§ His Majesty may appoint two Lords of Appeal in Ordinary under Section six of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, in addition to the four Lords of Appeal in Ordinary whom he may appoint under Sections six and fourteen of that Act and the law relating to the appointment and qualifications of Lords of Appeal under the said Section six, and to their duties and tenure of office, their rank, and otherwise, shall apply to any Lord of Appeal appointed under this Section.
2198§ Mr. KINGI beg to move to leave out the words "two Lords," and to insert instead thereof the words "one Lord."
I think the appointment of one Lord under this Bill would be quite sufficient. One Lord would suffice to raise the quorum for all practical purposes. It is only very seldom that a proper quorum cannot be obtained. In view of the alterations in the law that will be necessary when the Royal Commission report, I would ask the Committee not to act too hastily now, and to be content with the appointment of one Law Lord.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSIt is quite true that the Royal Commission is sitting, though I do not profess to know when or what it is going to report. But it is not inquiring into this matter at all. It is quite true that we are getting some general recommendations which may be generally adopted when we see them. But what we are doing here is redeeming the pledge given by the Government to the Dominions at the Imperial Conference in 1911, when this matter was discussed at considerable length. At the conference the Government pledged itself to appoint two new Law Lords. We want two to have a sufficient number of Law Lords to have two Courts, the Judicial Committee, and also the House of Lords. I hope that the hon. Member will not persist in this Amendment in view of the pledge which he has already given.
§ 11.0 P.M.
§ Mr. MORTONI hope that my hon. Friend will stick to the Amendment. One evil is very much better than two. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to the Royal Commission, and said that he did not know what they were going to report. I do not suppose that they know themselves. What is proposed is to appoint two judges more, so that the others can have more holidays. These judges are not wanted at all. They are squandering the people's money, and at the very most we ought to have only one of them. We know that once these things are begun they are never reduced. We ought to have had the Long Vacation question settled and other reforms carried out before doing anything of this at all. There are to be two Lords. Who are going to be appointed? The hon. Member for East St. Pancras told me that so far as he understood, they were already selected and settled upon. The idea of rushing the Bill now is to put them in their 2199 places and to give them a good long holiday and spend our money.
§ Mr. WATTI support this Amendment. On the occasion of the Debate on the Financial Resolution I said the object of the Bill was to facilitate a larger quorum of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to sit on oversea cases. What is the number of those who can sit on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council? I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many could be called upon to sit in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. His answer was:—
There are sixteen members of the House of Lords who are qualified to sit to hear appeals in the House of Lords, and fourteen who can sit on the Judicial Committee. Ten of these receive salaries of an aggregate amount of £60,600, and five draw pensions amounting in all to £21,000 one receives no payment from British funds.This is a total of £81,000; and pensions, £7,500, make £89,000. This Bill is about to add £12,000 more. I was dealing with the point of how many could be called upon to sit on the Judicial Committee.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThe hon. Member says "called upon."
§ Mr. WATTWho can sit on the Judicial Committee. Apart from the fourteen, there are twenty-three who now hold or have held judicial positions, and who also could be called upon to form the quorum. That quorum is called upon to sit very few days in the year. In 1910, sat 98 days; in 1911, they sat 101 days, and in 1912 they sat 101 days. Those figures were given by the Attorney-General himself in answer to a question. So that fourteen members of the House of Lords can sit, and there are twenty-three judges who may sit, making thirty-seven judges who are able to sit on this quorum and to constitute this quorum for seventy-eight days in the year. The Government do not think that sufficient. They want another two, and they bring in this measure and insist on it being put through. The Attorney-General referred to the pledge of the Government, but that, of course, was subject to the sanction of the permission of the House, and in this Bill the House is being asked to consent to or dissent from the promise they have given. All that the Dominions asked was for a more substantial Court, or that more judges should sit on their cases when they came from the other end of the world than have sat in their own Dominions. A quorum can quite readily be got for 2200 seventy-eight days of the year out of those at present available. I venture to think when the facts are known in the Committee, they will back up the Amendment.
