Commons Sitting of 27 May 1913

Preamble
The House met (after Whitsuntide) at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—
Kent Electric Power [Lords]
Ordered, that the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Bishop's Waltham Water Bill,
Chesterfield Corporation Railless Traction Bill,
Southport Corporation Bill,
Westgate and Birchington Gas and Electricity Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Derby Corporation Bill,
As amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Humber Commercial Railway and Dock Bill,
Metropolitan Electric Tramways (Railless Traction) Bill,
Mid Kent and East Kent District Water Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Rhondda Tramways (Railless Traction) Bill,
As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
London County Council (Money) Bill,
North Eastern Railway Bill [Lords],
To be read a second time To-morrow.
Redcar, Coatham, Marske, and Saltburn Gas Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Swansea Harbour Bill [Lords],
To be read a second time To-morrow.
Southampton Harbour Bill (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Order (Gas) Bill,
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS (RECESS).
The following Papers, presented by His Majesty's Command during the Whitsuntide Recess, were delivered to the Librarian of the House of Commons during the Recess, pursuant to the Standing Order of the 14th August, 1896:—

1. Trade Reports (Annual Series)—Copies of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 5070, 5072 to 5075, 5077, 5079 to 5083.

2. Treaty Series (No. 6, 1913)—Copy of Agreement between the United Kingdom and Liberia respecting the Navigation of the Manoh River. Signed at Monrovia, 10th April, 1913.

3. Egypt. (No. 1, 1913)—Copies of Reports by His Majesty's Agent and Consul-General on the Finances, Administration, and Condition of Egypt and the Sudan in 1912.

4. Africa (No. 3, 1913)—Copy of Further Correspondence respecting the Affairs of the Congo.

5. Colonial Reports (Annual)—Copy of Report No. 754 (Cayman Islands, Jamaica) (Report for 1911–12).

6. Gold Coast—Copy of Correspondence relating to the Form of Lease of Oil-Palm Lands in the Gold Coast Colony.

7. National Insurance Act—Copy of Order made by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, dated 9th May, 1913, entitled the National Health Insurance (Deposit Contributors Administration Expenses) Order (Scotland), 1913.

8. Copy of Order made by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, dated 6th May, 1913, entitled the National Health Insurance (Transfer of Deposit Contributors) (Scotland) Order, 1913.

9. Copy of Order made by the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, dated 19th May, 1913, entitled the National Health Insurance (Wales) (Payments to Insurance Committees) (No. 5) Order, 1913.

10. Copy of Order made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners, dated 19th May, 1913, entitled the National Health Insurance (Deposit Contributors Administration Expenses) (Ireland) Order, 1913.

11. Copy of Order made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners, dated 9th May, 1913, entitled the-National Health Insurance (Sanatorium Benefit) (Ireland) Order, 1913.

4

12. Copy of Order made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners, dated 9th May, 1913, entitled the National Health Insurance (Payments to Insurance Committees) (Ireland) Order (No. 2), 1913.

13. Copy of Order, dated 6th May, 1913, made by the Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (County Borough of Wallasey Insurance Committee) Order, 1913.

14. Copy of Statement of the Numbers of Insured Persons, the Membership of Approved Societies, and the Numbers of Deposit Contributors in counties and county boroughs in England.

15. Railway Returns (Preliminary Statement)—Copy of Return relating to the Railways of the United Kingdom for the year 1912 (Preliminary Statement).

16. Railway Accidents—Copy of Summary of Accidents and Casualties reported to the Board of Trade by the several Railway Companies in the United Kingdom during the three months ending 31st December, 1912, together with Reports of the Inspecting Officers of the Railway Department to the Board of Trade upon certain Accidents which were inquired into.

17. Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1900—Copy of Report of the Inspector under the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1900 for the year 1911.

18. Explosions (Ardeer, Ayrshire)—Copy of Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the circumstances attending an Explosion of guncotton drying stores which occurred at the factory of Nobel's Explosives Company, Limited, Ardeer, Ayrshire, on 10th March, 1913.

19. Jury Law and Practice (Departmental Committee)—Copy of Report of the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into and report upon the Law and Practice with regard to the Constitution, Qualifications, Selection, Summoning, etc., of Juries. Vol. I., Report. Vol. II., Minutes of Evidence and Appendices.

20. Board of Agriculture and Fisheries—Copy of Annual Report for 1912 of Proceedings under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, and other Acts. Part II., Allotments and Miscellaneous.

21. Board of Agriculture and Fisheries—Copy of Annual Report of Proceedings of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries

5
under the Tithe, Copyhold, Inclosure, Commons, Land Drainage, and other Acts for the year 1912.

22. General Register of Sasines, Edinburgh (Departmental Committee)—Copy of Report of the Departmental Committee on the Conditions of Employment of the present Members of the Engrossing Staff in the General Register of Sasines, Edinburgh (Vol. I., Report; Vol. II., Minutes of Evidence and Appendices).

23. General Register of Sasines, Edinburgh—Copy of Minute of the Secretary for Scotland, regulating the Terms of Employment of the Engrossing Clerks serving in the Sasines Office.

24. Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Acts—Copy of Report of the Crofters' Commission for the period from 31st December, 1910, to 31st March, 1912.

25. Fishery Board (Scotland)—Copy of Thirty-first Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland, being for the year 1912.

26. Primary Education (Ireland)—Copy of First Report of the Viceregal Committee appointed to inquire into Primary Education (Ireland), 1913.

27. Primary Education (Ireland)—Copy of First Report of the Viceregal Committee appointed to inquire into Primary Education (Ireland), 1913 (Appendix, with Minutes of Evidence).

28. Irish Land Commission—Copy of Return of Advances made under the Irish Land Purchase Acts during the month of July, 1912.

29. Evictions (Ireland)—Return of the number of Evictions in Ireland for the quarter ending 31st March, 1913.

Ordered, That the said Papers do lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Order made by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, dated 16th May, 1913, entitled the National Health (Sanatorium Benefit) Order (Scotland), 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order made by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, dated 16th May, 1913, entitled the National Health Insurance (Deposit Contributors Medical and Sanatorium Benefit) Order (Scotland), 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Regulations made by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, dated 9th May, 1913, entitled the National Health Insurance (Inspectors Certificates) Regulations (Scotland), 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 122.]
Copy presented of Regulations made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners, dated 8th May, 1913, entitled the National Health Insurance (Claims for Exemption) (Married Women Voluntary Contributors) Regulations (Ireland), 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 123.]
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners, dated 20th May, 1913, entitled the National Health Insurance (Insurance Committees; Representation of Insured Persons) Regulations (Ireland), 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed, [No. 124.]
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations made by the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, dated 21st May, 1913, entitled the National Health Insurance (Insurance Committees: Election of Medical Representatives) Regulations (Wales), 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 125]
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations made by the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, dated 9th May, 1913, entitled the National Health Insurance (Insurance Committees: Representation of Insured Persons) Regulations (Wales), 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 126.]
Copy presented of Regulations made by the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, dated 19th May, 1913, entitled the National Health Insurance (Special Customs Notice) Regulations (Wales), 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 127.]
Copy presented of Regulations made by the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, dated 19th May, 1913, entitled the National Health Insurance (Transfer from Voluntary to Employed Rate) (Wales) Regulations, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 128.]

SINKING FUNDS.
Account presented of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, showing the amount received and applied in the year ended 31st March, 1913, in

7
respect of the Old and New Sinking Funds [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 129.]

SUPERANNUATION ACTS,1859 AND 1876.
Copy presented of Treasury Minute, dated 15th May, 1913, declaring Resht, in Persia, to be an unhealthy place within the meaning of The Superannuation Act, 1876 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

EAST INDIA.
Return presented relative thereto [Address 8th May; Sir Henry Havelock-Allan]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 130.]
Copy presented of Estimate of Revenue and Expenditure of the Government of India for the year 1912–13, compared with the results of 1911–12 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 131.]

COMMONS ACT, 1876.
Copy presented of Report by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries upon an application for a Provisional Order for the regulation of Gosford Green, in the parishes of Coventry and St. Michael Without, Coventry, in the county of Warwick [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 132.]
Copy of Report by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries upon an application for a Provisional Order for the inclosure of the Common Fields in the parish of Elmstone Hardwicke, in the county of Gloucester [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 133.]

TRADE BOARDS ACT, 1909.
Copy presented of Memoranda in reference to the working of the Trade Boards Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 134.]
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD(SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Return of the Areas, Population, and Valuation of Counties, Burghs, and Parishes in Scotland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order by the Secretary for Scotland, dated 8th May, 1913, affecting certain classes of Shops in the burgh of Dundee [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Orders by the Secretary for Scotland, dated 23rd May, 1913, affecting certain classes of Shops in the burgh of Leith [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

UNIVERSITY OF ST. ANDREWS.
Copy presented of Annual Statistical Report by the University Court of the University of St. Andrews for 1911–12 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 135.]
Copy presented of Abstract of Accounts of the University of St. Andrews for the year 1911–12 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 136.]

FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
Copies presented of three Orders in Council, dated 7th May, 1913, under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
Copies presented of two Orders in Council, dated 7th May, 1913, under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
SEAL FISHERIES (NORTH PACIFIC)ACTS, 1895 AND 1912.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 7th May, 1913, applying Sections 3 and 4 of The Seal Fisheries (North Pacific) Act, 1912, to the Union of South Africa [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
LOAN FUND BOARD (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Seventy-fifth Annual Report of the Loan Fund Board of Ireland, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
IRELAND DEVELOPMENT GRANT ACT, 1903.
Copy presented of Report of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland of all his Proceedings under the Act, for the year ended 31st March, 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
BANKING AND RAILWAY STATISTICS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Report on the Banking and Railway Statistics of Ireland for the half-year ended 31st December, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
DOGS REGULATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1865.
Copy presented of Accounts of Receipts and Expenditure under the Act for the year 1912; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 137.]
IRISH UNIVERSITIES ACT, 1908.
Copy presented of Statute IV. for University College, Cork [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 138.]
FINES, ETC. (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Abstract of Account of Fines accounted for by the Registrar of Petty Sessions Clerks for the year 1911 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 139.]

POST OFFICE (FOREIGN AND COLONIAL POST).
Copy presented of the Foreign and Colonial Post (Cash on Delivery) Amendment (No. 11) Warrant, 1913, dated 24th April, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Papers laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—

1. Arundel Port.—Copy of Annual Report and General Account of the Commissioners of Arundel Port for period from 25th March, 1912 to 25th March, 1913 [by Act];

2. National Insurance Act, 1911 (Part I.), Account.—Account showing the nature
10
and amount of the securities held by the Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt at 31st December, 1912 as investments for moneys, forming part of the National Health Insurance Fund, paid over to them by the Insurance Commissioners for England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, under Section 54 (3) of The National Insurance Act, 1911 [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 140.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Political Prisoners.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a precedent exists for the representation by this country to a Foreign Power as to alleged ill-treatment of political prisoners, and that Mr. Gladstone's pamphlets on political prisoners in Naples were sent by our Foreign Office to our representatives at all the Courts of Europe with the view that they should be noted by the various Governments; and whether, having regard to the action which our country has taken in the past in using all legitimate pressure to further political liberty and justice, he will consider the propriety of approaching other Powers on behalf of political captives who are alleged to suffer without trial in the prisons of Portugal and Russia?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): The answer to the hon. Member's question is in the negative.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to the effect that the Russian law acknowledges the existence of political prisoners, or any information regarding the sentences passed on such prisoners, or the crimes for which such prisoners are punished; whether the allegations made regarding such prisoners and the punishments inflicted upon them have, so far as the Foreign Office is aware, any authenticity; and whether His Majesty's Government has acquired by treaty, instrument, or capitulation any right or title to inquire into or make representations concerning the internal administration of a friendly Power?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer to all the hon. Member's question is in the negative.

  Persia.
  Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the number of robberies that are reported to have occurred on the Bushire-Ispahan trade route in Persia during March last, including the looting of a caravan of lamb skins, the property of Russian subjects; whether the Russian owners have been or are to be compensated for their loss; and, if so, whether he will insist upon the right of British subjects to be equally compensated for the losses that they have incurred?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part my only information is to the effect that according to a report received by the Persian Government the chief official at Yezdikhast pursued the robbers and recovered the goods. As regards British losses; I see no reason to depart from the procedure hitherto followed whereby failing recovery of the goods or satisfaction being given by the local authorities, a claim is presented to the central Government by His Majesty's Minister at Teheran.
  Colonel YATE: May I ask if there is any prospect of the claims being satisfied?
  Sir E. GREY: I am afraid that the pecuniary claims in Persia are not in a very satisfactory condition, and therefore the only certain remedy is to recover the goods. I think in some instances that remedy has been obtained in the case of British goods, but I gather that, in this particular Russian case, the goods were recovered.
  Colonel YATE: Will the British Minister press for compensation in cases where the goods have not been recovered?
  Sir E. GREY: The claims are put on record, and, of course, we shall press for compensation and the actual payment, whenever Persian finances admit of it.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman take no steps to make the trade routes more safe for British subjects?
  Sir E. GREY: That has been discussed at length, and the step we have encouraged is the gendarmerie under Swedish officers, which has lately made some progress in the protection of the routes.

  Tibet.
  Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information as to the present state of affairs in Tibet; and whether the condition that the Republic of China will not be recognised till the question of Tibet has been satisfactorily settled still holds good?
  Sir E. GREY: The latest reports show that hostilities are still in progress between the Chinese and the tribesmen on the eastern frontiers of Tibet. But otherwise all Chinese officials and troops have left the country, which is being peaceably administered by the Tibetan authorities. With regard to the question of recognition, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given to the unstarred question by the hon Member for East Nottingham on the 7th ultimo and to the statement during the Debate on the Motion for Adjournment on the 8th instant.
  Colonel YATE: May I ask if that means the conditions formerly imposed will not now be enforced?
  Sir E. GREY: The statement was that we were anxious to make the formal recognition of China in concert with the other. Powers, and that the one condition of which we were now asking for general recognition on the part of the Chinese Government was that previously existing treaties should be maintained.
  Colonel YATE: Will the question of Tibet be settled before that recognition is given?
  Sir E. GREY: I do not know when the question of Tibet will be definitely settled. We had not contemplated the making of the special recognition of Tibet a particular condition apart from the general recognition of existing treaties.

  Delhi.
  Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for India when the Report of the Delhi Town-planning Committee will be published; and whether an opportunity will be afforded to the House to discuss its recommendations?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The Delhi Town-planning Committee has submitted

  13
  three reports—the first report on the election of a site; submitted after the first visit of the Committee to India; a special report on the possibility of building the Imperial capital on the north site, and a final report on the town planning of the new capital. The three reports have been printed in India, and copies are now on their way to this country for presentation to Parliament. The last part of the question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but in the normal course the House, if it chooses, can discuss these matters with others in the debate on the East Indian Revenue Accounts.
  Mr. KING: Can we be assured that copies of these reports will come over in sufficient number for them to be generally circulated, or will only one or two copies come?
  Mr. MONTAGU: A sufficient number of copies will be sent over to circulate them to every Member of the House.

  Poonah Torture Case.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India has yet come to a decision as to the conduct of the honorary magistrate who recorded the confession of the accused in the Poonah torture case; and, if so, can he state what it is; and whether the reforms promised by him and published on 25th September, 1911, have ever been carried out, and especially whether the local governments have yet considered the question therein stated to have been submitted to them as to the advantage of having confessions recorded at all before the commencement of the trial?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The honorary magistrate to whom the hon. Member refers has been deprived of his powers. As regards the reforms promised in September, 1911, action in various directions has been taken, and generally it may be said that most of the reforms have been carried out. I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question on 15th April last. The reply to the last part of the question is in the affirmative. The Government of India have not, however, as yet communicated the result of their consideration of the opinions expressed by the local governments.

  Non-Commissioned Officers, India (Furlough).
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked how many applications have been made by non-commissioned officers of the unattached list in the Secunderabad Division to go on furlough for the years 1910, 1911, and 1912; and how many passages were available in each such year?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State has not the information, but will ask the Government of India for it if the hon. Member so desires.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the custom of only allotting a limited number of passages to the unattached non-commissioned officers in India who desire furlough is in fact depriving them of their rights under the Army Regulations to come home on furlough after six years' service in India; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The answer is in the negative. The Indian Army Regulations do not confer on unattached non-commissioned officers a right to a free passage to England with furlough after six years' service. The Regulations make this term of service a condition of eligibility, while restricting to 100 a year the number of free passages with furlough that may be granted to officers of this class. Applicants have to take their turn in order of length of service abroad, unless they like to pay the cost of a passage. The Secretary of State does not consider that the Regulation calls for amendment.

  Lord Nicholson's Committee.
  Captain MURRAYasked whether the, Committee presided over by Lord Nicholson has yet presented its Report?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State has no official information on the subject, but he understands that a Report has been submitted to the Government of India, by whom the Committee was appointed, and by whom any recommendations will in the first instance be dealt with.
  Captain MURRAY: Will the hon. Member bear in mind the desire on the part of many Members in this House to discuss the Report before any of the recommendations made are carried into effect?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I will bear it in mind, but I do not think that there is any probability of the Report being published at all.

  First Lord of the Admiralty (Ceremonial Recognition).
  Mr. FREDERICK HALLasked the Secretary of State for War if, under the Regulations of the War Office, the First Lord of the Admiralty is entitled to any special ceremonial recognition; if so, what is the nature of the same; and, if there is no such special recognition, whether he will take steps to ensure that the high position occupied by the First Lord of the Admiralty is adequately recognised?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): This matter is governed by paragraphs 1807 and 1810 of the King's Regulations. There is no intention of amending them.

  North Midland Field Ambulance (Accident to Lieutenant Dawson).
  Mr. COOPERasked, in further reference to the accident to Lieutenant Dawson, of the North Midland Field Ambulance, if, when the accident referred to occurred, Lieutenant Dawson was occupied in the duty of taking a horse of the Territorial Force back to headquarters; and whether he was still on the manœuvring area in uniform, and in the company and under the command of Captain Wraith, a superior officer, by whom, if the accident had not happened, he would have been dismissed from duty on his arrival at headquarters?
  Colonel SEELY: I regret that I can add nothing to the answer given to a similar question on 22nd April of this year.
  Mr. COOPER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the final statement made in the question is true or not—that is, whether this officer was on military duty at the time?
  Colonel SEELY: There are always cases of hardship in dealing with questions of this kind, which are on the border line. I do not demur to the statement in the question, but what I said in answer to the previous question was that that did not bring this case within the Regulations.

  Mineral Rights Duty.
  Mr. ROYDSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by which branch of the
  16
  Inland Revenue Department Mineral Rights Duty is levied; and what is the estimated annual cost of levying such duty?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The Land Values Branch of the Secretaries' Office, London, and the Offices of the Assistant Secretary and Comptroller in Edinburgh and in Dublin are concerned with the levying of Mineral Rights Duty. It is not possible to separate with any approach to accuracy the cost of collecting this duty from the cost of collecting Inland Revenue Duties generally.

