State trials or the preface to Sir Thomas More's "Utopia." It runs thus:—When More some time at court had been,No more suits did remain;The like shall never more be seen.Till More be there again.That was the result of the management of the last great Chancellor. He took good care that suits were not delayed, and that they were brought to trial. He exercised great supervision, over the courts, and had cases tried within a reasonable time and in. a proper manner, therefore his power of management was celebrated in the manner I have described. In moving this Amendment the Attorney-General might have told the Committee what is the reason for it so far as the fifteen judges are concerned. He might have told us, for example, what the state of business is. He might have told us the necessity for the appointment of these fifteen judges or upwards. He might have told us what the effect of recent legislation has been upon the congested state of business in the Law Courts at the present time. We have had no reason given to us for the appointment of fifteen judges or upwards. This Amendment of the Attorney-General's is the grip that he mentioned—the vigilance he mentioned in an earlier stage of the discussion. This is the grip that the Committee and the House is to hold over the appointment of judges in the future. I call that grip a mere sham. It is a grip that will never be closed. The moment you pass this Bill the number of judges that may be appointed, be it fifteen or upwards, will never again be interfered with, because I cannot see that in this Bill, or in any suggested Amendment in the future, there is any provision made for reducing the congestion of business at the Law Courts.
The Committee might have been told by the Attorney-General that recent legislation, as I have seen it pointed out in the legal journals, has occupied so much time that the judges are not able to do their ordinary business. I mean the Court of Criminal Appeal. We 2038 see it stated in the legal journals week after week that in consequence of the sitting of the Court of Criminal Appeal the judges are taken from their ordinary business, and therefore there is a necessity for the appointment of two more judges. This Committee ought to be told what is the effect of the sitting of that Court of Criminal Appeal as regards the congestion of business in the Law Courts at the present time. Before the Court of Criminal Appeal was set up the congestion existed, and it has been growing ever since, not because of the Court of Criminal Appeal, but because of something that must have existed before that Court was created. What was the effect of appointing a Court of Criminal Appeal? They sit now, three judges at a time, about one day a week or one day a fortnight. A calculation can be made as to the effect for the whole year round of the sitting of three judges for one day. Has such a calculation been made? Has any evidence been given before the Committee or Commission that sat in reference to this matter? If so, the effect of that evidence ought to have been given to this Committee.
In the public street the other day I met an official of the Court, and I asked him what was the effect of the work of the Court of Criminal Appeal upon the sitting of the judges all the year round. "In fact," said I, "I want to know how many judges per year it amounts to." He told me that he Had been asked to make a calculation by those most concerned, namely, the very head of the Court of Criminal Appeal, and that it amounted to one judge and a quarter per year. Now we are asked to appoint two judges. The one judge was already provided for. He was appointed before the Court of Criminal Appeal was asked to sit at all. That was the recent measure making Lord Coleridge a judge. So there is only one quarter of a judge per annum at a loss, yet we are asked to appoint two judges, and it may be more. I submit to the Committee that if they agree to the appointment of these judges now, notwithstanding the statement made in good faith by the Attorney-General of this day. that this House will never again be asked to reduce the number below that limit, and I submit that, having regard to the work of the judges in the past, that this congestion will not be relieved by the judges whom you appoint even now, because it is quite apparent to those who 2039 have the opportunity of observing the work of these judges that the work is not being done that ought to be done by them. If the members of the Bar had only the courage to speak here in public what they say in their Inns of Court, there would be an entirely different complexion on this case. I have read the legal journals from week to week. I have read the arguments that are advanced by those who write those journals. I do not care three rows of pins for what they write in those journals. They are all more or less interested statements, and they are based upon statements as to the congestion of business at the present time, without making any serious attempt to explain the reason for the congestion. I do not hesitate to say that that congestion is due entirely to the mismanagement of the Division. I do not know whose fault it is. I do not wish to place the blame on any particular individual, upon any particular judge, or upon any particular committee of judges.