§ Sir ARTHUR MARKHAMI do not understand why the Government want to steam roll their own supporters, and why at the end of the Session they are pushing through measures against their own supporters who have loyally supported them for the greatest part of the Session. When we came to deal with the King's Bench the Government met those in opposition by the appointment of a Royal Commission to consider the problem there and report on the subject. We are now asked to appoint two additional judges without any information at all as to the hours of those judges or other particulars. The holidays in this case are longer than in that of the King's Bench, and we have no time-table before us. I think it is wrong for the Government to cast aside in effect the promise they have made in respect of the reform of the judicial system. The appointment of one Law Lord would have the effect of carrying out the proposal of the Government which is bound with the pledge the Prime Minister gave to the Colonial Conference to appoint two judges of the highest or finest quality. I do not know what they mean by highest or first quality.
§ Mr. MORTONBecause they are of more than one quality.
§ Sir A. MARKHAMThe Government are not treating their Friends well in this matter. They are going to carry the Bill by steam-rolling their own supporters. That will not conduce to the passage of a number of other Bills which they want to get through. If my hon. Friend goes to a Division I shall support him.
§ Mr. PRINGLEA consideration which ought to affect our minds in coming to a decision on this announcement is the fact that this is a temporary measure. It is true that the pledge in fulfilment of which the Bill has been brought in was given in 1911, but we have the assurance of the Prime Minister that next Session the Government is going to bring in proposals for the reform of the House of Lords, for the entire reconstitution of that Assembly. If this is done, the House of Lords as at present organised for judicial purposes must also be vitally changed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why"] Obviously so because its judicial character is to a large 2201 extent determined by its constitution as a branch of the Legislature.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe question before the Committee is whether one or two judges shall be appointed.
§ Mr. PRINGLEMy argument is that if this is a temporary measure we ought to limit the number of vested interests created by it. Its temporary character is a consideration which weighed very much with the hon. Member for East St. Pancras (Mr. Martin) in withdrawing his opposition to the Bill. He was closeted with the Lord Chancellor, who told him that it would certainly be a temporary measure because of the reconstitution of the House of Lords.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member cannot go into that question now. The question before the Committee is two judges or one.
§ Mr. PRINGLEIf next year the appellate tribunals of this country and of the Empire are to be recognised, it is obviously our duty to see that in a temporary measure we do not create any more vested interests than we can help. If you appoint a larger number than is necessary you to a certain extent prejudice your powers of reform when the reconstitution of the tribunal takes place.
§ Mr. HOGGEThere is another substantial reason why we should limit the choice of these Lords to one. Everyone knows that in these appointments politics to a large extent count more than the legal knowledge of the gentleman appointed. Rumour, it is well known, as already pointed to certain gentlemen to occupy these posts. One is to come from the Labour party and the other from the Irish party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name."]
§ Mr. W. THORNEThey can do the work as well as some of them anyhow.
§ Mr. HOGGEI hope when I have finished that the hon. Member will get up and give us his reasons for that statement, so that we may be enabled to make up our mind on this important point. I shall be interested, as one who knows nothing about law, to see whether in the selection of one Lord the man's legal knowledge weighs more than his politics. I prefer to put the Government in a position to appoint a man because of that knowledge, and not to find them in the easy position of appointing two men because of their poli- 2202 tical opinions to the exclusion of their legal knowledge.
§ Mr. KINGThe right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General did not when I sat down make the statement I expected. The hon. Gentleman the Member for East St. Pancras went about the House shortly before he went away showing one Member after another a statement of promises which had been given to him by the Lord Chancellor. On the strength of these he felt so contented that he left the House before this Bill came on. I object to our discussing the Bill this time of night—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat has nothing to do with the Amendment: it is a question of one judge or two.
§ Mr. KINGMost respectfully and seriously I would point out that some pledges and promises have been given in another place, and to one hon. Member of this House, that ought to have been given from the Treasury Bench to the whole Committee. We are at a distinct advantage.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThis is the second time I have had to call the hon. Member's attention to the fact that he is going outside the area of discussion.
§ Sir A. MARKHAMThe Attorney-General has not answered my question as to the days sat and the amount of work done by the judges?