  Increment Value Duty.
  Mr. ROYDSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the dicta of the Lord Chancellor and Lords Shaw and Moulton in the recent case of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Herbert and others, that original site value by reference to which Increment Value Duty is to be ascertained under Section 1 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, is not the assessable site value recorded in the valuation under Section 25, he will state how many assessments to Increment Value Duty have been made inaccurately; what steps he proposes to take to rectify the errors of the Commissioners; and by what method the correct amount of Increment Value Duty will be calculated?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I can at present add nothing to the reply which I gave on the 7th instant in answer to the questions of the hon. and learned Member for West St. Pancras and the hon. Member for Chelmsford.

  Board of Agriculture (Scotland).
  Captain MURRAYasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is now in a position to make any statement in regard to additional appointments to the staff of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject.

  Nairobi.
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the result of his communications with the Governor of British East Africa with regard to the trial of an

  17
  Italian at Nairobi, on 5th February last, on the charge of killing a native by kicking him in the stomach; and whether he is now prepared to consider a modification of the existing jury system in the case of capital charges in which racial feeling may be involved?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I understand from the Governor that he is not yet in a position to furnish me with a report on the jury system pending the result of the personal inquiry which he is making. A despatch is now on its way to me which presumably will contain information as to the trial of the Italian.
  Mr. HARVEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay Papers with reference to the whole question when the right time arrives?
  Mr. HARCOURT: If and when the right time arrives for the Papers to be laid they will be laid. I will consider the question.
  Mr. HARVEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly inform me when he receives the Report as to the trial of the Italian, which has already been very long delayed?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Yes.
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the result of the sale of Government land by public auction at Nairobi on 7th April last, at which all the plots but two were bought by a single purchaser; whether many of these plots were sold less than an hour after at four times the price paid to the Government; and whether he proposes to substitute for this method of sale some system which will be more likely to meet the needs of small buyers who are prepared to settle upon farms themselves and do not merely buy to re-sell?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I have no information from the Governor as to the result of the sale to which my hon. friend refers. I have seen an account in the local papers which bear out his statements, but I may point out that the plots in question were offered for residential purposes in Nairobi, and were not farms.

  AIRCRAFT.

    AEROPLANES AND HYDROPLANES.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of aeroplanes and hydroplanes which Italy and Austria
    18
    possess; whether the Admiralty proposes to make provision for an aerial service for co-operating with the Mediterranean fleet; and if any steps have been taken for the construction and equipment of an airship station or stations for this purpose?
    Mr. LAMBERT (the Civil Lord of the Admiralty): My right hon. Friend does not wish to make any statement on this subject.
    Mr. F. HALL: Are we to understand that the House is not to be informed what is to be done?
    Mr. LAMBERT: Certainly, if it can be done with safety.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    MEDITERRANEAN FLEET.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the number of vessels of the pre-"Dreadnought," "Dreadnought," and armoured cruiser types composing the present Mediterranean fleets of Italy, Austria, and Germany, the additions which will have been made by 1915, the number of vessels now comprising this country's Mediterranean Fleet, and the number of vessels now under construction or about to be laid down which are ear-marked for Mediterranean service, over and above the numbers requisite for securing a 60 per cent. superiority in Home waters?
    Mr. LAMBERT: My right hon. Friend has nothing to add to the information contained in the Dickinson Return circulated to the House on the 20th March last; and wishes me to say that it is neither good strategy nor appropriate terminology to "ear-mark" ships of war to particular stations.

    Trafalgar Square (Public Meetings).
    Mr. COOPERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether, in the event of a sufficient sum being raised by public subscription to defray the cost of erecting along the North side of Trafalgar Square small platforms properly constructed to facilitate open-air speaking, he will confer with the other Departments interested as to the possibility of permitting the erection of the platforms suggested; (2) seeing that the scenes which occurred on Sunday, 4th May, in Trafalgar Square were to a great extent due to ignorance on the part of the public of the Regulation that in its own interest speaking cannot be permitted from

    19
    the South side of the Nelson Monument, whether he will consult with the other Departments interested as to the desirability of erecting along the North side of the square a series of small platforms, properly constructed to facilitate open-air speaking, in order that on occasions of public interest the crowd may be attracted by natural means away from Cockspur Street and the other thoroughfares on the South of the square?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I will consider whether such an arrangement as is suggested is practicable and desirable, and will consult the First Commissioner of Works.

    Motor Traffic Regulations (Metropolis).
    Captain MURRAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Orders issued by the President of the Local Government Board prohibiting the use of open cut-outs are not infrequently disregarded by motorists and motor cyclists within the Metropolitan area; and whether he will issue further instructions to the police in this matter?
    Mr. McKENNA: As I stated in answer to a question on the 1st May, the Order of the Local Government Board has been communicated to all ranks of the Metropolitan police, with an explanatory memorandum; and they will endeavour to enforce it so far as this can be done by persons not possessing technical knowledge. I stated then that I proposed to address a circular on the subject to police forces in England and Wales. This has now been done.

    Derrick Cranes (Inspection).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department wehther his attention has been called to the jury's verdict and the coroner's comments in connection with the death of a crane signalman while working for the General Building Company on 24th April in High Holborn; if he is aware that the jury expressed an opinion that inspectors should have the power to inspect the Scotch derrick cranes and should always be fitted with a double chain; if he is aware that the chairman of the London County Council Building Acts Committee stated that for the past ten years representations have been made from time to time to the Home Office to have such cranes properly
    20
    inspected; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. McKENNA: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on the 8th of this month to a question on the same subject by the hon. Member for the Westhoughton Division of Lancashire. I have not seen any such statement by the chairman of the London County Council Building Acts Committee, nor am I aware of any such representations having been made to me by the county council.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Is there any prospect of the Public Works and Engineering Bill being introduced this Session?
    Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend knows that the state of public business at the present moment is very crowded, and that I am unable to make any statement as to the introduction of any further Bills.
    Mr. WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries of the Opposition to see if they will regard this matter as non-contentious, as it is purely for the defence of the workmen engaged in the special industry?
    Mr. McKENNA: I will consult with my hon. Friend on the subject.

    Railway Rates and Wages.
    Mr. COOPERasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many men of the age of twenty-one years or over employed on all the railways of the United Kingdom are at present in receipt of earnings of less than 20s. per week; (2) what increases in passenger rates have been generally instituted by the railway companies of the United Kingdom since August, 1911 and whether he has any official information that would enable him to state the increase in the annual income of the companies resulting from these increased rates; (3) whether he has any official information showing what additional income per annum will accrue to the railway companies of the United Kingdom from an increase of 4 per cent. in goods rates; and (4) what is approximately the total amount paid by the railway companies of the United Kingdom per annum owing to increased rates of wages since October, 1911?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): The Board of Trade have no official information which would enable me to answer the hon. Member's inquiries.
    Mr. COOPER: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how his Department or the Railway and Canal Commissioners are going to see that the Act passed last March will be carried into effect, and that the increases in rates are confined to meeting improved labour conditions?
    Mr. BUXTON: The increase must be due solely to the improved conditions of labour of the men in the employment of the company.
    Mr. COOPER: Have they already proved that before the Railway and Canal Commissioners before notifying the increases in rates which are to come into force in July?
    Mr. BUXTON: Persons who have any complaint to make can bring it before the Railway and Canal Commissioners, and then the companies will have to prove their case.
    Mr. WARDLE: Is it a fact that, although they have all given notice of an increase of 4 per cent., they have not given a general increase of 4 per cent. to the men?
    Mr. BUXTON: They have got to justify the increase in each case separately.

    London County Council Tramways (Greenwich Power Station).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the recent breakdown at the London County Council power station at Greenwich; if he is aware that the breakdown was caused by overloading the machinery in consequence of there not being enough machinery to generate the amount of power required for general use; and if he will cause an inquiry to be held in connection with the recent breakdown?
    Mr. BUXTON: I am informed by the London County Council that the breakdown in question occurred in consequence of a cotter falling out of the high-pressure piston rod of one of the engines, and that there is no foundation for the suggestion that the mishap was caused by overloading the machinery. I hardly think that an inquiry such as my hon. Friend suggests would serve any useful purpose.

    Motor Vehicles.
    Captain MURRAYasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is yet in a position to make any statement in regard to the prohibition
    22
    of dazzling headlights on motor cars in well-lighted streets?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I have arranged for some investigations on the subject of glare from headlights being conducted by the National Physical Laboratory. The investigations are still in progress.
    Captain MURRAYasked whether, in view of the varied nature, of, the noises, made by warning instruments on motor vehicles, he can hold out hopes of steps being taken to obtain so far as possible, uniformity of sound?
    Mr. BURNS: Some sort of uniformity is secured in the case of public carriages in London, where the Commissioner of Police requires the use of a horn emitting a deep toned note. As the law stands, I have no power to require the general use of one form of warning instrument by all motor cars, but I am considering whether anything can be done to secure some greater degree of uniformity than at present exists.
    Captain MURRAY: With an alteration in the existing law or without an alteration?
    Mr. BURNS: I find it very difficult to make an alteration without amending the existing law. As the hon. Member knows, a Bill has been suggested, and I am afraid I cannot make the alteration required unless an opportunity to amend the Motor Car Act occurs.

    Newington Workhouse.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked if the attention of the President of the Local Government Board has been called to an inquest held at Camberwell on Tuesday, 6th May, on two aged persons of the Newington Workhouse; if he is aware that a nurse stated at the inquest that there was only one nurse at that institution to 112 aged persons; if he is aware that the jury stated that there should be more nurses at that institution; and if he will make inquiries into the matter?
    Mr. BURNS: I have seen a newspaper report of the inquest. I understand that the aged persons at this institution are not in a condition necessitating medical or nursing treatment, being able to wash, dress, and generally look after themselves, and that the duties of the attendant entail no actual nursing. All cases

    23
    that require skilled nursing are at once removed to the infirmary. I have, however, directed one of my medical inspectors to visit the workhouse and see whether the arrangements are satisfactory.

    Relieving Officers.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked whether the President of the Local Government Board is aware that the appointment of unqualified persons without a knowledge of the duties of the office as relieving officers inflicts hardship and suffering on the poor who are compelled to seek relief; that a hardship is inflicted on the selected candidate if his appointment cannot be confirmed, in that he has often given up his previous occupation and thus finds himself out of employment; that, should his appointment be confirmed, hardship is inflicted on the many qualified persons who, acting upon the recommendations of the Royal Commission, have given time and money to qualify and then find themselves passed over for unqualified persons; and whether, considering the doubt that exists amongst boards of guardians as to the proper interpretation of the Local Government Board's circular letter on the subject, he can see his way to adopt the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the matter and make an Order that no person be appointed relieving officer who has not had previous experience in the duties or obtained the certificate of a recognised examining board?
    Mr. BURNS: I have given a good deal of consideration to this question, and have issued two circular letters on the 18th March, 1910, and 25th March, 1912, impressing on boards of guardians the necessity of appointing suitable and well-qualified persons to the responsible office of relieving officer. I am not aware that doubt exists among boards of guardians as to the views of the Department in the matter, and I do not think it is either necessary or desirable at present to make any such rigid regulations as my hon. Friend suggests.

    Government of Ireland Bill (Ulster).
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has given directions for the issue of a circular through the Irish Constabulary Inspector-General, requesting information as to the drilling of sections of the loyalist Protestant population in Belfast and the
    24
    North of Ireland; and, if so, whether he can indicate the nature of the information received?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): My right hon. Friend has given no such directions, but the police in the ordinary course of their duty keep the Government informed upon such matters. It would be contrary to practice to publish police reports which are absolutely confidential.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. BOLANDasked whether the Chief Secretary will have further inquiry made as to the possibility of providing Jeremiah D. Shea, Rossmore, Tahilla, with a holding on some untenanted land in compliance with the memorial forwarded to the Congested Districts Board?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The Congested Districts Board have had inquiries made in regard to the application of Mr. Jeremiah D. Shea, and they cannot provide him with a holding.
    Mr. BOLANDasked whether the holding of Michael Sullivan, Cannig, Mastergeehy, on the D. C. O'Connell estate, was valued by the inspector of the Estates Commissioners at £120; and whether, in view of the fact that this estate has been bought by the Congested Districts Board and that Sullivan did not sign any purchase agreement, the holding will now be taken over at the price fixed by the former inspector and that this tenant will be treated on the same fair terms already granted to the other tenant who had not purchased?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The price placed upon the holding of Michael Sullivan on this estate by the inspector of the Estates Commissioners was £140, and not £120, as stated in the question. The Congested Districts Board will be prepared to sell the holding to the tenant in its unaltered condition at this price.
    Mr. BOLANDasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that two years expired on 10th May since the landlord of the Jermyn estate, near Caherdaniel, accepted the purchase price named by the Congested Districts Board; and whether, in view of the fact that no improvement works have been carried out since last January, he will state when the sale to the tenants will be definitely completed?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The estate referred to was vested in the Congested Districts Board in November last. The necessary drainage works have been completed on the estate, but at present some of the tenants are improving their dwelling houses and erecting new out-offices, with assistance from the Board. The estate is being resurveyed with a view to resale to the tenants, but it cannot be definitely stated when the resale will be completed.
    Mr. BOLANDasked what was the average number of years' purchase valued for the townland of Laharan South, on the Colomb estate, near Cahirciveen, by the inspector of the Estates Commissioners; how many years' purchase was demanded by the landlord; and whether, in view of a possible arrangement and the approaching inspection of this estate by the Congested Districts Board, the tenants will be saved any further expenses by legal process for the recovery of rent?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The owner instituted proceedings before the Estates Commissioners for the sale of this property direct to the tenants under the Irish Land Act, 1903. The terms of sale were a matter of arrangement between the owner and the tenants, and the Commissioners were not parties thereto. The Commissioners refused to declare the lands fit to be regarded as an estate for the purposes of sale, and the owner is now in negotiation with the Congested Districts Board with a view to the purchase of the property. The Board have had the estate inspected, and hope to consider the question of making an offer for its purchase at their next meeting. They cannot interfere in any legal proceedings instituted by the owner for the recovery of rent or interest due by the tenants.

    Income Tax (Final Notices).
    Mr. WATTasked what was the date fixed for the year 1912–13 before which the notices for Income Tax which contained threats of costs in seven days could not be sent out; and is the system of the Treasury that, after that date, it is entirely in the option of the collector of a district whether he thereupon sends out the threatening notices or waits at his discretion?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No special instructions as to the date of issue of the final notices for payment of Income Tax were given for the year 1912–13. Under the Standing Instructions, the earliest
    26
    date at which such notices would be issued is 2nd February. As the hon. Member was informed in my answer of 7th May, the actual dates of issue of final notices vary only within narrow limits, and depend on circumstances which are not entirely within the control of the collector.

    Marriages by Bishop Matthews (Holy Trinity, Sloane Street).
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the doubts as to the legality of certain marriages performed at Holy Trinity, Sloane Street, owing to their having been solemnised by a certain Bishop Matthews, alias Pavoleri, who was never in the holy orders of the Church of England; whether he will give facilities for a Bill legalising these marriages, on which doubt has been cast; and whether, to prevent the recurrence of similar cases, he will introduce legislation for a uniform system of civil marriage?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. Any doubt as to the validity of these marriages can be removed by a Provisional Order, and I am now in communication with the Registrar-General and the Bishop of London in the matter. As regards the last part of the question, I can add nothing to previous answers given on this subject by the Prime Minister.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  Business of the House.
  Lord EDMUND TALBOT: Will the business for next week be, as already announced, the Government of Ireland Bill?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have to announce a change in the business for next week. In order to comply with the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, we must secure the Second Reading of the Finance Bill before we take the Second Reading of the three Bills recently introduced, and which it is our intention to take consecutively. We, therefore, propose to take the Second Reading of the Finance Bill on Monday next, and to postpone the Second Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill until the following week. I hope to-morrow to indicate the business to be taken on the other days of next week.
  Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: Was the consideration to which the right hon. Gentleman refers present to the mind of the Prime Minister at the time he made the announcement the other day?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It was a purely provisional announcement, and the Prime Minister definitely stated that.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Yes, he did.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: If the Government succeed in getting the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill, will they make any attempt to make progress with further Orders on the Paper to-night?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We hope to be able to get a little further business.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: What is it proposed to get on with?
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Will the Mental Deficiency Bill be taken?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I understand it is proposed to proceed with the Mental Deficiency Bill.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Was it not stated that the Mental Deficiency Bill would not be taken to-day?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am informed that that is not the case, but if my hon. Friend can refer me to any statement or promise to that effect, of course that
  38
  would affect the decision on the matter. However, I am assured that no promise of that kind was made.
  Mr. LONG: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the announcement he has made, he means definitely to state that the Government of Ireland Bill will be taken on Monday week?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In all probability it will be taken on Monday week.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister stated that the Bee Diseases Bill would be proceeded with? [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Of course the Government would be very glad to get all the Orders up to and inclusive of Order 7, which is the Bee Diseases Bill, and if the hon. Gentleman can persuade his hon. Friends behind him, we shall be very glad to proceed with the Bee Diseases Bill in the proper course.
  Mr. BOOTH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Bee Diseases Bill is a highly controversial Bill, and is opposed on both sides?
  Sir F. BANBURY: Would it not be better to wait and see whether you get the. Appellate Jurisdiction Bill before considering whether other Bills are to be taken?
  Mr. CASSEL: Why is it necessary, because of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, to postpone the Home Rule Bill, seeing that there is a month available for the Second Reading?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not know how long the Second Reading of the three Bills with intermittent dates might take.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very great wish in Scotland that the Mental Deficiency Bill should be delayed, as it is only recently printed and they have not had time to consider it?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This is the English Bill, and does not apply to Scotland.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: The Prime Minister stated that all the Orders, No. 2 to No. 7 inclusive, would be taken on Wednesday—that is to-morrow?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am assured that what the Prime Minister said was

  39
  that they would be taken between to-day and Wednesday, and we propose to make progress with those Bills.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Are we to understand that the Mental Deficiency and Lunacy (Scotland) Bill will not be taken to-day?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We do not propose to take the Scottish Bill to-day.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when something more definite will be stated to the House with regard to the Home Rule Bill than that it will be taken "in all probability" on Monday week next?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not know that I could possibly say anything more definite than that. That is the intention of the Government.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE (rising subsequently): Mr. Speaker, May I be permitted for the convenience of the House to add a word to what I stated as to the business for to-day? I understand that there is some misunderstanding as to what the Prime Minister actually said about the business for to-day and to-morrow. There is an impression that he conveyed the idea that the only Bill to be taken to-day would be the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill, and the Resolution as to the appointment of an additional judge. Under the circumstances we do not propose to go beyond those.

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  John Cuthbert Denison Denison-Pender, esquire, for the County of Cambridge (Eastern or Newmarket Division).

  AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS (WAGES AND HOURS).
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: I beg to move,
  "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to provide for the establishment of a minimum wage and the regularisation of the hours of labour of agricultural labourers."
  Some hon. Members may disapprove of the Bill which I now ask leave to introduce, but no one, I think, will question the great importance of the subject proposed to be dealt with therein. To all quarters it seems evident that the pathetic figure of
  40
  the agricultural labourer is destined in the near future to occupy a considerable amount of attention of our statesmen and politicians. There is a number of us who feel that the problem we are attempting to deal with in this Bill are amongst the most urgent that can command the attention of the House. The latest available Board of Trade Returns show the average weekly wages, including every sort of additional payment and allowance to the agricultural labourer, to have been 17s. 6d. per week for the year 1907, but, as I have previously remarked here, in my opinion those figures are extremely delusive. It has to be borne in mind that the facts dealt with by the Board of Trade are exclusively supplied by employers, and, whilst not intending to charge them with intentional exaggeration, yet I respectfully submit that when you have figures furnished by one party alone, they, at any rate, need some consideration before receiving unqualified acceptance. This comparatively high figure of 17s. 6d. requires a little further analysis. We find that it ranges from about 14s. in some parts to 23s. in others. In those parts of the country where labour is in further demand, where mining operations and other industries prevail, the agricultural rates are considerably higher than in other parts of the land. I believe it is a remarkable fact that the agricultural wage is lowest in the most fertile tracts of the country. In the part of the land whence I hail we are able to boast of the most fertile soil of the country, and yet the rates of wages are of the lowest in the land. Then, again, it is a very common practice for deductions to be made from wages in respect of time lost through inclement weather and other considerations. Therefore I feel that some of the figures I have produced to the House have not been so far out as some have ventured to contemplate. I am aware of the fact that there are many employers in the agricultural industry who acknowledge as frankly as we do that a very strong case exists for improvement amongst this class of labourers, and many of those employers would be very glad of the assistance rendered in the fashion that I propose in this Bill. Everybody is aware of the fact that employers are subjected to competitive conditions, and if any group of employers care to avail themselves of the very low wages and depressed conditions in the competitive field, they are able to unfairly handicap

  41
  others in the industry. I may very well sum up the provisions of this Bill to be that we would aid the fair employer to continue to act fairly towards those he employs. Tins Bill contemplates not only the fixing of minimum wages, but also the regularisation of the hours of labourers in agricultural affairs. It is common knowledge that the hours worked in rural districts are inordinately long. Not only is that unfair to the individual, making for great fatigue and weariness, but it also prevents the rural worker developing his educational, recreative and civic qualities. I believe a very strong demand exists throughout the whole of our rural communities for the hours of labour to be regulated, and for a weekly half-holiday to be provided also. We propose to proceed in this Bill by following the precedent of the Trade Boards Act. County boards will be set up with power for counties to co-operate—that is to say, we allow a certain amount of elasticity. I believe that the county unit is the most natural one, and there may be circumstances probably to render it desirable for counties to unite for this purpose. It is too late in the day to claim that Parliament should not intervene in this matter.
  Quite frankly, I would prefer that every class of labour should be able to secure reasonable living conditions by associated endeavour through trade union organisations. But, on the other hand, I feel that Parliament is doing the right thing, when it finds depressed groups of workers, in enabling them, by fixing minimum conditions, ultimately to help themselves to a higher standard of existence. That is the justification prompting us to put forward this Bill. We do not suggest that a flat rate should be applied to the whole of the country. Conditions are varied throughout the land, and the constituent elements that go to make up the reward of labour display such wide variability that I regard it as quite impracticable to fix a flat rate for the whole of the country. Hence we leave it to the boards, whether representing county or district areas, to take into consideration all those elements that enter into the reward of the agricultural labourer, simply laying down the principle that those elements, coupled with the cash wage itself, shall be of such a standard as to ensure to the agricultural labourer the possibility of maintaining himself and his family in a state of decency and comfort. In fact, the Bill proceeds on the assumption that it is possible to determine a national minimum of real
  42
  wages—that is to say, such a wage as, worked out in its cash equivalent, will equalise local variations in the cost of living. I must confess that I experience considerable difficulty in ascertaining the causes of the wide disparity that obtains in agricultural districts. The prices of agricultural produce reveal no such disparity, and if the prices realised should have any relation whatever to the wages I feel that no justifiable case can be advanced for the maintenance of the wide disparities that exist. If this Bill is privileged to receive a Second Reading it will become necessary and desirable that we should justify our case at greater length, but having regard to the urgency of the problem and the sympathy which is being widely expressed towards the rural workers, irrespective of political parties, I think I may with considerable confidence ask leave to introduce this Bill.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to bring in a Bill with two objects—to fix a minimum wage for agricultural labourers and to regularise the hours of their labour. I think that both those objects are bad. Ever since I have been in this House I have always opposed interference by Parliament with the wages of adult male labour, and I could not allow the present occasion to go by without repeating my protest. We have seen something of the sort in the coal-mining industry, and from the reports which have reached me the attempt of the Legislature to interfere in that industry has by no means proved successful. If the amount of wages paid to the agricultural labourer is to be fixed by the State it follows that the amount of wages in every industry in the country must be so fixed. I believe that that would be a fatal policy. The hon. Gentleman himself had some glimmering that his proposal was bad, because he said that he would have preferred that the amount of wages should be settled by trade unions or other kindred associations. I prefer that, the amount of wages should be settled by the natural law of supply and demand. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, no!"] I say, "Oh, yes!" The laws of nature cannot be overridden or turned aside by any Act of Parliament, and the bringing in of Parliament to settle what rates of wages shall be paid will only recoil upon the people who are supposed to benefit.
  In many cases the farmer employs a certain number of old men. It is to be

  43
  supposed that he will continue to employ them when Parliament has fixed the amount of wage that he shall pay? Naturally he will require the maximum amount of labour as he has to pay a minimum amount of wage, and that will work very hardly upon the older men. The farmer will take advantage of this measure, and when the weather is bad, and the men cannot work in the fields, instead of giving them odd jobs, as is done now, he will not employ them at all. Consequently they will not receive their wages, and they will suffer in that degree. Another point not to be left out of consideration is the power put into the hands of an unscrupulous candidate in an election to come forward and say, "Vote for me, and I will bring in a Bill to raise your wages to £1 a week." A more unblushing act of bribery could not be contemplated, but it is sure to happen if Bills of this sort are passed. As to regularising the hours of labour, can the hon. Gentleman regularise the weather? If not, what is the use of attempting to regularise the hours of farm labour? When you get a fine day in the haymaking season all hands, including the farmer himself, work as long as they possibly can. But the hon. Gentleman says to the men at five o'clock on an ordinary day or at two or three o'clock on Saturday, "Never mind whether the weather is fine or not; leave everything in the field and take your holiday." The following day it may be pouring; you may have wet weather for a week, and the crops that might have been saved if the men had worked on the fine day rot in the fields. If there is an industry to which this sort of Bill could not apply with any advantage it is the agricultural industry. Are cows not to be milked on the half-holiday? The proposals of the Bill only need to be mentioned to show their absurdity. It is all very well for men from the towns, who know nothing about rural life, to bring forward Bills of this sort. They are only put forward in the hope of influencing votes. The Bill is bad in both its objects, and I shall have great pleasure in opposing it.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. George Roberts, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Parker, Mr. William Edwin Harvey, Mr. Pointer, Mr. Goldstone, Mr. Charles Duncan, Mr. Brace, Mr. John Taylor, and Mr. Thomas Richardson. Presented
  44
  accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday, 23rd June, and to be printed. [Bill 182.]

  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (KING'S BENCH DIVISION).
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): I beg to move,
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty representing that the number of the puisne judges of the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice now amounts to sixteen, and that the state of business in the said Division requires that one additional judge should be appointed to the said Division under the first Section of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1910, and praying that His Majesty will be graciously pleased to appoint a new judge of the said Division of the High Court of Justice accordingly."
  In moving this Resolution I would desire the House to realise that the only object is to carry out the unanimous recommendation made by the Royal Commission now sitting to inquire and investigate into the delays in the King's Bench Division. I would impress upon the House that nothing they may do to-day will in the slightest degree affect the position of the Royal Commission or will prevent the House in the future objecting to the appointment of more judges. What I want to make quite clear is that this is really a recommendation made by the Royal Commission, in order to meet the arrears at present and pending the inquiry of the Royal Commission. It is not intended in any way to stereotype the number of judges at eighteen, nor is it intended in the slightest degree to have the effect of preventing the House of Commons on any future occasion to object to the appointment of any new judge when the number is less than eighteen, so long as it does not get below sixteen. There was considerable discussion as to the appointment of two additional judges of the King's Bench Division, and in 1910 we passed a Statute which said that whenever the number of judges should fall below fifteen the old practice should be resorted to, and a judge should be appointed in the ordinary course, without any action by this House; but that beyond fifteen neither of the two judges should be appointed without an Address from both Houses of Parliament to His Majesty on the ground that the state of

  45
  business necessitated the appointment of either or both of the two judges. If we now appoint another judge it will bring the number of puisne judges up to seventeen, or, including the Lord Chief Justice, to eighteen, for the King's Bench Division. Suppose that within the next six or twelve months, or at any time, there is a resignation, or for some other cause, there is a vacancy in the Divisional Bench, the result will be that this matter would have to come again before the House of Commons. We are preserving the absolute right which the House of Commons, or rather Parliament, took by the Statute of 1910. Whatever the House may do—I say this particularly having regard to the Notices of Motion which I see on the Paper, and in which some Members seem to think it is not desirable that we should have as many as eighteen King's Bench judges—or, at any rate, that they do not desire it without certain suggested reforms being carried out—I want to make it quite clear that nothing done to-day will prevent the House giving effect to that view at any time when the Commission has made its Report. That stands absolutely untouched by anything done to-day. In the First (Interim) Report of the Royal Commissioners [Cd. 6761] there are three paragraphs that I would like to read to the House:—
  "In view of present circumstances, we do not consider that this number"—
  That is the number of judges now—
  "is now sufficient to overtake the arrears and thus remove a delay which is the cause of justifiable complaint by suitors.
  "We propose to proceed without loss of time to consider the various suggestions made to the Joint Committee, and to ourselves, for enabling the King's Bench Division to deal satisfactorily with all its work by better arrangements for the conduct of its business and greater economy of time."
  I would call particular attention to this:—
  "But even if any of such suggestions could be immediately adopted, we should not be justified in recommending them without full examination of their probable effect on the important public interests concerned; and pending such examination, arrears would continue to accumulate, which it is essential to the proper administration of justice should be removed.
  "We therefore humbly recommend to Your Majesty that in the meantime an additional judge should be appointed to the King's Bench Division in the manner authorised by the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1910, so that the number of judges be maintained at eighteen until the presentation of our final report."
  Anyone examining the evidence which has been given before the Royal Commission will see that whatever reforms you may introduce, that it is essential that you should get rid of the arrears that have accumulated and are accumulating. Let
  46
  me remind the House of what happened on the last occasion when we discussed this question on 25th October, 1912. In consequence then of arrears and delays, I moved a similar Resolution to that of today. In 1910 the House passed the Statute to which I have made references, and we appointed two additional judges who quickly began with the arrears which had accumulated, and made great inroads upon them. Unfortunately during the next year there was the death of one judge, and the retirement of another who had been ill for several months. The consequence was that there was a great loss of judicial time during that year, with the immediate result that the arrears began to accumulate very quickly. In the end the state of things was such that in October of last year I moved a Resolution, as I have said. I then stated to the House that it was our intention to appoint a Royal Commission, which was subsequently appointed. The House will remember that the hon. Member for Mansfield moved an Amendment that the House should recommend the appointment of two judges instead of one. I do not want to go into the discussion that took place on that particular Friday, but may I shortly remind the House that I was pressed very hard from both sides of the House to accept the Amendment. I did not feel I was justified in doing that in view of the notice on the Paper asking for only one judge, and the fact that doubtless many Members had not come down to the House thinking that there would be no question of two judges. The Government Whips were not put on, and the view that one judge would meet the case was adhered to by the House. I ventured to say that if the Royal Commission in the course of its investigation found that a second judge was necessary, that no doubt the House would take what had happened in October, 1912, into consideration on the discussion of that recommendation. That is the position at the present moment. I content myself, therefore, with reminding the House of what took place then without going into details, as I confess I do not see that any very useful purpose would be served by going into all the details; but, having regard to the evidence placed before the Royal Commission, composed of men of various views, and considering that they have unanimously recommended that an additional judge should be appointed, I submit to the House that we may safely appoint

  47
  another judge, so that arrears may be disposed of, and that the suitors may get the justice to which they are entitled.
  Mr. WATT: I beg to move, as an Amendment, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words "pending the final Report of the Commission and the consideration of all the recommendations of that Report, no steps be taken to increase the numbers of the judges in the High Court of Justice."
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) did not rise to move the Amendment on the Paper in his name, I propose to move that Amendment. I adopt that Amendment because it will give the House an opportunity of discussing in a wide fashion the whole question if it so desires. It is an extraordinary thing that on the subject of the arrears in the King's Bench Division two Commissions have sat in the last four or five years. One Commission reported in 1909, and recommended that various changes should be made in the methods of the King's Bench; but, strange to say, not one of the recommendations of that Commission have been accepted by the Government. As was indicated by the Attorney-General, fresh judges were appointed, and these judges have, to a certain extent, done something to remove what he calls the arrears; but now, owing to illness and retirement, the Attorney-General comes forward with a new Motion, that the number of judges should be increased without at the same time suggesting to the House that any of the recommendations of the Commission of 1909 will be adopted by the Government, and without suggesting to the House the method of dealing with these arrears. I object to the number of judges in the King's Bench Division being increased for several reasons. I object to the increase, firstly, because they are not dealing now with the number of cases they formerly dealt with, and because what they call arrears are in point of fact, the programmes of business before them, and that during the last few years the judges are managing to tackle fewer cases in the King's Bench Division.
  4.0 P.M.
  I object to the increase in the number of judges because they have not only dealt with lesser cases, but they work an extraordinarily few number of hours in the week, and I object from the fact that they are paid out of the Exchequer of the
  48
  country a sufficient sum to warrant the country getting its business done efficiently. As to the number of cases they now dispose of, let me quote from statistics given in the evidence of Lord Lore-burn when he was Lord Chancellor before the Commission which reported in 1909. As the distinguished head of a distinguished body of judges, he strongly objected to the increase in the number of judges from sixteen to eighteen, and said so clearly in his evidence. The words he used were:—
  "I am not able to advise that two judges or any judge should be appointed."
  Notwithstanding that, the Commission did recommend an increase, and of course the Government adopted that recommendation. In his evidence upon that occasion the ex-Lord Chancellor pointed out what I have already stated, that the arrears were due to the fact that the judges of that Division were doing less in the way of tackling cases than they had done a few years before. He pointed out for example that in 1901 the cases dealt with were 1,653; in 1902, 1,775; but that in 1908 the number had fallen to 1,243, so that in point of fact the judges of that Division are at the present moment dealing with only two cases where so lately as eight or nine years ago they dealt with three cases. They are tackling only two-thirds of the business now that they tackled then. Lord Loreburn further pointed out that what are called arrears and what were referred to-day by the Attorney-General as arrears, and which he put forward as a basis for an extra judge, are really the programmes of the Courts. Lord Loreburn says:—
  "What are called arrears really mean the business programme—the work to be done by the Courts."
  Even if we accept the expression "arrears," no great case is made out, because the number of cases in arrears—that is to say, the number of cases on the programmes of the Division—has not largely increased. In 1900 the figures were 768; in 1904, 736; in 1906, 927; in 1907, 997; and in 1913, on which this Commission which is now sitting has made a temporary Report, the arrears are only 918; so throughout these years there has been a steady number of cases called "arrears," but called by Lord Loreburn "programmes." There has been no such increase as to call for the appointment of new judges. Then as to the number of hours, perhaps it will surprise the House to realise that the number of hours the judges of this Division sit is twenty-five in

  49
  the week, and that the number of days which a judge sits in the year is probably about 200. As Lord Loreburn says in his evidence, and indeed as most of us are aware, there are fifty-two weeks in a year. The judges sit for thirty-six weeks and have holidays for sixteen weeks, and during the thirty-six weeks they sit they only sit twenty-five hours per week, so that the judges we have cannot be said to be an overworked body. Not long ago I asked the Attorney-General for a statement of the number of days in the year upon which these judges sat, and I received, on the 28th April, an answer which shows that the greatest number of days on which Mr. Justice Lush sat was 209 during the year. In the column which is specially devoted to absence through illness, unfortunately, it appears there that Mr. Justice Lush was absent sixty-one days from that cause, and that number must come off the 209 days. Another distinguished judge sat for 207 days, and he was absent on account of illness for sixty-six days. Those are the two judges who had the highest totals, and the lowest runs down to 152 days. With a 25 hours' week, and working from 150 to 200 days per annum, I do not think that the present number of judges in this Division is insufficient to tackle the work. As to the salary, I asked the Treasury to indicate to the House the amount of money paid to the judges in this Division, and on the 7th May I was told the amount was £56,510 per annum and that £17,500 was paid in pensions to ex-judges of that Division, so that something like £75,000 is paid to these judges in order to do the legal work of the country. In view of these considerations, I think it is unwise for the House to consent to this Address asking for the appointment of another judge. I oppose this proposal more emphatically because there is a measure now before the House dealing with the appointment of two new Lords of Appeal. In the first three or four hours of the first sitting after the Recess, the Government are asking us to pass measures which will cost the country £17,500 a year for judges, or a capital sum of £400,000, and this is the Government which came in on the ticket of economy. I think the Government would do well either to abandon this suggestion or, at any rate, abandon the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill, which is the more expensive of the two. I know that we shall be overridden in this matter by the Government, who will receive the support of Conservative Members opposite,
  50
  who are always willing that new judges should be appointed. I think the time will come when the Government will regret that method of overriding their own supporters. The Government are adopting the principle of utilising one majority for one type of legislation and another majority for another type of legislation, and I think that is a most unconstitutional method to adopt.
  Mr. MARTIN: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Hon. Members below the Gangway who are opposed to the appointment of this judge are not necessarily opposed to the principle of the appointment of judges if they are actually required. We recognise that there is no more important function of government than the administration of justice, which must be kept up to the mark, and the expense must not be considered if it can be shown that it is necessary to spend money in order that judges should be available to the people of this country. Under those circumstances we should be ready to support the Government in spending money. The reason we are opposing this proposal is because we are opposed to the method which is being adopted for dealing with this question. The Attorney-General has pointed out that merely agreeing to this proposal to appoint an additional judge will not prejudice our case for a reform, but we think it will. We are asked to support this appointment because the Royal Commission has asked for it, and we are told that some time later on, when another judge may be asked for, we can object to the appointment and press for our reform. When will this kind of thing end? This is the only chance we shall get. The Government tell us that we cannot start our reform now because the arrears must be disposed of. On the last occasion this question was before the House the Attorney-General was able to show that in one particular case the judges had done something and an Order in Council was passed by which at Assizes the judge may hear civil as well as criminal cases. I think that is a step in the right direction. What reason have we to suppose that anything is going to be done to meet our views? A Joint Committee was appointed in 1909 and they heard a lot of evidence and made a number of recommendations to the Government, only one of which has been considered.