I believe the business of the Division is managed by a committee. The judges of days that are past managed their business and gave satisfaction to the public, although their number was considerably less than the number now to be provided. Whether by their superior ability, their power of management, or their economy of time I do not know, but they got through more business. That will be seen in the evidence if Members of the Committee will examine it for themselves. They kept the arrears down—in fact there were no arrears at all. I do not think this Committee has reason to complain. No proper explanation of this Bill has been given, either now or upon the Motion for the Second Reading. We ought to be told much more about it than we have been told. I make that complaint most seriously. I have tried to observe for myself the way in which business has been done in the various Divisions of the High Court, and I make no complaint of what has been done for the past two years, at any rate, in the Court of Appeal. The judges of the Court of Appeal have put their backs into the work and have reduced the arrears. The judges of the Court of Chancery, than whom no better body of men could be found in the whole world, have kept their business within bounds. If Charles Dickens were alive to-day he would find no material for his pen in the Court of Chancery. He would have to go to the other Division of 2040 the Court, the Division to which I myself have the honour to belong as a humble practitioner. It is because I have wandered about these courts for many years and have seen how the business is done that I have come to the conclusion that the difficulty is not due to want of judges, but that it is because mismanagement exists that this congestion is created. This Committee and this House ought to exercise its power of supervision and of criticism on this Bill, and ought not hastily to accede to such an important proposal as the appointment of two judges to the High Court. That step ought not to be taken without the Committee and the House making serious investigation, and insisting upon further explanation and further reasons being given for such s, very important measure. I have made this observation with great seriousness, because I have satisfied myself there is no good reason for the appointment of these judges. This Committee would be well advised to stop the passing of this Bill into law.
§ Sir W. ROBSON
I have great ground of complaint against the hon. and learned Member for the speech he has made. He has told the Committee that there has been no sufficient reason given to the Committee for this Bill. The hon. and learned Member is an old member of the House. He knows perfectly well that it would not have been in order for me to have got up and made a Second Reading speech upon the Committee stage of this Bill. He also knows if he has given to this Question the attention he has assured the House he has given it that there is not a point raised to-night, not a solitary shred of a point, that I did not deal with, having before me the report of the Select Committee that considered this question. There is not one of these points that was not made the subject of prolonged investigation. Every one was considered, and the whole evidence was published in a bulky volume. A full report was made by the Committee, and I dealt with the evidence in the report on the Second Reading. The hon. and learned Member says he gravely complains that the Attorney-General has given no information! He says I have not dealt with the effect of the Court of Criminal Appeal. I dealt at considerable length with the effect of the appointment of that Court. I informed the House at the proper time—not upon a totally irrelevant Amendment, but at a 2041 proper time—that that Court had absorbed judicial work to the extent of one and a quarter judges, which now the hon. and learned Member announces as a revelation, and as a revelation to me! I went on to deal with the other causes. I pointed out that we were working now in the King's Bench Division, the great Court of the Realm, with the same number of judges as in 1876. I also pointed out what had happened since then—how we have diminished the number of cases, but in creased their importance; how we have enlarged the jurisdiction of the County Courts and have thereby, to a very large extent, removed from the King's Bench Division an immense number of small cases, the result being that the cases are much larger cases and have gone on increasing in number. Why? Because the population has increased from 24,000,000 in 1876 to over 42,000,000 to-day. Because the business of the day has increased enormously in volume and in importance. Persons now, when they go to a court of law, bring much greater forces into operation. They are fighting with much more money.
§ Sir W. ROBSON
If my hon. Friend is able to carry on business without the aid, the vigilance, and the help of the law, let him take care, or perhaps he will some day find acquaintance with the law in some manner not agreeable to his business practices.
§ Mr. MORTON
I should like to say, now you have mentioned me, that I have always, in the course of my life, lost rather than go to law.
§ Sir W. ROBSON
I ask the Committee to take seriously into consideration the charge made by my hon. and learned Friend, and the grounds on which he has made it. There is not one single point he has raised which has not been fully dealt with. We are working now with a judicial staff about equal to that which we had thirty years ago, with, at the same time, the population of the country enormously increased, with the business of ithe country enormously increased, with 2042 the number of small cases getting diminished. All these are quite adequate grounds for this Bill.
§ Mr. MORTON
I protest again against this Bill being taken after eleven o'clock, without any consideration whatever. As I understand the argument of the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. J. O'Connor), he has given us the only information we have had about this Bill, and it is not fair to attempt to rush the Bill through at this time of night. It may be very amusing for the Attorney-General to use the Government Whips for this purpose. It certainly is wrong for him, in a matter of this sort, not to give us proper time to consider it.
§ Mr. MARKHAM
I think that after the lawyers have stated their case a layman is entitled to reply. I do not think a layman has, in any less degrees as compared with lawyers, the common-sense which would enable him to consider ordinary business matters, and therefore I think the hon. Member who spoke last is quite wise and much safer to keep away from the lawyers.
§ Mr. MARKHAM
An hon. Member opposite has been shouting "agreed" all the time the Attorney-General was speaking. If there is one trades union in this country which is stronger than the others it is that of the lawyers and barristers. When it comes to a question of appointing additional judges, this union becomes far more strict, and we only hear a word against it from one member of one branch of the profession.