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSIt is difficult for me to say how many days, as I have not the figures before me, but the judges sit continuously until the work is disposed of. That work is very arduous, and it involves not only a great deal of time in Court but a very large amount of time outside. A judge must very carefully prepare his knowledge of the various systems of law of the different countries. Anyone who is familiar with the work of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and also of the House of Lords will feel a great deal of admiration for the way in which the judges discharge their duty. They do sit, in fact, until they dispose of the effective cases, or practically all the effective cases, brought before them. Anyone who thinks their labours are easy makes a very great mistake.
§ Sir A. MARKHAMWhat are the numbers of the arrears now?
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThere cannot be to get at the sittings you must add the much in the way of arrears now, because they have been sitting continuously in order to get through with the work.
§ Mr. MORTONThe Attorney-General ought to be able to tell us how many days they sit. He gave the figures to my hon. Friend.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThat is not really accurate. The hon. Member in the answer he read purported to give the number of days the judges sit in the Privy Council, but he left out of consideration altogether that some of the judges sit on other days in the House of Lords, so that if you want
§ to get at the sittings you must add the number of sittings in the House of Lords as well.
§ Mr. MORTONThat is only another reason why we should not go on with this Bill to-night, and it is a monstrous and scandalous state of things that we should spend the taxpayers' money without proper information.
§ Question put, "That the words 'two Lords stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 200; Noes, 20.
2205| Division No. 274.] | AYES. | [11.24 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Gill, A. H. | Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Gilmour, Captain John | Molloy, Michael |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Gladstone, W. G. C. | Morgan, George Hay |
| Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. | Goldsmith, Frank | Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Goldstone, Frank | Mount, William Arthur |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Greig, Colonel J. W. | Muldoon, John |
| Baker, H. T. (Accrington) | Griffith, Ellis J. | Munro, R. |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) | Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Neilson, Francis |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.) | Nolan, Joseph |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Gulland, John William | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Barnston, Harry | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Hackett, John | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Hall, Frederick (Dulwich) | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Bird, Alfred | Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) | O'Donnell, Thomas |
| Boland, John Pius | Harcourt. Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale) | O'Dowd, John |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) |
| Boyton, James | Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.) | O'Malley, William |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Hayward, Evan | O'Shee, James John |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Hazleton, Richard | O'Sullivan, Timothy |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar) | Henry, Sir Charles | Palmer, Godfrey Mark |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Hibbert, Sir Henry F. | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Cassel, Felix | Higham, John Sharp | Parry, Thomas H. |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) | Hills, John Waller | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. | Hughes, S. L. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Illingworth, Percy H. | Phillips, John (Longford, South) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Clancy, John Joseph | John, Edward Thomas | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Clive, Captain Percy Archer | Jones, Rt.Hon.SirD. Brynmor (Sw'nSea) | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Clough, William | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Collins, G. P. (Greenock) | Joyce, Michael | Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgomy B'ghs) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Keating, Matthew | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Cotton, William Francis | Kelly, Edward | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Kerry, Earl of | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Crumley, Patrick | Kilbride, Denis | Reddy, Michael |
| Cullinan, John | Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S.Molton) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Lardner, James C. R. | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) |
| Delany, William | Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Lewisham, Viscount | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Devlin, Joseph | Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon C. Scott | Lecker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Robinson, Sidney |
| Dillon, John | Lundon, Thomas | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| Doris, William | Lyell, Charles Henry | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Duffy, William J. | Lynch, A. A. | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Duke, Henry Edward | Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droltwich) | Royds, Edmund |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | McGhee, Richard | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Fell, Arthur | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth) |
| Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) | Sanders, Robert Arthur |
| Ffrench, Peter | Macpherson, James Ian | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Field, William | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) |
| Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Sheehy, David |
| Fletcher, John Samuel | Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. | Shortt, Edward |
| George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd | Meagher, Michael | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook |
| Gibbs, George Abraham | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) | Waring, Walter | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Stewart, Gershom | Webb, H. | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) | Wheler, Granville C. H. | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow) |
| Talbot, Lord E. | White, J, Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) | Younger, Sir George |
| Taylor, Thomas (Bolton) | White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Tennant, Harold John | White, Patrick (Meath, North) | |
| Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. W. Bonn and Mr. W. Jones. |
| Toulmin, Sir George | Wing, Thomas Edward | |
| Trevelyan, Charles Philips | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, William | Markham, Sir Arthur Basil | Watt, Henry A. |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Morrell, Philip | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Gretton, John | Outhwaite, R. L. | |
| Hodge, John | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. King and Mr. Pringle. |
| Hogge, James Myles | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) | |
| Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th) | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. HERBERT CRAIGI beg to move to leave out the words "under Section six" ["His Majesty may appoint two Lords of Appeal in Ordinary under Section six"] and to insert instead thereof the words "for the purposes."