  51
  We think that now is the time to press upon the Government the great necessity there is for considering these matters which cause delay in the administration of justice. In 1850, when Charles Dickens wrote "Bleak House" and made his celebrated attack on the Court of Chancery which had the effect of reforming that ancient institution, what did he say in a later edition of "Bleak House?" He attended a meeting which was addressed by one of the judges of the Chancery Division, at which it was said that the real reason for these delays and for this denial of justice, was that there was not enough judges in the Chancery Divisions. That was the complaint then, and it has been the complaint ever since. When the Joint Committee sat in 1909, it really was a duel between the late Lord Chancellor (Lord Loreburn), and the Lord Chief Justice. Lord Loreburn took the ground we are taking to-day, and he stated in the most definite terms that there was no necessity whatever for the appointment of these additional judges, and at that time the arrears were very much greater than they are now. In 1910 the arrears were over 1,100 cases. That means cases untried, but really they are not arrears, because every case put down is not a case in arrear. No Court in the world has got a clear list, and there are always a number of cases coming on for trial. Lord Lore-burn said he did not think there was any necessity whatever for appointing two more judges, and I would ask hon. Members to read the evidence given by Lord Loreburn on that occasion, and they will see how he suggests that these arrears, or this failure to keep the work up to date, can be disposed of.
  I intend to go into the different suggestions made by Lord Loreburn to deal with this difficulty. I do not think that the Attorney-General is justified in saying that this is not the occasion to press for a reform. If it is not, when will the occasion arise. The Attorney-General stated that there is a Royal Commission sitting. Probably when it has sat for three or four years, and when they have made their final report, the Government will take the matter up. Of course three or four years will not make much difference in a matter of this kind. I understood that a Royal Commission was to be appointed, not for the purpose of holding up this matter and taking the responsibility off the shoulders of the Govern-
  52
  ment, but for the purpose of further investigating this matter in order that those opposed to the appointment of these judges might have a full investigation of the matter. A large number of Members were opposed to appointing even one judge. There was no excuse or reason for the Government appointing a Royal Commission. The facts were all before them. They had the evidence of Lord Loreburn, and they had the evidence, directly opposed to him, of the Lord Chief Justice, who, when he appeared before the Joint Committee in 1909, practically took the stand that everything was as perfect as it could be and that there was no necessity for any reforms whatever. Lord Loreburn, on the other hand, thought that there was great necessity for reform. While the Lord Chief Justice was supported by two distinguished leaders of the Bar and two judges of the King's Bench Division, Lord Loreburn was supported by the President of the Law Society, who made some most practical suggestions.
  There is one reform, however, which was not brought before the Joint Committee at all, and which seems to me is really one of the most important of all. There should be an age limit for judges in this country. The Lord Chief Justice said, "No. So long as a judge is alive he is capable of performing his judicial duties." He and Mr. Justice Phillimore took the extraordinary ground that the older a judge gets the more competent he becomes. That, no doubt, would be true if it were not for the frailty of human nature, but I have no hesitation in saying that when any man, whether he is a judge or not, gets beyond sixty-five, he is not able to do the same work day after day as he has been prior to that age. An age limit has been adopted in many other countries. Sixty-five is the age limit in the United States, and I am told that it is sixty in India. There is no age limit here at all. An hon. Member asked the Prime Minister a question about the matter, and he said the Government did not intend to take up the question at all; he was satisfied that every judge as soon as he became incapable of doing his ordinary work would resign. I suggest that has not been the case in this country. I do not wish to name anyone or to make any attack. I should be very sorry if any of my remarks were interpreted as an attack upon the judges of this country, for whom I have the greatest respect. We all look up with the highest respect not only to the Bench in this country, but also to

  53
  the Bar which practises before that Bench. The decisions of the judges of England are quoted all over the world, and are regarded as a judicial exposition of the law of a very high plane. My remarks, therefore, are not intended in any way as an attack upon the judges, but as a Member of the House of Commons I consider it my duty to deal with matters which seem to me to require legislation and change. The responsibility of the judges is to carry out the law as it is laid down by Parliament. It is the responsibility of Members of this House, when it is shown there are gross defects in the law, to deal with those gross defects and to call upon the Government to remove them, as far as they can, by administrative action, and, when that is not sufficient, by legislation. No man when he gets old appreciates the fact, and the pecuniary arrangements give the strongest inducement to a judge to hang on as long as he can. A judge is probably appointed when he is about fifty-five or sixty years of age—many of them are over sixty when appointed—and he is not entitled to a pension until he has sat on the bench for at least fifteen years, except in special circumstances. Therefore, in his own interests—probably he is not a rich man—he must stay, if he is appointed at sixty years of age, until he is seventy-five before he can get the benefit of the very proper legislation which gives a judge a pension on retirement. That is a matter which requires the attention of the Government.
  I was very much surprised to find that the appointment of shorthand writers was not at all customary in the Courts of Justice in this country. People in Canada and in the United States of America would never think of attempting to conduct their Courts of Justice on the old system of requiring the judge to take the whole of the evidence down in his own handwriting. Anyone who proposed such a thing would be looked upon as silly. That is another defect in our system. When a man gets old he cannot write with the same freedom as he did when younger, and this causes the greatest delay. I know this because I practised in Canada before they had the system of shorthand reports. The difference between the two systems is simply wonderful, not only in speed, but also in efficiency, especially when you get into the Court of Appeal. When a judge of the Court of Appeal reads the evidence as it is in the shorthand writer's notes when ex-
  54
  tended, he has a picture before him of everything that occurred at the trial, and not simply the statement that a man made condensed into a sentence by the judge. He has the actual words with the hesitation of the witness. This is a matter which would not require legislation. It would only be the question of spending a little more money in providing shorthand writers.
  The only objection I have heard is that there would not be enough shorthand writers, but that is absurd. If you were willing to pay a reasonable salary, as, of course, you would have to do, it would not be long, if there are not enough shorthand writers at present, before there were enough. They have no difficulty in Canada or in the United States, where they pay a very large salary, especially in the United States, in getting shorthand writers, and the money is well spent. Mr. Winterbotham, the president of the Law Society, in his evidence referred to the present circuit system as antiquated and wasteful. I am sure he is entirely right. One of my hon. Friends on the occasion of the last discussion gave an extract from Lord Russell's diary when he was on circuit in Wales. The Government have been in power for eight years, and have never attempted to deal with this question, and the Attorney-General was frank enough to say that they dare not tackle it because the towns where the Assizes are held would not give them up. What do they want them for? So that the judges and the barristers and the officials and witnesses may spend a few shillings over the bars of the hotels and for their night's lodging.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Does the hon. Member suggest that I said that?
  Mr. MARTIN: Yes.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That I said they would not give them up because people went there and spent a few shillings over the bars of the hotels?
  Mr. MARTIN: The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion was that the Government found it impossible to deal with the matter, because the moment they proposed to do so the towns where the Assizes were held—Reading, for instance—were up in arms because they would not have this source of income and because Members would get up in this House and protest vigorously. What other reason is there? It is not for the administration of

  55
  justice, because Mr. Winterbotham says that when a judge goes to a place and finds there is nothing to do his time is wasted. He has to stay there one day and then travel to some other town. Mr. Winterbotham suggests that a number of these small places, which were perhaps entitled to Assizes one hundred years ago but which would not need them now, should be grouped together. The solicitors are in favour of it—
  Mr. J. W. HILLS: No, they are not.
  Mr. MARTIN: I do not know whether Durham is an Assize town or not, and whether they want to have a few shillings spent there, but it seems ridiculous if that is the only reason the Government can give, and it is the only reason why these Assizes are held in these small places. They ought to have been done away with years ago. Mr. Winterbotham suggests that there should be more criminal trials at Quarter Sessions and more cases taken at the County Courts. That is a very simple and plain suggestion. It does not need a Royal Commission to inquire into it further. A judge of the High Courts goes to Reading or to Durham or to any of these other small places to hold a Court and to try two or three petty criminals who would be just as well tried at Quarter Sessions. I am quite sure the Attorney-General would not take the stand of the Lord Chief Justice, and say that no reform is required. Surely all these things can be done without a Royal Commission. Take next the question of the County Courts. When the Prime Minister introduced the Supreme Court of Judicature Bill, 1910, he stated that nearly all the recommendations of the Joint Committee did not require legislation, but could be remedied by administrative action. He went rather far in that statement. It is true many of the recommendations could be given effect to not by the Government alone but by the Government and the judges combined, but it is equally plain that so long as the present Lord Chief Justice is at the head of the judges they will not agree with the Government in making any of these changes. If we are to have any reforms at all, we shall require legislation especially for the purpose of any extension of County Court jurisdiction. I give the Government every credit for good intentions. When Lord Loreburn was Lord Chancellor he did introduce into the House of Lords an admir-
  56
  able County Courts Bill which passed that House, and which largely extended the jurisdiction of the County Courts by transferring cases for considerable amounts from the King's Bench Division to the County Court. But what happened to the Bill when it came into this House? Many notices of opposition were given to it. We know the practice is not to print more than six such notices, but we are well aware that there were very many more objections to this Bill, and these objections to a beneficial measure came from the lawyers in this House. [An HON. MEMBER: "I thought you were one."] I am not a lawyer in this country. I have not been able to get into the trades union here. I have spent a great part of my life in the law, and at the same time have been a politician, and I can say from personal experience that no great legal reform has ever been carried in Canada without the most active opposition on the part of the lawyers of that Dominion. I believe the same thing holds good in this country.
  The fact is the County Courts Bill was very strenuously objected to by the lawyers, most of whom sat on the other side of the House. When we on this side objected to the appointment of an additional judge the Government promptly dealt with us, and, in order to do so, used the majority they possessed, largely reinforced by the votes of hon. Members opposite, in order to enforce against our wishes and against our protests the proposal for appointing additional judges. Why did they not mete out similar treatment to the lawyers who opposed the County Courts Bill? That was a small measure which no lawyer could reasonably have opposed in this House, but the Government, in the face of their notices of opposition, kept quiet.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Twice I offered in this House to eliminate from that Bill those elements which were looked upon as controversial, in order to pass the rest of the Bill, which was undoubtedly very much needed. Of course, I wanted the whole Bill, but time did not allow us to pass it, and, consequently, I had to do what is very often done, I had to try and make terms, and so I offered to eliminate the controversial elements. Unfortunately I was not successful. But I am still ready to reintroduce the Bill without these controversial portions.
  Mr. MARTIN: I am not making any attack upon the right hon. Gentleman.

  57
  What I wish to point out is that, while the Government compelled us by the use of the brute force of their majority, a majority consisting almost entirely of Tory Members, they did not take the same course in regard to the lawyers opposite who were opposing the County Courts Bill. The Attorney-General tells us that he offered to eliminate the most controversial matters. I say he had no right to do anything of the kind. The County Courts Bill might have been controversial from the lawyers' standpoint, but it was not so from the point of view of the country generally. Therefore, why did not the Government use their majority to force the lawyers to accept the Bill. If they had done so, the Attorney-General would not have found it necessary to be here today asking the House to appoint another judge for the King's Bench. No doubt some County Court judges are better than others, but I understand that, generally speaking, the County Court Bench stands very high indeed, and that solicitors, at any rate, are quite prepared, no matter how large the amount involved or how important the point raised, to have their cases tried in the County Court.
  I come next to the third suggestion, a most important one, that there should be a shortening of the Long Vacation, and more regular Saturday sittings from 10 to 2. With regard to the Long Vacation, it is a disgrace to the administration of justice in this country that, on the 31st July, there should be, as there was last July, 918 cases waiting to be tried, and that the workshop in which these cases were to be dealt with should be closed for two and a half months. It would be perfectly reasonable to cut two or three weeks off the Long Vacation. If you have sixteen judges and lessen their vacation by ten or twelve days each, you get the equivalent of a year's work of one judge. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the Government would be justified, on the ground of economy alone, if, instead of asking this House to appoint another judge at a cost to the country of £5,000 a year, it was to shorten by two weeks the holidays of the existing judiciary, and thus practically give another judge. Why should a judge have 153 days' holiday in a year? Is there any other class in the community which has such a holiday? I should like to make it quite clear that I do not think it is the fault of the judges these things occur. It is the fault of the Bar. They want the holidays just as much as
  58
  the judges. Whether it be for the good of the country, or otherwise, the legal profession have a tremendous pull in this House. The laws are, to a large extent, made by them. Why is it the House does not sit until three in the afternoon? It is in order that the legal Members may attend to their practices in the Courts. How is it that the hon. Member for White-chapel (Sir Stuart Samuel) had to fight a by-election the other day because his firm had done important work for the Government in looking after the silver question, while lawyers in this House can take thousands of pounds of work from the Government every year without anything being said about it? It is because the lawyers practically control the House. No one would suggest that the hon. Member who sits for Whitechapel was affected in his votes by the silver transactions of his firm.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is getting very far from the question now before the House.
  Mr. MARTIN: I am very sorry, but in the course of my study of this question, I have been thoroughly impressed with the fact that it is the privileges of the Bar that really stand in the way of the reforms for which I am asking. I want to see carried out the reforms asked for by Mr. Winterbotham. We find that these lawyers have got the finest trade union in the world. I do not wish to violate the ruling of the Chair, but I would like to say that I have spent thirty years in the practice of the law, and surely I ought to know as much as a young boy coming direct from a university; yet I cannot practice the law here unless I am willing to spend three years and pass a whole lot of examinations. I cannot understand why the Labour party in this House do not more strongly endeavour to get for their own unions power to do away with competition such as the lawyers possess in their trade union. This is a very serious matter, and I want it to be realised that the responsibility for the trouble rests not with the judges but with the Bar and its privileges. Then there is the suggestion that the judges should sit on Saturdays. When the Prime Minister introduced the Supreme Court of Judicature Bill in 1910 he gave a very definite promise that the Government would interfere to ensure that the judges did sit on Saturdays.
  Sir A. B. MARKHAM: He gave no such promise.
  MARTIN: I heard what he said.
  Sir ARTHUR MARKHAM: He said they would sit a couple of hours longer during the week in order to make up for a short sitting on Saturdays.
  Mr. MARTIN: It amounts to the same thing. They were either to sit on Saturday, or to have longer sittings on other days.
  Sir CHARLES HENRY: If they did not sit on Saturday they were to sit longer on other days, and that is what is occurring.
  Mr. MARTIN: I doubt it very much. Not long ago I asked the Prime Minister for a return showing the number of Saturday sittings. No doubt some of the judges have sat on a considerable number of Saturdays, but many of them sat for a very short time indeed. The fact is, instead of the hours of judges lengthening they are getting very much shorter. I think it was Lord Haldane who, when a Member of this House, stated that when he commenced practising, the Courts used to sit from ten till four. Now the time is generally eleven to four. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Then is it the case that the judges are less punctual? That is a matter which can be put right, probably without any legislation. The fourth suggestion made by Mr. Winterbotham was that there should be some assistance given by the Chancery Judges. The Chancery Judges have their cause lists practically up to date, and there is no complaint in regard to that Division. I believe it happens quite frequently that a Chancery Judge concludes his daily work long before the hour for closing the Courts. Mr. Winterbotham and other witnesses suggested—I think Lord Haldane also made the suggestion—that there might be considerable assistance given by the Chancery Judges. It was pointed out to the Committee that they could give considerable assistance in connection with the Divisional Court. The Divisional Court has appeals from the County Courts, applications for new trials, and a number of matters of that kind with which to deal. It was suggested that the Chancery Judges might be called upon to give a good deal of assistance, and thus free some of the King's Bench Division Judges to deal with those cases.
  The fifth suggestion made by the president of the Law Society was that the arrangements for carrying on the business of the Courts at the present time were
  60
  very bad indeed—that suitors, solicitors and counsel were very much put about by expecting cases to come on at a particular time, and then finding they did not come on. His suggestion was that the shifting of judges should be avoided, and that a judge should have his list, say, a non-jury list or special jury list, or common jury list continuously month after month, so that he could keep control of it and be able to so arrange matters that a great deal of the time which is now wasted should not be lost. There was another suggestion that from time to time retired judges might be called upon. All these things were discussed at length in 1909—four years ago. The Joint Committee, while they overruled the suggestion of the Lord Chancellor that it was not necessary to appoint any additional judges, made it very plain indeed that while they recommended the appointment of two additional judges, it was to be a purely temporary measure. When the Government accepted the recommendation of the Joint Committee to appoint two additional judges, they impliedly agreed that they would act upon the further suggestion that as soon as the arrears had been disposed of the question of reforms would be gone into by them. My charge against the Government is that they have entirely failed to carry out that pledge in any way, shape or manner, except in regard to the one little matter to which the Attorney-General referred, and for which I give him credit. With regard to the present Royal Commission, when that Commission was promised the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division (Sir A. Markham) asked the Government in appointing the members of it not to put many lawyers upon it. I supported the hon. Member in that suggestion, and, in fact, I went further, stating that I would be glad to see a Commission dealing with matters of this kind with no lawyers upon it at all.
  Mr. WATT: And no lawyer witnesses.
  Mr. MARTIN: It is a remarkable thing that so far as the Commission have gone they have called none but lawyers as witnesses. Every witness has been either a lawyer or an officer of the Court. I suppose that is not to be taken as a precedent, and that before the Commission gets through their labours other persons will be called.
  Mr. WATT: Question!
  Mr. MARTIN: This Commission has a large number of lawyers upon it. I have

  61
  not a word to say against any individual member of the Commission. I have no doubt they are all very estimable men. Some five of them are Members of this House and every one of them stands well in the House. No doubt they will give their very best attention to the matters brought before them. My complaint against the Commission is that you cannot expect, especially with the strong pull of the legal profession, to get reforms reported upon by a Royal Commission unless you have upon that Commission a number of really strong law reformers—men who understand the question, men who have made a reputation—there are men of that kind—and who have gone into these matters. I have no doubt in the world that such men as the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. G. H. Roberts) and the hon. Member for the Wellington Division of Shropshire (Sir Charles Henry) and other Members of this House would be most valuable allies, but I do not suppose that any of those Gentlemen would put themselves forward as law reformers. No doubt they are prepared to look into the question from the business standpoint and from the general standpoint, but they can be easily blinded by the lawyers, who really do understand the question, but who do not use their understanding of it for the purpose of suggesting reforms. They take the stand the Lord Chief Justice took when he declared that no law reforms were needed at all. There are a couple of Members of the House of Lords upon the Commission. I have nothing to say against either of them, although personally I do not look forward hopefully to any serious reforms coming from the House of Lords. The next member of the Commission is Sir Charles Darling, one of the judges of the High Court. I object very much to the inclusion of Mr. Justice Darling in that Commission.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think it is open to the hon. Member to go through all the names of the members of the Commission and to pick holes in them here and there. This is not the time for doing that. He can do that when we reach the Vote for Temporary Commissions.
  Mr. MARTIN: The Attorney-General has made the suggestion that we should swallow this proposal to appoint an additional judge, and that we should wait until this Commission has reported before we concern ourselves further with this matter. Surely I can object to that step, and I do
  62
  object to it. I think the Government have adopted the wrong system of dealing with this matter. All the facts were before them, and they should have taken the responsibility upon themselves of dealing with the matter, without referring it to any Commission. I make the charge against the Government that they have referred this matter to a Commission, and that they have appointed the kind of Commission which is not likely to report in favour of any reforms whatever. From that standpoint, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that I have a right to consider what gentlemen have been appointed upon this Commission.
  Mr. SPEAKER: To the first proposition the hon. Member has laid down I assent altogether, namely, that he is entitled to ask the House not to accept the findings of the Commission; but solemnly to go through the names of the members of the Commission, and to canvass the merits or demerits of each is quite beside the mark upon this occasion.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is it not within the power of the hon. Member to contend that this Commission was a white-washing Commission, and to show that by the names of the people who sit upon it?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The proper time to do that is when the appointment of the Commission comes under review. It is not under review now; it will come up for review upon the Vote for Temporary Commissions.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I submit that the Motion before the House at the present time is to consider the recommendation of this Commission, namely:—
  "We therefore humbly recommend to Your Majesty that in the meantime an additional judge should be appointed to the King's Bench Division in the manner authorised by the Supreme Court of Judicature Act,"
  and that since we are discussing the recommendation of this Commission we are entitled to consider the names of the people who form that Commission.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see that that follows at all. As I have said, the hon. Member was quite entitled to ask the House not to accept the recommendations of the Commission, but that to solemnly go through all the names of the members of the Commission and to find a petty fault here and another petty fault there, is quite out of keeping with what is the