§ Mr. MARKHAM
He is not a blackleg. The hon. and learned Member has, in fact, stated his experience, and I am sure that the Members of the House, and especially the laymen in the House, are deeply grateful to him. The hon. and learned Member has put his experience before us, and he is an old and valued Member of this House. Those of us who are laymen have to face in this profession the trades unionism of lawyers and barristers, and it is only when we get a "blackleg" that we are supplied with the facts. I am only, of course, speaking figuratively in using that word. This case for one and a quarter judge, as the hon. and learned Member pointed out, has been met; because we had Lord Coleridge appointed for the 2043 Court of Appeal. I come back to the question that these judges have too much time given by the State, and we, the taxpayers, have to pay for it. That is my objection. But because you have this trades union, barristers and lawyers all joined together, we who do not sit behind the Front Benches, on both sides of the House, find that on a question of benefit-ting lawyers and judges, or any question of that sort, these two Front Benches are joined together to defeat independent members. We have no opportunity of stating our case. This is our opportunity, and if my hon. Friend goes to a Division I shall have great pleasure in supporting him. So far as the County Court cases are concerned, it was high time that a change was made. If it were not for this trades union of lawyers, a great many of these cases which are now brought up to London at great expense would be settled by the County Court judges to the great benefit of the community.
§ Question, "That the words 'upwards of,' [" the whole number of such puisne judges amounts to upwards of fifteen"], stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
§ Further Amendment made: After "fifteen," insert "or upwards. "—[Sir W. Robson.]
§ Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. C. E. PRICE
Personally, I may be allowed to say that I did not vote against this Bill on its introduction, because I felt that if it was necessary that judges should be appointed they should be appointed. The sole point which I raised was the age limit. May I be allowed to reply to the observations of the Attorney-General with regard to the reduction of the number of cases owing to the scarcity of judges? That point cannot possibly apply. I remember that when application was made to the Treasury to improve the Law Courts the point was that in Scotland there were too many judges, and with regard to the number of cases there was a large number—
§ The CHAIRMAN
I understand the hon. Member to refer to Scotland. This Bill does not apply to Scotland.
§ Mr. PRICE
I am speaking of the reasons given on legislation in the case of Scotland and the way in which the argu- 2044 ment about the reduction of cases was applied to Scotland. I can bring figures to prove that in the various Courts all over England there has been a reduction actually in the number of cases brought before the Courts of Law. I hold that is entirely attributable to the fact that the Courts have not now that respect for their decisions which they had formerly.
§ Mr. FLAVIN
I do not wish at 1.28 in the morning to prolong the discussion, but I desire to make a suggestion to the Attorney-General in the interests of the British and Irish taxpayer. We all know in Ireland—and I am sure the Chief Secretary will bear me out in making this statement—that crime in Ireland at the present moment is at the lowest possible markr and all Irishmen are proud of the fact. Our gaols are being closed, and I believe I can make a statement even stronger than that of my hon. Friend opposite, who said that the judges in England had 119 days clear of work in the year. The working months of the Irish judges are six and a half out of the twelve in every year. I would like to make a suggestion to the Attorney-General which he may adopt instead of promoting this Bill, the effect of which unquestionably will be to provide for the temporary appointment of two new judges. These two gentlemen, by the Amendment of the Government, may be appointed temporarily at any moment after the passing of this Bill. They will remain not until January, 1911, but until August, 1911, and I say that once they have got that temporary appointment it will be only a question of a few weeks or months until they have a permanent appointment. That permanent appointment will mean at least £10,000 a year to the British taxpayer, and Ireland will have to contribute a certain amount of it. Seeing that the English judges are overworked, according to the Attorney-General, notwithstanding that they have 199 days vacation in the year, there is one thing certain—and I think the Chief Secretary will again bear me out on this point—the Irish judges are not overworked. We can always spare some of them, and instead of appointing two temporary judges, in order to promote the lawyers in this House, we can afford to offer the Attorney-General for England two of our Irish judges.
§ Mr. FLAVIN
We can afford two; arid if that is not enough we can give two or 2045 three more. I can speak with some experience, not as a lawyer, but as a citizen and a ratepayer. I have no hesitation in saying that the invariable practice all over Ireland to-day, with the exception, perhaps, of one or two counties in Ulster, before the county court judges and the judges of assize, has been the presentation to them of white gloves by the High Sheriff. So far the discussion has been wholly in the interest of the appointment of two new judges at an expense of £10,000 a year to the English and Irish taxpayers. If you want two judges in this country do not appoint two new men, but come across the Channel and take two, take three, take four, take the whole lot, if you want them.