This is a first of a series of Amendments designed to embody in the terms of the Bill the words or some of the words of the Memorandum which appears on the face of the Bill. I would ask the Committee to remember that urgency is being claimed for the Bill because it is designed to give effect to a resolution which was passed at the Imperial Conference. That resolution appears in the Memorandum which is printed with the Bill.
"The proposals of His Majesty's Government then were 'that they should add to the highest court of appeal, both for the United Kingdom, and the Dominions, and Colonies, by selecting two English judges of the finest quality; that the quorum should he fixed at, say, five.'"
That is the promise which has been given to the Colonies and which this Bill is designed to fulfil, and urgency is claimed for it by the Prime Minister on those very grounds. When the question whether or not this Bill should be dropped came up the other day the Prime Minister, in refusing to drop the Bill, used these words:—
The Appellate Jurisdiction Bill is introduced in response to a definite pledge given by this country at the Imperial Conference in 1911, to the representatives of our Dominions.It is because that promise has been given to the Dominions urgency is claimed for this Bill. I would respectfully suggest to the Committee that the Colonies are not at all concerned with the House of Lords as a judicial tribunal. What they are con- 2206 cerned with is the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council before which body their appeals come. Their appeals are not taken by the House of Lords, and what they are anxious to have is an increase in the quorum of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and it is for the purpose of providing an additional personnel, in order that that quorum may be constituted that this Bill has been brought forward. That is the whole and sole excuse for this Bill. So far as I am concerned if words are drafted into the Bill to secure the fulfilment of the promise made to the Colonies I shall be entirely satisfied. But we think that the Government are using the promise they made to the Colonies of a larger quorum of the Privy Council as an excuse for creating, what I am afraid they have always been rather too anxious to create, more judicial appointments of a very costly character—a proceeding in which they are sure of the support of eager lawyers on both sides of the House. I will ask the Government when they steamroller their faithful supporters here as they are doing to-night—and in the country as well—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI have read through Section six, which the hon. Member proposes to leave out, and I really cannot connect the hon. Member's remarks with that Section.
§ Mr. CRAIGI understood you to rule that my longer Amendment, which appears beneath the one I am now proposing, is consequential, and in moving to omit "under Section six" I was dealing with both Amendments together.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANBut I can see no relevance in the arguments the hon. Member was using to the Section he was, moving to omit.
§ Mr. CRAIGI understood you to rule I should not be able to move my Amendment lower down unless I so proposed to omit "under Section six." I do not wish to make a speech on both Amendments, and, therefore, I was trying to deal with both in one speech.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANBut I have been unable to connect the remarks of the hon. Member with the Amendment.
§ Mr. PRINGLEIs not my hon. Friend's Motion a proposal to substitute wider words than those embodied in Section six, and is he not therefore in order in explaining the wider terms he proposes to introduce into the Bill?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is entitled to give reasons for leaving out "under Section six," and he can also give reasons for substituting the Amendment which stands in his name.