  63
  proper conduct of business upon this occasion. The hon. Member will have an opportunity later in the Session, if he desires to avail himself of it, of criticising the Government for having appointed certain members of that Commission. He is now entitled to ask the House not to accept their recommendations.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is that not rather a question of propriety than a question of Order? Is it outside the Rules of Order of this House to discuss upon this occasion whether that Commission is a properly constituted Commission to whose recommendations this House can agree?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, it is irrelevant to the Motion to appoint another judge; it is very far remote from it and irrelevant.
  Mr. WATT: Is my hon. Friend entitled to take the name of one of the members of the Commission and to object to his presence, without going through the whole category of them.
  Mr. SPEAKER: He has named several already. He need not go over them again.
  Mr. MARTIN: This is the first one to which I have objected—Mr. Justice Darling.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I beg the hon. Member's pardon; he referred to two Noble Lords, and said he would not take anything from them. I must ask the hon. Gentleman—he has been speaking for nearly an hour—to address himself more closely to the subject now under consideration.
  Mr. MARTIN: I do not very often address the House, and I am very sorry I have taken up so much time. This is a very important question. I think you misunderstood me, Sir. I have not suggested that we should not adopt the Report of this Commission, far from it. If the Report of the Commission is a good report, I shall be very glad myself to accept it. What I have suggested is that I am endeavouring to attack the Government. I say that the Government have not done their duty; I say that they should have dealt with this matter themselves instead of shelving it, as they have done, by referring it to this Commission. When you stopped me, I was going into the question of the different members of this Commission, not for the purpose of attacking the members particularly, but for the purpose of showing their entire lack of qualifica-
  64
  tion to deal with the important questions which the Government have shelved by handing them over to this Commission. With regard to the judge, I have nothing against him—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I must again ask the hon. Member to apply himself to the Motion now before the House. He will have an opportunity upon a future occasion, if he desires to avail himself of it, of criticising the composition of the Commission and criticising the Government for having appointed it. That will find its proper place upon a future occasion in Committee of Supply. At the present moment the question the House is asked to consider is whether it will adopt the interim Report of the Commission and appoint an additional judge.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. MARTIN: I suggest very strongly to the House that they should not adopt the suggestion of the Attorney-General to appoint another judge. The only reason he has given for making that suggestion in his very short speech was the unanimous Report of this Commission that it should be done. I say it should not be done. I say that we are not in this House to be guided in our actions by what a Commission sitting outside the House may think fit to suggest, unless we are in agreement with that suggestion ourselves. My hon. Friend (Mr. Watt) went into the question of these arrears, which are such a bogey in this matter. They are not arrears at all; they are cases to be tried; and Mr. Winterbotham, who is no doubt a most capable president of the Law Society, in his evidence before the Joint Committee, pointed out that of the list which there is before the Court at any particular time, not more than 65 per cent. ever come on for trial at all. The reason is this. A great many lawsuits which are before the Courts are practically bogus lawsuits, the parties knowing perfectly well they have no case. They are put through the Court, the pleadings are closed, and then they are put upon the list, and they stay upon the list as long as they can, being a great worry no doubt to the defendant, and as soon as they are reached they disappear. The moment you can get to the point of having the clerk of the Court call out the name of the case, Jones v Brown, there is an end of Jones v, Brown, because there is no case and it disappears, so that we have, in considering whether we ought to appoint another judge, to take off at any

  65
  rate one-third from the list of arrears. The list, as it was on the first of the Michaelmas Term, 1912, was 966—not 966 cases in arrear, but 966 cases which were to be tried. That only makes about fifty cases to each judge. That does not seem to be a terrible thing for a judge to tackle, and we must remember that we have to take off a third of these, so that, instead of being 966, according to Mr. Winterbotham's evidence, only 600 are real live cases which require the Court's intervention. That reduces it to about forty cases to each judge. In addition to that, Mr. Winterbotham told the Committee that solicitors put down cases at any rate three months before they expect them to be tried, that the normal list before any of the Courts would at any rate go back at least three months, and that no solicitor expects to get a case. I can quite corroborate that from my own experience, because the circumstances are practically the same here as in Canada in matters of this kind. You cannot expect to bring a case of any importance for trial and get your evidence ready in less than three months from the time it is put upon the list.
  These arrears, especially if you take off the third which are bogus cases, do not extend over about five months' work, so that the Government are asking us to go to the expense of appointing an additional judge at a salary of £5,000. I do not object to the salary. If you are going to have a judge at all, it is poor economy not to pay him a good salary so that you can get good men. That is one great mistake we made in the Colonies. We pay judges altogether too little. I do not object at all to the amount which a judge gets, but I object to the Government coming forward and making no case whatever, so far as I can understand it, in opposition to the deliberate opinion of one of the greatest lawyers of the country, who was till a few months ago a Member of the Government (Lord Loreburn), who under circumstances which were worse than they are to-day—there were over 200 more cases in arrear than there are now—said deliberately that there should not be any additional judge. We want to have these reforms. The Attorney-General says the reforms are not stopped. We can bring them up again when he comes to ask for another judge, and then he will make us the same answer. I do not think any case has been made out for this Motion. The right hon. Gentleman only
  66
  spoke for a few moments, and the only reason he could give was that this Commission had recommended it. That is not a sufficient reason. Hon. Members opposite find a good deal of fault with the Government from time to time for their failure to carry out their pledges of economy which they made when in Opposition. I should like to know what position right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench would take up if they were sitting on the Opposition Front Bench and the Tory Government were proposing to incur an expenditure of £5,000 a year, especially when we remember that £12,000 more are coming later on. I know perfectly well they would consider it a gross waste of public money. Because I happen to be a Liberal and a supporter of the Government of the day, that does not prevent me saying most emphatically that, in my opinion, this suggestion to appoint another judge is a gross waste of the public money.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I must first apologise for rising when I did, but I presume I had risen so many times to oppose the appointment of judges that you naturally assumed I was opposed also to the appointment of this judge. For years past I have done my humble best to get reforms in the judicature system of this country. I have made long speeches. I know every quotation which my hon. Friends have read to the House, and I have given them myself time after time, and on many occasions you have called me to order for doing so, because the only step a private Member can take in a case of this kind is obstruction. I want to tell the House why I am in favour of the appointment of this additional judge. There have been two reforms in the judicature system of this country, one already made and another one promised, and as a humble Member I claim the credit for both. In the first place, the declaration made by the Prime Minister in 1910 was the result of a compromise in which the Prime Minister undertook to say, on behalf of the House of Commons, that in his opinion the judges ought to sit an equivalent number of hours if they do not sit on Saturdays. The judges have loyally carried that out. I understand from one of His Majesty's judges that it is a fact that the judges in the main have respected the statement made by the Prime Minister on behalf of the House of Commons, and that they have sat these additional hours, whereas before the

  67
  House was asked, in 1910, to appoint these additional judges, the judges had not been sitting on Saturdays or an equivalent number of hours. In October of last year we were again threatened with one of these useless discussions, and we were going to get no more forward. I became tired of seeing this question raised repeatedly, and I do not think it is in the interests of the dignity of the House of Commons that we should have reflections constantly made on His Majesty's judges here when these Motions are made, and therefore I went to the Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor and said, "Surely it is time something should be done to put a stop to these discussions which are taking place. All we want is reform." I am as earnestly in favour of reform as my hon. Friend. The Attorney-General said he would give the most careful consideration to the question whether a Royal Commission should be appointed. He subsequently appointed a Commission, not, as my hon. Friend suggests, merely to shelve the question, but he appointed it on the representations of several of my hon. Friends and myself, who urged this course on him. Then I asked the Attorney-General that there should be a reasonable number of business men on the Commission and that there should not be a majority of lawyers. The Attorney-General found very great difficulty in forming this Royal Commission, but it has been appointed, and on the whole it has a very fair composition.
  Mr. WATT: It is not fair.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: It is true that no Member who had taken any active part in opposition to the appointment of the judges was appointed, except the hon. Member (Mr. H. J. Craig), but it is not quite true to say the Government took this course, because I think the Attorney-General would have taken the names of one or two other people if they had been willing to serve. It is not quite true to say that those who have been in opposition to the appointment of additional judges were excluded from the Commission. But the Attorney-General then gave his word of honour on behalf of the Government—and I accept the word of the Attorney-General before that of any man in this country that he will carry out and do what he said—that as soon as this Commission reported, which would be at the earliest date possible, the Government would forthwith introduce legislation to deal
  68
  with this question and to carry out these reforms. What is the good, therefore, of my hon. Friend reading out all these reports and going over all the same ground?
  Mr. WATT: We are imitating you.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: That is all very well, but we have accomplished something. We have the pledge of the Attorney-General—a pledge which is perfectly satisfactory. It is no use the hon. Member telling us what they do in Canada. That does not get us any more forward in dealing with these arrears. He is at liberty to go before the Commission and deal there with any grievances he has against the Bar.
  Mr. MARTIN: I have no grievance whatever.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: We are here for the purpose of enacting legislation. I would point out that under our present judicature system we deny the obtaining of justice to hundreds of His Majesty's subjects. What are the facts? I had a case taken in the Chancery Court a few weeks ago, and it came on for hearing in fourteen days. What is the position in the High Court? I was concerned in a case in that Court which could not be heard for seven months. It was put down in July last, and it came on for hearing at the very end of February. After all, that is surely an undue delay, and we ought to endeavour to shorten the time within which cases can be heard. I hope the Commission will see their way to recommend something in relation to that matter. The point is that under the present judiciary system many subjects are denied the speedy justice which ought to be given in every Court in this country. We have a pledge from the Attorney-General on behalf of the Government that this matter will be dealt with. As the Attorney-General has given that pledge to the House, I am not going to believe that the reforms will not be carried out. I do not say that we will get all we are asking for, because the reference to the Royal Commission is drawn so very close that the scope of the inquiry may not allow the Commission to recommend all that we would like. The Attorney-General has stated to-day that if this additional judge is not appointed, the arrears must still continue. Why are we only appointing one judge? That is what I wish to know.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: We could not appoint another judge under the Act, and it is necessary that one judge should be appointed.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: It is not a question of appointing one judge. If any judge falls out, as in the case of the Lord Chief Justice, whose unfortunate illness has led to the bench being understaffed, or if a judge retires, are His Majesty's subjects to be debarred from having justice because these gentlemen are not on duty? Many of them are of advanced years. What I wish is that the Attorney-General should have come down and told the House how many temporary judges ought to be appointed in order to get rid of arrears altogether. It is a perfect scandal that this congestion should go on, irrespective of the merits of the reforms which we are all anxious to see accomplished. After all, the House has to look at this question from the practical side. I submit that after we have the Report of the Royal Commission, legislation will follow, not this Session perhaps, but certainly early next year. When in 1910 the Judicature Act was brought in, there was no provision to make the appointment temporary. We got that safeguard put into the Act. There is no reason why the House shoud not accept the Motion for the appointment of an additional judge. When we have disposed of this subject, we are going to embark on the discussion of the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill, which I shall oppose in every legitimate manner at every stage.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: As a humble Member of the Royal Commission which has been somewhat roughly dealt with by the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment, may I be allowed to say a word in support of the Motion proposed by the Attorney-General? We thought it our duty to make an interim Report some time ago, and I quite concur with the Attorney-General that it contains simply an interim recommendation, and leaves the House absolutely free to make whatever comments it pleases. It is a Report of an interim character simply to meet the pressing needs of the present moment. The Lord Chief Justice gave evidence, and I am rather afraid that was not conducive to his health in his present state. On that occasion the question was put to him:—
  "Do I gather that it is your opinion that an addition to the Bench is absolutely necessary?"
  He replied:—
  "Absolutely necessary; but I should try at first one more judge."
  70
  Then he was asked:—
  "Supposing we come to a decision that that was necessary fairly early in our proceedings, would it be of assistance to you if we made an interim Report to that effect?"
  He replied:—
  "Of the greatest assistance."
  That is the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice, and I may tell the House that every witness examined was of the same opinion.
  Mr. WATT: The witnesses examined were all lawyers.
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: No, I beg your pardon. We have examined a good many witnesses who are not lawyers. It is possible that the evidence of the gentlemen who are not lawyers is not contained in this book, as their evidence may have been given subsequently. Therefore the hon. Member may not have seen their evidence. We certainly examined a great many witnesses who were not lawyers.
  Mr. WATT: Not before the issue of the interim Report.
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: That is what I said. The position was this: At Michaelmas, 1910, the number of cases standing for hearing was 1,120. In October of that year two extra judges were appointed. These two extra judges sat for four and a half sittings, and the effect was that by the Hilary sittings of 1912 the number of cases was reduced to 599. In November of that year Mr. Justice Grantham died and Mr. Justice Lawrence retired. Therefore there were two vacancies. The Lord Chief Justice, in his evidence, told us that the reduction was going on slowly with one additional judge. In his evidence he said:—
  "That was so satisfactory that when Mr. Justice Grantham died I told Lord Loreburn that I did not think we wanted the eighteenth judge, and I was willing to try to continue with the seventeen—that is, one extra. I was wrong, but still I thought so at the time."
  The result of that mistake was this: The number of cases increased again from 599 at the Hilary sittings of 1912 to 918 at the beginning of the Hilary sittings this year, and they have been accumulating since owing to the unfortunate illness of the Lord Chief Justice. The state of arrears in the Courts shows that additional judges were necessary at that time to keep down arrears. The hon. Member for the Mansfield Division (Sir A. Markham) said he was an advocate of appointing more than one judge. Perhaps, individually

  71
  I should be of the same opinion, but speaking as one of the Royal Commission I feel that I must not in any way anticipate the report. We have not quite finished our work, but we have very nearly finished, and I sincerely trust that before this House rises in July or August the Government may be in possession of our report. I do not think that it would be proper and fair to my colleagues to in any way anticipate the recommendations we may make. There are various points to be dealt with, and I think to-day we should confine ourselves to the subject before the House, namely, the appointment of an additional judge. I wish to draw the attention of the House to the evidence of three of the witnesses.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Is it competent for the hon. Member to quote from a document which is not available to the House?
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: The hon. Member can get a copy of the report at the Vote Office. I am reading from a report which was issued to every Member of the House about six weeks ago. I was going to draw the attention of the House to the evidence of three gentlemen who represent different classes of the law. The first is Master Lawford, who has the arrangement of the business of the King's Bench Division. He said:
  "In my opinion it is absolutely necessary.…to have ten King's Bench judges in town continuously.
  That would enable us to have two judges sitting for special jury actions, two for common jury actions, one for non-jury actions, and one for the commercial list, and either three judges in the Divisional Court taking the Crown paper, or two judges taking the civil paper if the third judge was not required at the Old Bailey."
  He was asked:—
  "What would that involve? Do you mean if there were eighteen judges that could be carried out?"
  He replied:—
  "If we had eighteen judges, provided that no judges were absent from illness or any other cause, that scheme could be carried out."
  That is the reason why I said just now that individually I am of opinion that at least eighteen judges, if not more, were wanted. If you do not get eighteen, and if there is any illness, or if absence arises from any other cause, this scheme cannot be carried out. The next witness was Sir Walter Phillimore, who was appointed as the representative of the Committee of Judges. His evidence is given on page 71. He said:—
  "The Lord Chief Justice says that he could work with eighteen, and on the whole I and the rest of the
  72
  Committee agree. You could keep down the arrears with eighteen, but you would still have the same inconvenience of broken periods through judges being away on Circuit, or at the Central Criminal Court or elsewhere. In order to work on a uniform smooth system one of our colleagues says twenty, and another says nineteen, but these without a margin for illness or anything of that kind. Two of the Committee have proposed plans upon this basis."
  Therefore, you have the opinion of the King's Bench judges that eighteen is an actual minimum. I may mention now the evidence of another witness, Mr. Harrison, who was appointed to represent the Bar and he tells the same story that eighteen judges are required. At Question 1338 he is asked:—
  "Do you mean two in addition to the number already appointed?—No, Mr. Justice Bailhache is one, and I submit that at least one more is essentially necessary. Personally, I should like to have an additional judge also, that is to say, I think that two more judges now would be very desirable, but I think that even with an additional Judge, which I conceive there is no doubt ought to be appointed, you still have judges sitting on Circuit such long hours as I consider undue and improper for the administration of justice"
  As a member of that Commission sitting and hearing the evidence of eight or nine judges of the High Court, personally I have been deeply interested in the character of those men. You have not got any public servants of greater integrity or with a greater desire to do their duty than the judges of the English bench. They are willing to do their duty and to assist in every way they can in removing any complaint of arrears which exists, but do not press the willing horse too much. Do not overwork your bench to such an extent that you will wear the good machine too quickly, and get an inferior kind of justice. I urge the House, whether to-day or on a future occasion when there may be another Motion put forward, always to consider this question of not pressing the judges too much. Rather, as one hon. Member pointed out before, overdo your judge power than under do it. Then you will have a proper result. I think I may mention without impropriety one other point which is very nearly connected with the appointment of judges, and which was alluded to by the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment. I mean the salary paid. In my opinion £5,000 a year, which is paid to judges now, and which was settled in 1830, is not equivalent to what it was then, owing to the difference in cost of living, style of living, and other things, and I believe that we should be well advised to make the salary even higher than it is. Sir Walter Phillimore in his evidence touched on this point, and excused himself for doing so, because he said that he was very near the age at which