§ Mr. MARKHAM
The Attorney-General has not given any reply to the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. C. E. Price) on the definite statement that he made that there has been an actual decrease in the number of cases brought before the Courts both in Scotland and England. If that is the case, surely there is no need for the appointment of two additional judges.
§ Sir W. ROBSON
I know nothing about what takes place in Scotland. I dealt with the statement before the hon. Member made it. I pointed out that there has been an increase—a large increase—
§ and that if you take the Courts generally there has been an enormous increase.
§ Mr. MORTON
This Clause is really the Bill, and we ought to have a little more information given to us before we pass it. What we have found out now is that these two new judges are not wanted and that they are being forced upon the taxpayers. I am astonished that the Government should attempt to put this Bill through.
§ Mr. MORTON
When we find these new charges being put upon the taxpayers it is time that innocent and quiet persons like myself break out, no matter what time of day or night it is. If the Government refuse to give us information they must look out for squalls.
§ Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 130; Noes, 20.2047
|Division No. 48.]||AYES.||[1.35 a.m.|
|Adam, Major W. A.||Dawes, J. A.||Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)|
|Addison, Dr. C.||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott||Lambert, George|
|Allen, Charles P.||Dixon, C. H.||Leach, Charles|
|Anderson, A.||Ellbank, Master of||Lehmann, R. C.|
|Baird, J. L.||Elverston, H.||Levy, Sir Maurice|
|Baker, H. T. (Accrington)||Falconer, J.||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Baker, Sir Ft. L. (Dorset, N.)||Fenwick, Charles||Llewelyn, Major Venables|
|Balcarres, Lord||Ferens, T. R.||Low, Sir F. (Norwich)|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||France, G. A.||Mackinder, H. J.|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Gelder, Sir W. A.||Macmaster, Donald|
|Barclay, Sir T.||Gibson, James P.||Macnarmara, Dr. Thomas J.|
|Barnston, H.||Goldsmith, Frank||MacVeagh, Jeremiah|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lines., Spalding)|
|Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)||Hamersley, A. St. George||Masterman, C. F. G.|
|Bentham, G. J||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)||Middlebrook, William|
|Bird, A.||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Brackenbury, Henry Langton||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)||Muspratt, M.|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Neilson, Francis|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||Newman, John R. P.|
|Carille, E. Hildred||Haworth, Arthur A.||Newton, Harry Kottingham|
|Cautley, H. S.||Heath, Col. A. H.||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)|
|Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)||Henderson, H. (Berks, Abingdon)||Paget, Almeric Hugh|
|Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.||Henry, Charles S.||Palmer, Godfrey|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Higham, John Sharp||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.|
|Chapple, W. A.||Hope, Harry.Bute)||Perkins, Walter F.|
|Clough, William||Horner, A. L.||Peto, Basil Edward|
|Clyde, J. Avon||Hughes, S. L.||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Illingworth, Percy H.||Pollock, Ernest Murray|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)||Pringle, William M. R.|
|Craig, Norman (Kent)||Johnson, W.||Radford, G. H.|
|Crawshay-Williams, Eliot||Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)||Raffan, Peter Wilson|
|Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel||Soares, Ernest J.||White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)|
|Rawson, Colonel R. H.||Stanier, Beville||White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Rees, J. D.||Stewart, Gersham (Cheshire, Wirral)||Williams, A. N. (Plymouth)|
|Rendall, Athelstan||Summers. James Woolley||Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)|
|Rice, Hon. W.||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Williams, P. (Middlesborough)|
|Richards, Thomas||Tennant, Harold John||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Thynne, Lord A.||Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)|
|Robson, Sir William Snowdon||Toulmin, George||Wing, Thomas|
|Ronaldshay, Earl of||Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)|
|Rothschild, Lionel de||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander||Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)|
|Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||Walker, Colonel W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Sanderson, Lancelot||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)|
|Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES —|
|Shackleton, David James||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)||Mr. Fuller and Mr. Gulland.|
|Shortt, Edward||White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport)|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Twist, Henry|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Walsh, Stephen|
|Dairymple, Viscount||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Parker, James (Halifax)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Gill, A. H.||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Clover, Thomas||Pointer, Joseph||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.|
|Hancock, J. G.||Sutton, John E.||Markham and Mr. Morton.|
|Hogan, Michael||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
Question, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.
§ Ball reported; as amended, to be considered this day.