§ Mr. CRAIGAs I understand your ruling, I am to confine myself to the Amendment which stands lower down on the Paper—to leave out from the word "Act," to the end of the Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words—
Provided that only judges who shall have already retired or become entitled to retire upon the maximum judicial pension shall be eligible for appointment under this Section, and that an additional Lord of Appeal in Ordinary so appointed shall not be entitled by way of salary to any greater yearly sum than that required to make up the difference between his pension as a judge and the salary of a Lord of Appeal as fixed by Section six of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876.That proposal is founded on hopes we all entertain. I think I am entitled to resent the imputation cast upon me by the Attorney-General that as a member of the Royal Commission I ought not to make any reference to the hopes which the House entertains regarding the Report that may be forthcoming from that body. My opposition to this Bill however is largely because the measure has been brought forward before the Royal Commission has reported. I think I am entitled to say that, on the evidence which has been printed and is public property, showing to what the Commission is directing its attention, we all hope that the outcome of the Report of the Commission will be that a retiring 2208 age limit may be placed upon the judges. If that were done we shall have provided a large staff of men eminently qualified to fill the posts which are created by this Bill. If you confine these appointments to ex-judges who are already in the enjoyment of a pension of £3,500 a year, you will, without reducing the salary payable to a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, be able to satisfy the wants created by this Bill at a total cost of £5,000 a year, instead of £12,000 a year. My scheme shows the Committee an easy way of saving the country £7,000 a year. In the constituencies we are met most frequently by the cry, very often raised by Conservative candidates that this Government has gone out of its way to increase highly paid posts. I hope that upon this Amendment I shall have support of the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) who has made such a reputation for himself as an economist.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILOn a point of Order. I understood that the hon. Member was moving the Amendment at the bottom of the page of the Amendment Paper.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member only indicated it for the information of the Committee.
§ Sir A. MARKHAMI hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. We have been seeking that judges shall retire at the age of seventy, but here we are asked to take the view that when they have reached the age of seventy we should ask them to do something which they are physically unfit to do. We shall be defeating the very principle for which we have been contending, namely, that judges, like all other public servants, should retire at a definite age. It cannot be right to take them from the High Court, where they have had to attend to a totally different class of business.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI should like to endorse the appeal of my hon. Friend. It is really impossible to give effect to this Amendment It is no doubt conceived in a spirit of economy and with a desire to effect some reform, but it would not be of the slightest use here. What is desired is to appoint judges to sit in the Judical Committee of the Privy Council on Appeals and also who can sit in the House of Lords so that you may draw on these two additional judges either for the one tribunal or the other 2209 according to which requires assistance most. You could not possibly appoint judges who have retired either because they are no longer fit to carry on their work, it may be because of age or because of weakness or some infirmity, or it may be because they think they have done their best work and that therefore they ought to retire. But the idea that in order to carry out the pledge given to the Imperial Conference in order to give them the best tribunal the British Empire can we should only give them the worn out judges in order to be able to get them at £2,500 a year instead of the salary which you pay the Law Lords is a proposition which I think my hon. and learned Friend will not on reflection ask the Committee to divide upon.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI think the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend (Sir A. Markham) have somewhat misconceived the position of my hon. Friend (Mr. Craig). It is quite true that for the purpose of the appointments to be made the state of things which he has in view does not exist and to that extent I do not think he should press his Amendment. But at the same time, in view of what is likely in the future when there is a compulsory age for retirement for Judges of the High Court it would be possible to recruit the Courts of Appeal from the ranks of the retired judges. If they have all retired at seventy it does not follow that they are all worn out judges. Many may be still at their best and it would not be proposed by my hon. Friend to put all these retired judges in the Court of Appeal. The proposal would only be that the Government should elect such of them as were distinguished judges. But in view of the fact that the appointments now to be made are appointments under the existing state of things my hon. Friend would be well advised to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI beg to move, after the word "rank" ["tenure of office, their rank"] to insert the words "salary and pension."
§ Mr. WATTI have an Amendment to leave out these words, and therefore I oppose this Amendment The effect of leaving the words out would be that the Lords to be appointed would not be, in regard to salary and pension, in the same position as regards Lords 2210 of Appeal at present in office. I think the new judges to be appointed should not be put in the same position as regards salary and pension as the Lords at present existing. I take up that position because of the Government's own attitude in their earlier dealings with this matter. Under Section 3 of the Bill brought in in 1911 the new Lords were to have £5,000 a year instead of £6,000, and under Section 7 the pension was to be £3,500. Under the Bill of 1912 also the salary was to be £5,000 and the pension £3,500. These Bills having been rejected, the proposal in this Bill is that the salary of each new Lord shall be £6,000. If these words are omitted it will be possible for the Treasury to pay the new Lords £5,000, and to correspondingly reduce the pension. What I wish to know is why the Government have changed their views as to the salary to be paid. I back up my Amendment by the views which the Government held for two years.