  73
  he should terminate his judicial career, and therefore it could not be said against him that he was advocating an increase of salary for himself. He said:—
  "I am getting to the end of my judicial career, and therefore I think that I may—"
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean): The hon. Member is going now beyond the scope of the Motion before the House, which is the appointment of an additional judge. No question of salary arises on that Motion.
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: I think you were not in the House when the hon. Member did allude to this subject about the salary, and I am trying to reply to what he said in seconding the Amendment. It amounts to this, that, speaking for the English Bench, £5,000 a year is not now really an adequate salary. I trust the House will agree unanimously with this proposition. I believe that if the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment had heard the evidence which we have heard they would not have made the speeches which they have made this afternoon. The evidence has convinced us that to meet present requirements the addition of one judge to the Bench is absolutely necessary, and while we recommend that we leave it open to the House to judge for itself whether it wishes to keep the present number of judges at eighteen or to increase that number.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: It is quite true that I am one of the less qualified Members of this Royal Commission. I certainly possess the quality of not having had a legal training, but I am very familiar with the case which has been made by the hon. Members who have, respectively, moved and seconded the Amendment. When I went on the Commission I had a very strong feeling in favour of their case, and I will not say that my feelings in that particular are yet materially altered. But when a Member of this House accepts an invitation to sit on a Royal Commission the presumption is that he is willing to view dispassionately the evidence which is placed before him, and while I am not convinced even now that any permanent addition to the number of judges is necessary, on the other hand, I am positively convinced that the present state of business in the King's Bench Division renders desirable the additional appointment which is now being asked. It is not denied that there are considerable arrears in the King's Bench Division. It is quite true that you cannot merely quote the
  74
  figures and say that this is the programme of business. There must always be some number of causes in the list, but when that number exceeds the amount of work that can be performed within a reasonable period, then the excess of that number must constitute arrears in the Court. Therefore it is true to say that considerable arrears do now exist, and that much congestion and inconvenience ensue there-from. The Royal Commission has not yet completed its labour. All the points which have been the subject of speeches here this afternoon will be reviewed exhaustively. But we are quite entitled to ask that we shall not be forced unduly to come to a decision until we have been able to work out the effect of the various recommendations which may be made to us. It is a very easy proposition to say, "Let us knock off all the weeks of the Long Vacation, and thereby, in cumulative effect, we shall get the result of two additional judges." But it is not sufficient to put this forward as an abstract proposition. We have got to be able to work out and to ascertain what may be its real enduring effect upon our judicial system. I am not going to say that I am not altering my view with respect to the holidays of the judges. I have very strong opinions thereon myself, but I think that the recommendation which is before the House this afternoon renders lengthy consideration of those matters totally irrelevant.
  The Lord Chief Justice stated in the course of his evidence:—
  "Take County Court appeals, where small sums of money are involved, no witnesses are required, and the papers already have been in the office of the King's Bench Division nine months without being able to be heard. There is quite a number of actions for trial. Those cases ought to be heard within about six weeks after they are set down."
  Later on he states:—
  "County Court appeals are always six months in arrears."
  In face of a fact of that character, we feel that the position is one which cannot be tolerated. Every person who enters a Court has a right to expect that the cause will be dealt with within a reasonable period, and in my humble opinion six months is altogether an unreasonable period for cases of that character. My hon. Friends say, "Make them work." I quite agree that they ought to work, but I am not convinced that they do not work. I have traversed the case of my hon. Friends many a time before I went on the Royal Commission. They have urged nothing new this afternoon. As a member of the Royal

  75
  Commission, any suggestion that they can make to us shall receive appropriate consideration. Even if they are able to submit to us that a class of witness differing from those who have already been heard can be of value to us, then, as far as I am concerned, I am prepared to use my influence to see that those witnesses are properly heard. But I can assure my hon. Friends that from the Noble Chairman down we are concerned to deal as fairly as we can with the great problem which has been referred to us. It is quite competent for hon. Members to allege that one is such a weak-minded person that he can be easily fooled, but one has no right to imply that one is such a knave that he would intentionally mislead the House as to the convictions at which he had arrived as a result of the evidence. I know that there are various reforms which can be adopted. When these reforms are submitted to the House it will be ascertained whether the cumulative effect of those reforms renders it unnecessary largely to increase the number of judges. On the other hand, if I am convinced as a result of this inquiry that an addition to the King's Bench Division is necessary, at any rate, I shall have as much courage as my hon. Friend has, and come out and support the recommendation made by my colleagues and myself. I do not think it is necessary to speak at length on this point. I want simply to make this point, that the whole case submitted on the Motion here to-day is in no way affected by the adoption of the Motion. That is to say, what the Royal Commission recommend is not that there shall be a permanent addition to the number, but that there shall be a single additional appointment in order to relieve the present congestion. If a vacancy occurs, either by death or retirement, that vacancy cannot be automatically filled up, as I understand, and it can only be filled up subsequent to an Address being voted by this House. Therefore we always have the security that this question must come before the House, and my hon. Friends will have the privilege of renewing their opposition if they feel so inclined. But I think we are entitled to ask that they should allow the Royal Commission reasonable time. I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Samuel Roberts) is perfectly correct in saying that we are extremely anxious to avoid undue and protracted consideration of this matter. I
  76
  believe that another month or two will see the labours of the Royal Commission pretty nearly ended, and the Report presented to this House. If, at that time, it is ascertained that the recommendations then made are not adequate as interpreted by my hon. Friends, then they will be perfectly free to pursue their opposition, and to make counter suggestions if they desire to do so. I do not blame them for having availed themselves of the opportunity presented this afternoon, but I do respectfully suggest that their case is in no way prejudiced if they are prepared to accept the Motion made by the Attorney-General.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not rise for the purpose of replying at any length upon the matters referred to by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment. I desire to say that the utmost we are asking from the House of Commons this afternoon, after appointing this inquiry which is proceeding before the Royal Commission, whose report we can expect certainly within a reasonable time, is that we should give fair consideration to their views. They have had the witnesses before them, and whatever may be their views as to the future, they are at all events unanimously of opinion that this appointment ought to be made at once in order to cope with the arrears. I am not going to detain the House with any observations of mine upon the necessity, upon the absolute necessity, to provide an open door to suitors in order that they may not have to stand outside waiting for admission. Open the door to the suitor at once, and give him his opportunity. I have always said in this House, and I repeat it, that I infinitely prefer to hear of a judge being idle because there is no suit for him to try, than to hear of a suitor waiting to bring his action, and very often having to settle it because he cannot get a hearing. I do ask the House to adopt the Motion, in order to carry out the recommendation of the Royal Commission which this House appointed. I repeat that no one is prejudiced by anything that takes place today. There will be an opportunity for discussion if another judge is to be appointed, or there will be another opportunity for discussion when legislation is proposed. I am anxious that this Royal Commission, which has been devoting its time to this subject for the information of the House of Commons and the country, should at least be treated with consideration and respect by this House, and the Royal Commission having come to the conclusion that it is

  77
  necessary this appointment should be made at once, I trust that it will be done without travelling over the whole ground which was discussed so often in this House before the Royal Commission was appointed. I resent very strongly some of the observations of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East St. Pancras (Mr. Martin), who suggested that this Commission was a whitewashing Commission. He has absolutely no justification for that statement, and I do not know on what ground he made it.
  Mr. MARTINmade an observation which was inaudible.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: All I can say is, having heard what the hon. and learned Member said, I absolutely cannot understand him. The reference was made by me, and I explained to the House that what we were anxious to do was to get the decision of the Royal Commission on the particular reform advocated by my hon. and learned Friends, and by the hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield and other Members of the House. If we had extended the reference the result would have been that the matter would have taken two or three years, and, in order to avoid that, we have limited it to the special claim which is the subject of discussion.
  Mr. WATT: Why were two Commissions appointed? Why was the decision of the 1909 Commission not accepted by the Government, and acted upon?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: My hon. and learned Friend must have forgotten that those were two different bodies, constituted for different purposes. The Joint Commission in 1909 was appointed to determine whether the state of business at that time justified the appointment of additional judges. It is quite easy to make suggestions, but those who are familiar with the subject know that it is not quite so easy to carry them out. It is really only those who are constantly engaged in working under the present system who know the difficulty of carrying out suggestions which are made. We have the suggestion that lawyers are always opposed to reforms, but all the Members on this Side of the House are in favour of reforms—and there are many lawyers on this side of the House—and the hon. Member showed quite plainly that reforms can only be carried with the assistance of members of the Bar. My hon. and learned Friends
  78
  who moved and seconded the Amendment are both members of the Bar, and it is a very natural thing that those who are most familiar with the subject should criticise and suggest. But we have added to the Commission, the majority of which is composed of those who are not lawyers, in order that they may consider the evidence put before them, and deal with it as business men dealing with a business proposition. That is what has to be done. The judicature of this country is a great matter, and it is essential that it should be dealt with in a businesslike way, and that suitors, whether rich or poor, should find ready and speedy access to it. I hope that it will not be necessary for us to discuss this Motion at any great length, for I realise, from what has been foreshadowed, that there will be opposition to the Bill which is to come on next, and I am therefore anxious that the House should pasts this Motion in order that we may proceed to deal with it.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I hope the House will understand that I do not wish to stand between it and a Division, but this is one of the occasions when we have an opportunity of saying a few words. It is true that I am a lawyer, but I am a member of that branch of the profession which comes directly in contact with the public. The Attorney-General and the hon. and learned Member for East St. Pancras are members of the Bar, and do not come directly in contact with the people. They do not realise, as I have realised from day to day, what delay in the Courts really means. The solicitor who has charge of a case is always in contact with the client, and he knows the consequences of delay, and he knows, from his contact with the public, how clients take their cases to arbitration rather than wait for them to be dealt with in Court. As a member of the humbler branch of the legal profession, I am more in touch with the feelings of the general public upon the subject. The suggestion made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield that there should be a temporary judge is not sufficient. Consider what is to happen. This House is going to sit for two or more months, and it is quite clear that the Government cannot spare time for the appointment of another judge by another Resolution. We shall adjourn from August probably to February of next year, and the moment a vacancy occurs the value of the judge to be now appointed

  79
  would be gone, and the House when it again met would have to deal with arrears even greater than they are at the present time. May I give the exact figures for the Michaelmas term—this present term? There are now 1,712 cases—or there were last week—awaiting trial in the High Court and the Court of Appeal. That is a higher number than were awaiting trial at the end of the Trinity sitting, and certainly a higher number than during the last few years, if not in the history of the Courts. In 1910 there were 1,619 cases; in 1911 the number had got down to 1,271, and to-day they are up to 1,712, a higher number than at any period during which we have been discussing this question.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not dispute the figures, but I think the inference which is drawn is not quite right. I do not think the increase is an increase of the arrears of the King's Bench Division. In point of fact the King's Bench Division for the moment is just a little better, because in the last sittings there is naturally the greatest reduction of the number of cases.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am very glad to hear that; still, in regard to the King's Bench Division, the total number of cases last week was 675.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Six hundred and seventy-eight.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is better still—that is to say 99 more than there were at the commencement of the Trinity sitting of 1912, and 32 more than at the same date in 1911. Therefore the state of affairs in the King's Bench Division is not better than it was. I cannot do more than quote from the most reputable law journals. I asked one of my clerks to verify these figures and I am told they are correct. That means that the state of affairs in the King's Bench last week was worse than at the beginning of the Trinity sittings in 1911 or 1912. Apart from the ordinary cases for trial in the Divisional Court of the King's Bench Division, in 1911 there were eighty-two cases waiting for trial at the commencement of the Trinity sittings, and last year there were 190, and this year there are 206, so that the cases in the Divisional Court also are worse than they were last year or the year before. Then in the Revenue Paper there are ninety-two petitions under the Finance Act of 1910, all set down for hearing since the beginning of last year.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That is a Department with which I am very familiar, and while I want this recommendation I do not want any false inferences to be drawn. The number of petitions are in the main awaiting a decision, and the whole of that number cannot be stated to be cases which are actually waiting for hearing.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not want to misrepresent the position, but I think those petitions illustrate the dangers and difficulties of delay. Here are ninety-two petitions set down nearly eighteen months ago which are awaiting the decision of another case. That case has been taking all this time, which means a certain denial of justice, because the Courts are so blocked that the governing case which is going to decide them cannot be heard. I cannot see any other explanation of that position. There they are, as the Attorney-General said, waiting for another case to be decided.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Not decided! It has already been decided on the revenue side of the King's Bench. I think what my hon. Friend is referring to is a number of cases which are awaiting the decision of one particular case in the House of Lords which has already been argued once, and has to be reargued by a fuller tribunal. I think all those petitions or the majority of there await that decision.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: That shows how long it takes for a subject to get a decision when he goes up to the House of Lords, where the point has to be argued again. That is a matter, however, which will come up on the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill as to the necessity for a double hearing the House of Lords. I cannot understand why hon. Members opposite who Profess to be democrats object to justice being made speedy. [An HON. MEMBER: "We do not."] The hon. Member who spoke from the Labour benches told us that when the Commission reported various reforms would have to be made, and that it might not be necessary to have another judge. I believe exactly the opposite. I am a legal reformer, and I am in favour of reform and making justice as speedy and as certain as possible. I believe if you had reforms effected that not less people, but more people would come to Court, and that you will need more judges the better you make your administration, and the better you make your mode of bringing cases to trial, because people will go to His Majesty's Courts instead of

  81
  going to every kind and form of arbitration. I believe, and I say it with considerable experience of litigants, that people like to have their cases tried by a judge of the High Court. They have immense confidence in the impartiality and freedom of the judges of the High Courts. They do not like their cases being tried either at Assizes or at what are called Commissions, which are very feeble efforts to get rid of arrears. People have, and I think very rightly, an objection to their cases being tried by a man who is not really a judge. We are trying to work the judicial system of this country with practically the same or a smaller staff than we had fifty years ago. The whole complexity of modern life has grown so much, and there are more cases—
  Mr. J. MARTIN: There are not more cases, there are less.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Of course there are less, because people will not go to the Courts at present, but I believe there are more writs issued, and more cases put down for trial. The hon. Member for East St. Pancras said they were bogus cases, but I do not agree. They are tired because they are people who get so waiting for their cases to be disposed of, and who under those circumstances will take any settlement. We have got the Long Vacation coming in two and a half months' time, and of those 1,760 cases I have mentioned, I would venture to say that at least half will not be heard this sitting. You will have when the Courts rise at the end of July at least 800 cases awaiting trial, County Court appeal cases of rich people and poor people standing over for ten weeks, and what is going to happen? The hon. and learned Member knows the rich man is going to make the poor man take less than he otherwise would take because of the law's delay. I know it in my own practice that when July comes the poor litigant is not only desirous, but bound to take less than he is entitled to because he knows he cannot stand the case being taken over the Long Vacation, and not being reached possibly until November and December. It is the poor litigant who cannot afford the law's delays. Though the trials are perhaps fewer than they were fifty years ago, they are longer because of the complexity of the cases, and because of the typewriting, and because of the voluminous correspondence, and because of telephones and things that make life more comfortable, and they are longer because of the scientific witnesses
  82
  who are bound to be called to-day. The hon. and learned Member knows perfectly well that where it is possible the litigant prefers to have the very highest class of scientific evidence. After all, what the litigant wants is that his case should be tried out to a finish and not jostled through. I can tell him how angry and how wrath the litigant comes out of Court when he feels that his case has been jostled through in order to clear the list. When it is not so, he says, "Whether I was right or whether I was wrong, does not matter because my case has been tried out, and everything I desired my counsel to say has been said and patiently listened to by the judge and jury, and, though they have decided against me, they have listened to everything and I am satisfied that I have had a fair trial." Without any desire to animadvert on the judges, there is a tendency in the human nature of the judges to try, when they get towards the end of June and July, to get their list clear as far as possible, and to try and force settlements. Things of that kind are entirely detrimental to the best interests-concerned.
  Saturday sittings have been referred to. Again, I do not believe with the hon. Baronet (Sir A. Markham) that the absence of Saturday sittings in jury cases has anything to do with these arrears. I know again from my own experience that the judges who do not sit on Saturday have been sitting for months past, ever since the Prime Minister gave the undertaking, for an extra period on the other five days of the week so as to make up the difference. It may be said that the weekend habit has increased, and so it has. The whole position of affairs is different from what it was thirty years ago, and you have got to work your Courts in the interests of the public. Witnesses do not want to go to Court for half a day on Saturday and jurymen object in the strongest way to going down for three hours on a Saturday morning. They are members of the public who have got to be considered. Do not let the hon. and learned Gentleman run away with the idea that there are no Saturday sittings because of the laziness of His Majesty's judges. It is more convenient for the general body of litigants and of the public represented by the jury that no cases should be taken on Saturday, and that is the reason. I do strongly appeal to the House with regard to County Court appeals. I think it is a crying shame that a County Court appeal

  83
  to a King's Bench judge, in a simple case with no witnesses, should involve nine months' delay before hearing, and yet that is the case to-day. I would like to refer to one point mentioned by the Lord Chief Justice with regard to Saturday sittings. On Saturday, the 11th January, at the beginning of the sittings, and a day on which of all others you would think the judges would have been idle, here is what they were doing. There were four judges on Circuit, three judges hearing cases from the Court of Criminal Appeal which usually take about five hours, one judge in Chambers, six judges to take fourteen cases which might be small but were none the less important to the litigants, and there was a commercial judge sitting in the Commercial Court, and Mr. Justice Lawrence was sitting in the telephone case. The Lord Chief Justice stated that for the whole time he has been Lord Chief Justice, he is prepared to stake his reputation that the judges have not shirked their work.
  I feel very strongly on this question of the understaffing of the Bench. In recent years there has been an enormous increase in the points that come before judges. We have, for instance, all those petitions under the Finance Act of 1910. There was no Finance Act up to three years ago, and those petitions which are an entirely new class of business, need almost a new judge to look after them. There is all our new legislation, some of it very complicated, most of it very badly worded, and a great deal of it legislation against which I have often raised my voice, and that is legislation by reference which makes it exceedingly difficult for the ordinary man to understand, and involves him in litigation without desiring to be so involved. We have then criminal appeals, and we did not appoint another judge after the Criminal Appeal Act. We passed the Poor Prisoners Defence Act, which has increased the length of criminal trials at Assizes, and we did not appoint another judge.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: You appointed a judge for criminal appeals.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: In 1910?
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Before that.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the Attorney-General says he was—
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: In consequence of the Act.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: There was one more judge appointed. The Court of Criminal Appeal in Michaelmas, 1911, sat twelve days, and in 1912 sat twenty-six days, a total of thirty-eight days with three judges, or 114 judge days during four sittings of the High Court. The Railway and Canal Commission took sixty days during four sittings, and there is practically the work of one more judge. I again ask the House to realise that our judges are hard-worked. There is no necessity for me to eulogise the work of the judges after what has been said by the Attorney-General. I strongly object to this tinkering with the matter. I believe that, in the interests of the general public, before very long we must improve the whole staffing of our judges, and whichever Government is in power will have to deal with the matter, not in this tinkering manner, with one judge here and another in eight or nine months' time, but must appoint, not merely two more judges, but three or four, in order that the desire expressed by the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Mansfield may be carried out. He is a typical litigant, and the kind of person who would growl horribly if his case was not heard. Litigants are entitled to have their cases heard, and it is in the interests of the public generally that there should be speedy justice.
  Sir CHARLES HENRY (who was indistinctly heard): As a member of the Royal Commission, I wish to add a few words on this subject. Let me assure my hon. and learned Friend that I have not been in any way influenced in the manner he described. It would have been a fallacy to appoint that Commission without any legal members. This interim Report was brought forward after full consideration and lengthy deliberation. Without anticipating what may be the final Report of the Royal Commission, I believe it will be found impossible to work the King's Bench Division with the efficiency required unless there is an established strength of at least eighteen judges. The hon. Member for East St. Pancras (Mr. Martin) referred to various points in regard to which reform is necessary. With many of those suggestions, which are not in any way new, I entirely agree. If he has studied the Report of the Royal Commission, as no doubt he has, he will have found that consideration has been given to such questions as the curtailment of the Long Vacation, the retiring age of judges, and the improvement of Assizes. The hon. Member for