§ Sir A. MARKHAMI should like a promise from the Government. I am willing to be squared with a very small piece of bread if the Attorney-General will give it. I wish the hon. and learned Gentleman to give a promise on behalf of the Government that they will not grant a pension of £3,500 a year to judges who have only served eighteen months in the public service. A case of that kind happened three or four years ago. I cannot see that Ministers professing to represent a democratic Parliament could go on to any public platform in the country and defend the granting of such a pension to a judge who has served less than two years. Under the 1876 Act it is entirely in the discretion of the Government whether they will give pensions to judges or not. There is some time limit which the House could reasonably seek to impose on judges and if the Attorney-General would say that the Government would not grant a pension to any judge who has not had five or ten years public service that would satisfy at all events my objection.
§ Mr. KINGI would support the appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield. I am confident from the way in which the hon. Member for East St. Pancras spoke to me that he had a definite pledge from the Lord Chancellor. It was all written down and was shown repeatedly to several Members on this side 2211 of the House. It is really very trying to us who are bearing the burden and the heat of the day if we cannot have at any rate some part of the pledge which has been given to a colleague of ours who has gone away on a holiday. I would appeal in the most serious manner to the Prime Minister who is present or to the Attorney-General to make public for the House what has been promised to the hon. Member for East St. Pancras.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSIn response to the appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for the Mansfield Division I think that we shall be able to satisfy him—not in this Bill, but we shall no doubt very soon have the Report of the Royal Commission in which various matters such as pensions will be discussed or at any rate they will come up for review, and it is possible to say this: We shall be prepared to deal with this question of the pensions, I will not say upon the exact terms suggested of not giving a pension to a judge unless he serves ten years—
§ Sir A. MARKHAMFive or ten years.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI will not say any exact number of years, but we shall certainly consider the subject of the scale of pensions granted to judges when they have to retire after a very short time. It may happen sometimes that through some misfortune a judge may have to retire after a very short period, though it is of very rare occurrence. In my recollection it only happened once in circumstances very well known. The Government are going to consider that in the spirit in which my hon. Friend suggested it.
§ Sir A. MARKHAMWill that apply to Law Lords?
§ 12.0 P.M.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSYes. It will apply to all judges. There is not a word about pension in the statement made to the hon. Member for East St. Pancras. If in order, I would be quite prepared to make a statement. I have already made one. I told the Committee a little while ago that the Privy Council and the House of Lords sat on and after the 1st August, and I am quite prepared to state what they did, but it really does not touch the question of pension. With regard to the question of an Imperial Court of Appeal, the statement was made that after the Second Chamber is dealt with that question will 2212 be taken up. I do not think that there will be any necessity for the retiring of judges and the appointment of new judges, The present judges will at least form the nucleus of an Imperial Court of Appeal. That is all I can say in regard to the matter. Reference has been made to the hon. Member for East St. Pancras (Mr. Martin), who was concerned with various questions, among them the right of barristers from the Dominions to appear before the House of Lords, and whether the House of Lords could grant that right without a statute. The Lord Chancellor expressed the opinion that the House of Lords could grant this right of audience without legislation. As head of the Bar I must reserve the rights of the Bar in reference to this matter. The Lord Chancellor also stated that the Privy Council would be ready to meet any requisition as to costs that is appropriate, and would make any necessary inquiry into the matter.
§ Mr. BOOTHI make the appeal that we should have done with any interview in which the hon. Member for East St. Pancras took part. The hon. Member has gone away, and it would appear that more importance is attached to him in his absence than when he was here.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. WATTI beg to move, after the word "pension," in the Amendment last inserted, to leave out the words, "and otherwise" ["and otherwise shall apply"].
These words apply of course to an emolument in the form of each Lord of Appeal having a secretary at a salary of 400 a year. I understand that the present Lords of Appeal have each a secretary at £400 a year. I understand these words refer to this particular emolument and by my proposal the new Law Lords would not be entitled to have a secretary or amanuensis.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSMy hon. Friend may rest content about the prospect of an amanuensis being appointed. There is no such thing in existence paid by the State. These words simply provide for anything that may escape attention and are intended to put the new Law Lords in exactly the same position as the other Law Lords who have not a secretary or amanuensis, and it certainly is not the intention to appoint a secretary or clerk for the new Law Lords.
§ Mr. WATTI do not persist with my Amendment, but from a reply either of the right hon. Gentleman or the Chancellor of the Exchequer I thought there was a clerk or amanuensis, but I am speaking from memory.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment made: At the end of the Clause add the words, "Provided that the sum paid in salaries in any one year to the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary appointed under this Act shall in no case exceed £12,000."—[Sir Rufus Isaacs.]
§ Mr. WATTI beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words, "Provided that the Lords of Appeal so appointed are under fifty-five years of age at the date of their appointment."
In the course of an interview with the Prime Minister he indicated that this was the best Amendment of our stock. The Law Lords have to serve fifteen years before they are entitled to a pension, and that brings them to the age of seventy. In order to encourage them to retire at that age I move this Amendment. Everyone knows that judges remain on the bench much too long. The ages of judges are extraordinary. I find that on a certain date the ages of various judges were, eighty, sixty-eight, seventy-one, seventy-one, sixty-four, sixty-one, seventy-five, and so on. There was only one under fifty-five years of age, and he was fifty-one. The sitting on of judges drawing salary is an evil, and my Amendment is intended to meet it.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThis is an Amendment which my hon. Friend cannot expect us to accept. The question is being considered in relation to the King's Bench where I should have thought it had more application than in the Court of Appeal. You may have very excellent men over fifty-five years of age, and there is no reason why they should not be appointed. It is very difficult to say at what age a judge ceases to be able to perform his judicial functions. When my hon. Friend was referring to the ages of judges, every lawyer must have thought of one of the most distinguished ornaments the law has ever had in this country, Lord Halsbury, who at a very advanced age has done great service and continues to discharge judicial functions in a way that is the envy of all. [An HON. MEMBER: "He is a diehard."] I am not prepared to accept either 2214 this Amendment or that proposing that these judges should retire at seventy years of age. That question will have to be discussed when we get the Report of the Royal Commission, but I do not think such a limitation should be placed here for the first time. If anything of the sort were done it ought to be of general application, and not applied simply to the new judges hereunder appointed.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. WATTI beg to move, at the end of Clause, to add the words, "Provided that if disabled by permanent infirmity from the performance of the duties of their office the pension granted to such Lords of Appeal by way of annuity shall be in strict proportion to the number of years served in such office."
The hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield got a promise from the Attorney-General that his idea would be carried out. I desire that it shall be carried out fully. A judge is entitled to a pension after fifteen years service. We had the case quoted where a judge who had only had one or two years service was granted by the Government the full pension. No one objects to this particular judge getting the pension. He doubtless brought a medical certificate. But everyone who desires exemption from attendance at one or the other function knows how easy it is to get a medical certificate if ill. The principle of a full pension for less than full service is bad. If a judge serves one out of fifteen years he should get one-fifteenth of the full pension; if he serves two years he should get two-fifteenths, and so on.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI do not suppose the hon. and learned Gentleman desires me to say more than that everything I replied to the hon. Baronet I would now apply to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself. The matter has been very fully discussed. I cannot commit the Government, and I would not commit myself, to the proposal put forward. I certainly do agree that this is a matter which might be considered, and which will be considered when we discuss the whole question.
§ Dr. CHAPPLEPointed reference was made to me by an hon. Member who spoke of the case with which medical certificates were got. He failed to say how they were got. I would like to tell hon. Members for their information—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat is out of order.
§ Mr. HOGGEMay I ask the Attorney-General a question before my hon. Friend consents to withdraw his Amendment? What he has said is very good, but it would not apply to these two judges. These conditions would not be retrospective and these two judges would be subject to the same conditions as now exist. So that my hon. Friend's appeal with regard to these two judges is not covered by the Attorney-General's remarks.
§ Question, "That those words be there added," put, and negatived.