  85
  one of the divisions of Glasgow opposed the appointment of an additional judge on the ground of economy. He must be aware that a large part of the salary of the judge is met by payments from litigants, so that the whole amount is not a charge upon the Treasury. It is necessary that suitors should have their cases tried with the greatest expedition possible. The appointment of an additional judge does not necessarily mean any additional charge on the Treasury. I believe that the Royal Commission will advocate reforms by which the work of the King's Bench Division may be placed on a more systematic basis. We have had it brought before us that the Chancery Division is working smoothly, and that it is well up to the requirements. I believe that we shall be able to make recommendations by which there will be more continuity in the King's Bench Division, the work will be adequately coped with, and the delay and inconvenience at present experienced obviated, and that as a result of the Royal Commission some of the disadvantages at present experienced will be removed.
  Mr. MUNRO - FERGUSON: I have listened with great interest to the speeches in support of this proposal, in large part from legal Members, but I am bound to say that their arguments have not removed the objections which I expressed when the proposals of 1910 were before the House. I think that in the three years which have elapsed something might have been done to meet the objections which were then raised. No doubt it is very easy to create a new post. I do not think there has ever been a time when it was more necessary that the House should exercise a jealous supervision over the creation of new posts. Members are agreed that it is not one judge that is wanted. An hon. Member below the Gangway said that many judges were wanted, and we have just heard from an hon. Member opposite that three or four additional judges are necessary. It is therefore evident that one judge can do very little good. It is not a question of the amount of salary. We are all ready to pay a good salary; but it has not yet been proved that the salary, however large, appertaining to the new post would meet the requirements of the case. This interim Report is based solely upon the evidence of lawyers. That is no doubt very good in its way, but it is evidence that requires consideration. All lawyers' evidence is not in the same direction. We have had the evidence of Lord Loreburn, and, if the
  86
  evidence of lawyers is to be quoted, I would as soon take that of Lord Loreburn as that of anybody else. His evidence is very strongly the other way. The arguments of Lord Loreburn were used when the proposals of 1910 were subjected to criticism in this House. There is no desire on the part of those of us who oppose this particular creation to promote the law's delay. That is a very unfair assumption. We all desire to expedite the administration of the law, and it has been indicated how that can be done. There were complaints in Scotland not long ago in regard to the law's delay in connection with the Court of Session. Some of the more elderly judges were made to sit longer than usual; some fresh appointments resulted, and there have been no complaints since. Besides the question of the age of some of the judges, there is the question of the places to which they have to go, and the question of method. It is said that the Attorney-General has given a pledge. We are all ready to accept that pledge. But, for my part, I think that no pledge is necessary. I submit that before a new post is created the necessary reforms in procedure should be taken in hand. We might wait until July, when the Report of this Commission is to appear before we create any more posts. I need not repeat the reasons which I gave on a former occasion against a similar proposal. No case has been made out for creating a fresh judgeship until the machinery of the Courts of Justice in England has been revised and made thoroughly efficient. When that has been done it will be time enough to go to the Treasury for the creation of more judges.
  Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: I think it it only right that I should say a word from the Welsh point of view. In what I am going to say I shall not be expressing any professional views. I am going to express the view of all the Welsh Liberal Members with whom I have conferred upon this question, and who instructed me to give evidence before the Royal Commission. The evidence that I gave was given, I think, after they had made the particular Report upon which the Government now propose to act. That does not in any way detract from—indeed, it rather adds to—the value of the testimony which I wish to give to the House from the Welsh point of view. I listened to the long speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East St. Pancras. I admit to the full his right, after his long experience of the profession

  87
  in Canada, and in view of the high position which he attained there, to criticise our legal machinery; but the data upon which he ventured to address the House of Commons were, I think, somewhat limited. I would like to know whether the hon. and learned Member has ever heard of the Welsh Judicature?
  Mr. MARTIN: I cannot say that I have.
  Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: Then the hon. and learned Member does not know of the obligation which Parliament undertook to the Welsh nation as late as the year 1830. It would be quite improper for me on a Motion of this kind to attempt to lecture the House of Commons upon history. Let me say quite briefly, however, that Wales was only incorporated into the English realm in the reign of Henry VIII. The twelve counties of Wales were constituted by one Act of Parliament, and the alterations in the executive administrative, and judicial arrangements for the Government of Wales were made by a subsequent Act—34 and 35 of Henry VIII. By that Statute a special judicature, called the Courts of Great Session, was constituted. There was established in Wales, side by side with the old common law, Superior Courts at Westminster, not only a jurisdiction in what are called Common Law matters, but also Chanceries for the administration of estates and so forth. Those Courts were founded in the reign of Henry VIII., and were continued in operation until 1830. There is a long and interesting history connected with those Courts. I am not concerned to deny that there were many defects connected with the administration of justice during the time that those Courts exercised their jurisdiction; but upon the whole they did their work quite as well as the Superior Courts at Westminster did theirs in the English counties. In consequence of the Reports of various Committees and Commissions, which are apparently now all forgotten, an arrangement was made by which the Welsh Courts should be abolished and three judges added to the Superior Courts at Westminster. As a consequence of that, it was enacted by Section 19 of the Act in question that henceforth Assizes should be held in the Welsh counties just as in the English counties. There is a kind of legislative bargain. I do not say that it is a contract in any way enforceable. I do not want to put the matter too high, but I say that,
  88
  when the House of Commons in its wisdom abolished our Welsh Judicature, it took upon itself an obligation to give us a system that at least as good as that which was abolished. The way, therefore, I put the present question to myself has nothing on earth to do with the question of whether a judge is either idle or not on a particular day, whether you sweat your judges or not, or whether they are paid too high or too little. That is not the way we Welshmen look at the question. We ask that the system which was intended to be put into operation by the Act of 1830 shall be carried out. It is not carried out now. It is perfectly true that in regard to many counties our business is extremely light. I am quite ready to believe that if you reduce the matter to an expenditure of pounds, shillings, and pence, and put on the one side the expenses of sending a judge to a particular county and to a particular Assize, and put on the other side the question of what is the value of the actual judicial service rendered by him, that the carrying out of the system might be deemed to be somewhat extravagant. But what is forgotten is the evidence of Mr. Winterbotham, who was referred to so often by my hon. Friend, and who is an eminent solicitor and very well qualified to speak in regard to all the details connected with the question. What do you find Mr. Winterbotham saying? That when you are dealing with the Assizes that the sort of question you have got to-day to consider is not the civil remedy, but the criminal business.
  In regard to the civil business there are other facilities for disposing of it. If you cannot get a High Court judge, you can get a County Court judge, and you can agree to submit to his decision, and you can always go to arbitration. But the moment you touch the question of the administration of criminal justice, the moment you have to deal with Crown pleas these other considerations come, and it is our opinion that the arrangements for the administration of justice in Wales involve the sending of High Court judges into every county in Wales for the purpose of the criminal administration of justice. That is the principle that we lay down. We lay it down on the hypothesis that you are going to keep one High Court For England and one for Wales, and upon the hypothesis that the circuit system of Assizes is going to be kept up; Assizes which derive their authority from the

  89
  writs issued from a centralised office. We are quite ready when the time comes to consider the question of whether there ought to be a new Provincial Judicature set up; whether you should not have a High Court of Yorkshire, for Lancashire, and for the Northern Counties, one for Wales, and so forth. So long, however, as you are keeping up the present centralised system of the administration of justice we ask that that system shall be honestly carried out in Wales. What has taken place of late years? The grouping of counties. It is perfectly legal. It is done, I understand, by Order in Council made by virtue of Acts of Parliament which have been duly and properly passed. But we object to this new basis. We object to it for many reasons of a detailed character which it would be impertinent on my part to enter into on an occasion of this kind. I have only intervened in this Debate—I will not say with the intention of raising it to a higher level—but with a view of putting the question properly as we conceive it: The question of whether the High Court of Justice or whether, if you like, the Central Government is now doing its duty in regard to the administration of justice in Wales. If in order to carry out the arrangement made in 1830 more judges are necessary let there be more judges appointed. We think that the present staff of judges is insufficient, and for that reason I support the Motion of the Attorney-General.
  Mr. RADFORD: I will not follow my hon. and learned Friend in his interesting historical disquisition in regard to Wales, but I trust, and ask him to hope, that when the Recommendations of the Royal Commission are made justice will be done to Wales and that she will have no reason to complain. I rise to give with regret my reasons at not being able to support the humble Address moved by the Attorney-General. I firmly believe that the arrears in the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice are not due to a shortage of judges, but are due to inefficient administration of the King's Bench Division. That opinion, I believe, is shared by the Bar in great measure, and by all persons who are under the necessity to appeal to our Courts for redress. No man goes willingly into a Court of Justice. He is sometimes obliged to go there to defend his rights, or even in some cases to assert them. He comes away with the impression which I do not think he gets in the Chancery Division, that in the King's
  90
  Bench Division there is a general sort of inefficiency. In moving this Motion the Attorney-General very properly relied on the fact that he had the interim Recommendation of the Royal Commission which was dealing with this subject. In his speech the right hon. Gentleman relied upon it, and he relied upon it again in his speech of a few minutes ago. I should like to remind the House what was the maxim sanctioned by the custom of our ancestors, namely, Redress before Supply. We are asked here to vote Supply. We are promised redress at some indefinite date. What that date may be I do not know. I was very glad to hear the hon. Member, who is a Royal Commissioner, and who addressed the House, express himself sanguine that he will get an early Report. I think I gathered that my right hon. Friend was hopeful that the Government would deal with the Report rapidly. I wish that these sanguine aspirations may be realised. I am not a very old Member of the House, but I know that the best intentions do not always lead to prompt legislation. Therefore, I would suggest to those Members who desire redress to see that they get it now if they can, and leave the future to take care of itself.
  What is to be done in order to promote efficiency in the King's Bench Division? It is not for me to dictate to the House or the Royal Commission, but several things have been named which I think obviously need attention. The length of the Long Vacation is a public evil and almost, I think, a public scandal. Members of the House who do not belong to the legal profession—and in this somewhat thin House possibly the majority do—may be reminded that the Long Vacation begins on 1st August and ends on 12th October, and that is not the only holiday which our judges get in the course of the year. I do not begrudge them that holiday, but if that holiday were reduced by merely the twelve days in October and the judges allowed two months, that would give us twelve days extra of judicial time. If you take from those twelve days two days that might be Sundays—and I know that I am making a mistake against myself by suggesting that two Sundays tome necessarily in every twelve days—you get ten days which might be saved in judicial time if the Long Vacation were shortened. If you multiply the term days by sixteen judges you get 160 days, which is pretty well the working time of one judge in the course of the year. That is not the only

  91
  reform to be carried out. We all know perfectly well how, under the circuit system, time is wasted. Economies have to be effected there. There is something to be said in regard to the number of days and hours during which each of the judges sit. I do not wish to be critical about that, but I am firmly convinced that if the Common Law Division were efficiently managed, we could cope with our arrears and do our business effectively and to the satisfaction of the country without the slightest need for the appointment of any additional judge. That is the opinion which I have formed, and I feel bound to express it in justification of the vote which I propose to give. One word about the suggestion which was made as to judges retiring on attaining a certain age. That is a plausible suggestion, but I am bound to say experience shows that it is not a sound one. Some of our older judges are some of our best. I say that with pleasure and with a kind of satisfaction that the faculties of humanity should endure so long as they do in our judges. I have known judges who at sixty-five have not delivered their best judgments, and it might have been said that they had not reached the plenitude of their powers. It would have been a misfortune to the country if they had been prematurely retired at that somewhat early age. Therefore, I do not see that any increased efficiency is likely to be attained by a regulation such as that suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras. But there are perhaps several reforms which might be efficiently carried out. We want efficiency. I should like to appeal to the present Lord Chancellor who has earned the gratitude of the country by introducing efficiency into our Army to try his hand in introducing efficiency into the Common Law Division of the High Court of Justice. It would give him great glory if he were successful, though I should like to suggest to him that the job would be much more difficult than his previous one.
  Mr. DENNISS: I do not wish to drag out this Debate at this late hour, but I conceive that the whole point upon which the Debate turns is whether in the public interest it is necessary that an additional judge should be appointed to deal with the present arrears. Opportunity has been taken in this Debate to urge all the grievances and bring out all the charges against the judges and the legal profes-
  92
  sion that have been debated on many previous occasions. They were all discussed in October of last year. I was rather astonished that the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment should not have read the Report of the present Royal Commission which came out the other day. If they had read it the long speeches which they made about the various grievances that they deplore and reforms that they desire would never have been made, because they would have found in this Report that all their points were dealt with at very great length. If it were earlier in the day I would go all through the Report and point them out. As it is it would not be convenient I think and would not really influence in the slightest degree the Debate. The whole point rests upon the question of the urgncy of the matter. Another unfortunate part of the Debate has been that the Attorney-General opened the case so shortly; that he did not give us the figures, and we have never had the figures. The right hon. Gentleman relied entirely upon this Report. This Report gives the figures. The hon. Members who moved and seconded the Amendment have surely never read them! May I be allowed in a few words to place them before the House—they are so extremely simple, these figures upon which this question ought really to be decided? The normal business of the Courts at the Michaelmas sittings from the end of October or the beginning of November was, according to the Lord Chief Justice's evidence, 300 jury cases and 110 Divisional Court cases, that is 410, or let us say, 500 cases. In November, 1910, there were 1,120 cases in the list, and therefore the Common Law Courts were very much in arrear. This House thereupon appointed two judges to deal with these arrears, and by the next year, November, 1911, they reduced the arrears from 1,120 to 740—that is they knocked off 380 cases between them over and above their ordinary judicial work. What happened since? Mr. Justice Grantham died and Mr. Justice Lawrence retired, and for, one year we were without these additional judges, with the result that the arrears crept up in the November of the next year from 740 to 966. So we see at once that it was owing to the absence of two judges, that the arrears accumulated.
  During the year 1911–12 the arrears were somewhat reduced because Commissioners were appointed to go on Assizes, yet in: spite of this the arrears rose to 966 cases. This year there were 966 cases to be tried.

  93
  As the normal amount should be about 500 cases, you get an addition of 466, and as the amount of cases which one additional judge knocks off is nearly 200, you really require not only one judge but two judges to sweep away the arrears. Therefore upon the figures the case is doubly made out with regard to the necessity of having an additional judge to deal with these arrears. That is the case upon the figures. It seems to me the only other point is that dwelt upon by Members on the other side of the House, whether the House is justified in going to this expense. We had the hon. Member for Leith Burghs saying it was very important that this House should look with extreme care before it made any new appointments. When I consider the Members from whom opposition to this Resolution comes I am rather astonished, for they are more responsible than anyone else for the creation of an army of land valuers with salaries amounting to £500,000 a year. That would be enough to pay the salaries of 100 judges at £5,000 a year each, and when the hon. Member objects to the creation of an additional judge on the ground of expense, he is surely straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that in Scotland they were well satisfied with the judges they had, and that when these judges were overworked they applied for another and got one. I do not see how that helps his argument. I would point out that if you take the whole of our judges—they are thirty-two in number—and compare them with the population, you will find that in England we have one judge to 1,300,000 people, whereas in Scotland they have one judge for every 366,000 people, and in Ireland they have one judge for every 313,000 people. All these facts are set out fully in the judicial statistics for last year circulated to the House by Sir John Macdonnell, one of the Masters of the Supreme Court, and they show that England is very badly handicapped in the matter of judges. In Australia there is one judge to every 139,000 of the population and in New Zealand one for every 168,000, and I am surprised that the hon. Member for East St. Pancras did not give us the figures for Canada; these figures would soon destroy his whole argument. In France the figures are one judge for every 80,000 people. Scotland is content with the number of her judges. Of course, because she is well supplied in proportion to her population; the judges are not overworked there, and the same is the case in Ireland. Why is it always a tight fit in
  94
  England? Hon. Members from Ireland feel that they have got more judges than they want; there is no cry for a reform there, because they intend to get rid of some of their judges when they get Home Rule and put the money into their pockets at the expense of this country. Hon. Members opposite support that, but when it comes to getting sufficient judges for England they preach economy of the most penurious description.
  I went very carefully into the figures with regard to the fees paid for judges' salaries, and taking the whole of the expenses and deducting from them the whole of the receipts, I find the receipts are 68 per cent. of the total. Therefore, the expenses are only 32 per cent. of the total expenditure for judges' salaries. Applying that as I suppose it should be applied the whole of the expenses of the judicature, the whole amounts of the High Courts and the Court of Appeal and the Court of Bankruptcy, 32 per cent. is the net cost of the whole expenditure to the State. Therefore, a judge's salary being £5,000 a year, 32 per cent. of it is £1,600, and that is really what it is going to cost to appoint an additional judge. It is well the House should know the exact figure and that applies to all his staff, to his clerk, office and everything else; 68 per cent. of the total expenditure is paid for out of receipts. I ask the House whether, with these facts and figures before them, and with the actual necessities of the case before them they can hesitate to pass a Motion of this kind. I understood this was not a party question, but that it was a question in which public interest should be considered. If that is so, I appeal to hon. Members who do not seem to have read this Report and who do not seem to have known the facts, now that they have heard the facts, to withdraw the Amendment and to allow this Motion to be passed without a Division, if possible.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: The hon. Member who has just sat down said that opposition to this Motion came from hon. Members who themselves desired to create a lot of new Government positions and from Members responsible for the large number of valuation officers created by the Budget of 1909–10. If the hon. Member had been in the House at that time he would have known that the costly valuation now going on was not asked for by hon. Members on this side, but was the result of a concession made to the Opposition. He wished to have the valuation made by the landlords,

  95
  but in response to requests from the other side the valuation is being made by the Government. We opposed the creating of Government valuers so far as possible. In now opposing this Motion for the creation of a new judge, we believe we are in no sense acting contrary to the public interest. We believe that if the reforms promised and advocated so ably from both sides in the last ten years were carried out the present judicial staff would be sufficient, and we are consistent here to-night in advocating these reforms preliminary to putting any increased charge upon the community. The Attorney-General in his speech made the one point, I think, against this Amendment that a Government official could make. He said, if you will allow us to have this new judge, that will not in any way check the reforms which the Commission may recommend later on. If you allow this judge to be created now, then in six months or a year there will be some other vacancy on the bench, and the Government will again have to come before Parliament and ask for the appointment of a new judge, and you can raise your objections then if the reforms advocated by the Commission are not carried out. I bow to the legal knowledge of the Attorney-General on every occasion, but I am inclined to think his knowledge of constitutional history is at fault when he urges this House to incur expenses without first redressing grievances.
  7.0 P.M.
  One of the immemorial practices of this House has always been to insist upon the redress of grievances before voting money, and I maintain that we on these benches in demanding that reforms should precede Supply are acting in entire accordance with the well-established traditions of past centuries. The argument used by the Attorney-General to-day might have been used by the Minister 600 years ago, when he said it was necessary in the public interests that money should be provided for the war with France. It was then stated in the reply that before voting money the House of Commons should first have grievances redressed. That is all we are asking for in this Amendment which I put upon the Paper, but which I did not desire to move, because, unfortunately, I have not had a legal education, and this question of the judiciary and its reforms is one that necessarily requires a legal education to discuss in all its bearings. This Amendment asks for one thing, namely, that we should await the Report of the Commission before we vote for extra judges; that we
  96
  should not be content to accept an interim Report, but should rather treat the whole question as one in order to assure ourselves that we may not get merely the acceptance of one proposal of the Commission, but that we should also carry into effect that which Lord Loreburn advocated in his evidence before the Commission read to the House to-day, in order that we might get those reforms carried out, as well as other recommendations made by the Royal Commission. This House has been charged with not being a business assembly, and the Government have been charged with not being a business man's Government. I think there is some truth in that charge. Here we are asked to support a system in our Courts of Law which no private business man would carry on, and which long ago have been discarded in all other branches of the public service. It is quite true that many of our old judges are our best judges, and the same thing might be said of our permanent officials, but it is the general ride that at a certain age a man's brain begins to flag, and it is wise for them to retire from active work. There are arguments why the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury should retire at a certain age, and those arguments must apply to the judiciary as well as to any other branch of the public service. It is only because we have had remarkable examples in the legal profession of people who retain remarkable vitalities to a great age that we come to regard it as natural that a judge should have no retiring age and that he should continue to serve as a judge until he decides himself to retire. We all know how difficult it is for a man in that position to dispense with his own services. As a matter of fact, we all think we are indispensable in this House, whereas a great clearance would no doubt be a good thing for the House of Commons. One of the reforms we ask for as a preliminary to the granting of an additional judge is that there should be a retiring age fixed, or some limit set, to the age at which a man should continue to act as a judge. Those are questions which a business Government would certainly take in hand at the earliest possible moment. In asking for this reform we do not wish to specify the age, but a reform of this character is necessary in the public interest, and it would be carried out if the House of Commons was a business assembly, and if we were not up against one of the biggest Vested interests in the country.

  97
  There is another point which must be dealt with, and it is an evil which is admitted by hon. Members on both sides, and that is the political appointment of judges. Strong political partisans in this House should not be promoted to the judicial Bench, however excellent they may be as lawyers. The fact that a man is a politician, if he is appointed to the judicial Bench, vitiates the trust and confidence of the people of the country. On this point we have had fair words from the Government. We have had a promise of reform upon which there is a unanimous sentiment in the country and yet nothing is being done on those lines. We are asked merely to vote for this appointment and allow the grievance we have put forward to be redressed some time next year or the year after. The question has been very fully dealt with already as to whether the Long Vacation should not be cut down by two weeks, as suggested by the Lord Chancellor, which would provide practically an extra judge, or, at any rate, the time of another judge. It has been said that the bar generally is opposed to any reduction of the Long Vacation, but I do not believe it; on the contrary, I believe many of the members of the Junior Bar suffer considerable privation because of the Long Vacation, and they would welcome any curtailment of it. The opposition to this curtailment comes from the higher grade at the Bar who manage to make a very sufficient income during the 200 days on which the Law Courts sit. We urge that this reform should precede the Grant of any public money for a new judge. It is all very well for the Attorney-General to say that this new judge will cost the country less than nothing because his fees will find the necessary money. May I point out that if a fortnight was cut off the Long Vacation the country would save the cost of this extra judge? Therefore it is beside the point to suggest the appointment of this extra judge instead of curtailing the Long Vacation.
  I do not like to touch upon the circuit question because I am not a lawyer, but anyone who has read the evidence given before the Royal Commission will agree that there is room for effecting an enormous saving of time in the circuit system. I protest against the idea that it is impossible for the Government to drop Assizes at certain towns because of the pressure of the representatives of those towns urging that the Assizes should be retained there. That is a type of the -worst form of log-rolling that goes on in
  98
  some of our Colonial centres. We represent not only the particular district which sends us to Parliament, but we represent the people generally, and we must look after their interests and not the particular interests of the town we represent. It is the duty of the Government not to give way to local pressure of that sort, and we should consider the general interests of the whole community and carry on our business in the most economical way regardless of the pressure of individual Members and individual towns which happen to have Assizes in those towns. Reforms on all these lines are generally accepted by Members on both sides of the House, and yet we allow year after year to go by without having these reforms carried out. It is useless for the Government to say they must have another judge now, and that the reforms will follow later on. They have told us that so often that we begin to wonder whether this vested interest is not too strong for the Government, and whether we are ever going to get these reforms at all. The opposition of the Royal Commission has been referred to by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, but I think we ought to look with a some-what critical eye upon a Royal Commission composed so largely of that very vested interest against which we are fighting. I hope that the Government will realise that to-day they are fighting against Liberal traditions and preserving existing abuses, and on these benches we are trying to carry out the old Liberal traditions and opposing abuses and demanding that they should be redressed. I think those reforms should be carried out before any more time is allowed to elapse or any more public money is allowed to be spent in this way.
  On this occasion the Government will beat us with the help of Conservative votes. They will get their extra judge and the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill, and the Bills they have put down for discussion during the next two days. I wish to protest as vigorously as I can against the action of the Government in putting down Bills to which we as Radicals object on the two days immediately following the holidays. We have had present during this discussion the Attorney-General, who has sat on the Treasury Bench during a very long Session. We have now present another Law Officer of the Crown, but we have no other Minister to support him, and the whole of the Members of the Cabinet are absent and take no part in these Debates

  99
  when the Opposition come to their support. The Government believe they have a party behind them which will support enthusiastically all these measures, but I do not think they are acting fairly by their own supporters in this House when they use the two days immediately after the holidays to co-operate with the Opposition in order to fight their own supporters on controversial measures of this character which ought to be brought on at a more convenient time. They do this in order that the Members of the Cabinet may stop away. I do not know whether the Attorney-General expects us to go on with the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill to-night. I hope he does not, but I would sooner have that Bill than the Mental Deficiency Bill. I think it would be a great advantage if the Government or some of the Lords of the Treasury would try to find out from their own supporters what their views are upon such measures as these before they bring them forward, because it puts us in a difficult position to be constantly opposing Government measures. It makes our position more difficult still when after long days and nights spent in opposition to measures brought forward by a Liberal Government, but which are Conservative in character, we have to support the Government during long sittings in opposition to the party opposite. I hope in future that the Government will consider their own supporters when discussing such measures as these.
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I happen to have had some personal experience of the arrears in the King's Bench Division of the High Court, and I know what real urgent necessity there is for the appointment of a new judge. I confess I find it difficult to understand the opposition to the suggestion which comes from the Government. Able speeches have been made by hon. Members opposite advocating all sorts of reforms which they think might be effected in the judicial system, but a Commission has been appointed by this House for the very purpose of investigating those questions. Nobody can suggest that Commission ha sany political complexion, or that it brings to bear on its work anything but an honest desire to effect every reform that is possible. Among the reforms which this Commission has been considering is the appointment of a new judge, and they have thought this matter so urgent and have felt that an additional judge is so much required, that they have made an
  100
  interim Report advocating the immediate appointment of a new judge. It is merely in pursuance of that report that this Motion is brought forward. Under those circumstances, wide as the range of necessary reform may be, and many as the grievances which hon. Members opposite think there may be, what possible opposition can there be to giving effect to the Report of the Commission which has been made in the interests of the House of Commons and of the public in the direction of reform?
  I approach this question entirely from the point of view of the public and the taxpayer, and I suggest that there are just two things to which the public is entitled. First of all, they are entitled to have a sufficient number of judges to secure that when a case is set down for trial it shall come on within a reasonable time. Admittedly, the public have not got that at the present time. They are entitled to something more. They are entitled to ask that the judicial machine for which they pay shall not be overstrained, but that when they do come before a judge they shall come before a man who is able to give them the best he has to place at the disposal of the State, the closest attention, the greatest knowledge of the law, the best consideration, and the clearest intellect he can bring to bear on the dispute before him. If you underman the Judicial Bench, and if you leave it with no margin of strength, you do harm to the public interest in both those capacities. First of all, they do not get the prompt trial to which they are entitled, and, consequently, when they do get a trial there is a great danger of the judicial machine not working properly because it is undermanned and over-strained. Just think of the conditions under which a judge is appointed in our country. In all foreign countries a man enters the Judiciary as a man enters the Civil Service, but we appoint as a judge a man of ripe experience who has earned his law in the best of all schools, and who has learned it correctly because it has meant his bread and cheese. You get a judge bringing to bear on his duties his ripe experience and knowledge of the law, but the system has the disadvantage that you are unable to appoint a judge when he is young. A judge when he is appointed is, as a rule, getting past middle life. Consequently, you are jeopardising the interests of the public and the taxpayer if you put a strain upon him which he cannot properly bear.

  101
  Hon. Members are accustomed to sitting on Select and other Committees upstairs, and I appeal to their experience. When the consideration of a Bill has lasted some time, and the Committee has been sitting from eleven o'clock in the morning until three or four o'clock in the afternoon, hon. Members come here to the House weary, with their brain fagged, and not feeling that they can bring to the Debates in this House the clear intellect they would desire. Suppose, instead of sitting as one of a body, they had sole responsibility, and they had entrusted to them criminal matters of life and death and questions involving the whole of a man's future, his reputation, and his career. The responsibility which rests upon a man sitting solely, is not only very great, but is very fatiguing, and, if you have a judge sitting in that capacity and with a proper sense of the responsibility upon him, unless you have some margin of strength, and allow him reasonable and proper hours of recreation, you will overstrain your machine, and you will not get your money's worth.
  I should like to see the judicial system extended instead of curtailed. I am one of those who think that it might with advantage be applied to the procedure of the Select Committees of this House. I should like to see someone presiding over these Committees with an elementary idea of the laws of evidence, so that we might not have the spectacle of a witness being cross-examined by five or six different people consecutively, most of them asking the same questions over and over again, with the proceedings varied by an occasional interval during which the members of the Committee quarrel among themselves. That is a spectacle which does not conduce to the dignty of this House, and I look forward to the time when the procedure of our Select Committees will be strengthened, if not done away with, and some form of judicial inquiry by a judicial officer of this House substituted. I do urge upon the House and appeal to those hon. Members who oppose this at the present time to realise that it is the interests of the public which are suffering, and that if you are going to raise your judicial system to a condition which shall not only be admirable but also sufficient, you must provide that justice in the future shall not only be pure but shall also be prompt.
  Mr. MORTON: The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down has spoken of the Royal Commission as having been appointed by this House. He surely
  102
  ought to know—if not, his legal knowledge is very defective—that this House had nothing whatever to do with the appointment of the Royal Commission. If we had, we should probably never have had one appointed. I am not complaining about the Royal Commission, except that I agree that there ought never to have been any lawyers put upon it. It is putting them in a position which is unfair to them. You ought to take the lawyers as witnesses, but to make them the judges is ridiculous. We could not have expected anything else than what has happened. They have reported that they want another judge. They are very careful only to ask for one at a time. I object to the Motion of the Attorney-General altogether. We are entitled to have the full report upon the reforms which we have been demanding for so many years before we appoint any more judges. The Government are in an absurd position. They say, "Appoint this judge and pay him, and then find out after wards whether he is wanted or not." That is what used to be called in Scotland Jedburgh justice: "Hang a person first and try him afterwards." I object to making any further appointments until the reforms we have been demanding have been carried out. We must insist upon doing away with the Long Vacation. I do not want to say a word against lawyers. It is not at all necessary, and I do not forget that I have 1,200 barristers in my Constituency. The majority of them object to this Long Vacation because it keeps them out of work. There is no occasion for a Long Vacation at all. If more judges were really wanted, I should be the last person to vote against them; but surely we are entitled before any more are appointed to insist that you tell us what you are going to do with regard to these reforms!
  Two months ago a Royal Commission was appointed to go into all these questions, but they have only gone into one question, and that is the appointment of an additional judge. The Government want to do now exactly what we objected to some months back. They then asked that one additional judge should be appointed and promised an inquiry before any more were appointed. Now they come back and practically want us to appoint two judges without going into the reforms we have been demanding for so long. Why should not the judges work eight hours a day and every day? Labourers are not paid so well as lawyers, and they are glad if they can only get an eight hours' day. At

  103
  present judges work about five hours a day. It is certainly the fact that judges are appointed late in life. After a successful lawyer has made a huge fortune he is appointed as a judge, so that he can have a good holiday. They make the bench a sort of home for invalids. Therefore it is very likely that five hours are enough, but I think judges should work at least eight hours every day except Sunday, and that a month's holiday in the summer is plenty. I dare say the Government can force it through whether we like it or not. But I would ask them to remember that they too often ignore those who are their best supporters, and especially the sixty Liberal Members who come from Scotland, who do not go into ambush against them, or threaten to vote against them unless they are allowed to have their own way. Remember, we Scottish Liberal Members could turn the Government out whenever we chose. But we do not attempt that because we are sent here to uphold the Liberal cause. It is rather hard on us that when we want to discuss a matter of economy like this—and bearing in mind that the Government and ourselves are pledged to economy—it is I say rather hard for us to be told, when matters like this are brought forward, that they must be treated as party measures, and dealt with as matters of confidence. It is not fair thus to treat us truly honest Liberals. I think we, at any rate, who represent Scotland are entitled to more consideration. We are too often treated with contempt. We are subjected to the Closure when we try to secure an opportunity to discuss matters affecting our country. I should be very glad indeed if the Attorney-General would withdraw this Motion. There is no reason why the Front Bench, although it is Liberal, should not be honest in dealing with us. No one will object to their fulfilling promises honestly made. In this case the Attorney-General gave us a promise that, before another judge should be asked for, all these reforms to which reference has been made should be inquired into by a Royal Commission. But no such
  inquiry has yet been carried out. The Royal Commission has only done that which we asked it should not do, and that is to recommend the appointment of a second judge.
  I am only acting fairly towards the right hon. Gentleman in asking him to be consistent; to withdraw this Motion and to insist upon the Royal Commission reporting in detail on the other matters before we are invited to spend public money in this way. It will be a great satisfaction to us real Liberals if the Attorney-General will do this. It will also give satisfaction to the country generally, for no one is satisfied with the present arrangements for the conduct of legal business. It may be asked what the Scottish Members have to do with this matter. In the first place, there are a good many Scottish Members on the Front Bench, and we have a right to look after them. Then, all the world over, you will find Scottish men interesting themselves in looking after the affairs of the whole world. It is our pleasant duty on many occasions to protect English people, and this, being a matter concerning English Courts of Law, we are naturally anxious to give our assistance in regard to it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making a mistake to-day. He is badly advised on this occasion, and, unless he acts as I have suggested, he will not be entitled to our respect and regard. There is nothing which is disliked so much in the City of London as wobbling of this nature. We have no use for an Attorney-General who two months ago held one opinion, and to-day holds an entirely opposite view. I appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to do what is right and fair, and to insist on the Royal Commission reporting on all these matters before we spend other people's money by appointing a new judge.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACSrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be be now put."
  The House divided: Ayes, 172; Noes, 43.

  Division No. 87.]

  AYES.

  [7.38 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Barnes, George N.

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Adamson, William

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Alden, Percy

  Bird, Alfred

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Boland, John Plus

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Arnold, Sydney

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Radford, G. H.

  Chancellor, H. G.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Clough, William

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Clynes, John R.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Reddy, M.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Crooks, William

  Joyce, Michael

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Kelly, Edward

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  King, Joseph

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Leach, Charles

  Robinson, Sidney

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rowlands, James

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Doris, William

  Lynch, A. A.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  MacDonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Falconer, James

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Shortt, Edward

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Furness, Stephen

  M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Ginnell, Laurence

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

  Sutton, John E.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Mooney, John J.

  Thomas, James Henry

  Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)

  Morison, Hector

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Webb, H.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Doherty, Philip

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Grady, James

  White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

  Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Malley, William

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Wiles, Thomas

  Higham, John Sharp

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Hodge, John

  Pearce, William (Llmehouse)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Wing, Thomas

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Hudson, Walter

  NOES.

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Forster, Henry William

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Barnston, Harry

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Royds, Edmund

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hills, John Waller

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Boyton, James

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Butcher, John George

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Watt, Henry Anderson

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  M'Neill Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Martin, Joseph

  Rawlinson and Mr. Fell.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question"—to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to insert instead thereof the words, "this House refuses to increase the number of judges in the High Court of Justice until the Commission have considered and reported on the necessity of a
  106
  retiring age for all judges in consonance with the regulations for all Civil servants."
  Mr. WATT(seated and covered): On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. The Amendment I moved was the one standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood), and not the one in my own name.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member did not tell me that. He got up and moved an Amendment, and I naturally supposed it was the one in his own name. That is the one which has been nut and which has been discussed, or supposed to have been discussed.
  Mr. WATT: In my preliminary remarks I made a statement as to the absence of
  my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and as to the fact that I was moving his Amendment.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member ought have pointed that out. I have already twice read it out from the Chair, and he ought to have pointed it out on the first or second occasion.
  The House divided: Ayes, 202; Noes, 13.

  Division No. 88.]

  AYES.

  [7.47 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)

  O'Malley, William

  Adamson, William

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Alden, Percy

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Harcourt, Rt Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Barnes, George N.

  Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Barnston, Harry

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

  Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Bird, Alfred

  Higham, John Sharp

  Reddy, M.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hills, John Waller

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Boland, John Pius

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Hodge, John

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Boyton, James

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Robinson, Sidney

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hudson, Walter

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Rowlands, James

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Royds, Edmund

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Butcher, John George

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Joyce, Michael

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Shortt, Edward

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Kelly, Edward

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Clough, William

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Clynes, John R.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Crooks, William

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Thomas James Henry

  Crumley, Patrick

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Dawes, J. A.

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Dickinson, W. H.

  M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Doris, William

  M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks., Otley)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Webb, H.

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

  Falconer, James

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Morrell, Philip

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Fell, Arthur

  Morison, Hector

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Williams, Liewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Forster, Henry William

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Furness, Stephen

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Wing, Thomas

  Ginnell, Laurence

  Nuttall, Harry

  Glanville, H. J.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Goldstone, Frank

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  O'Grady, James

  NOES.

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Martin, Joseph

  Radford, G. H.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Sutton, John E.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Munro-Ferguson Rt. Hon. R. C.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Watt and Mr. Wedgwood.

  King, J.

  Bill read a second time, and committed.

  Resolved, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty representing that the number of the puisne judges of the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice now amounts to sixteen, and that the state of business in the said Division requires that one additional judge should be appointed to the said Division under the first section of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1910, and praying that His Majesty will be graciously pleased to appoint a new judge of the said Division of the High Court of Justice accordingly."

  APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  The main purpose of the Bill of which I am now moving the Second Reading must be well known to the House by this time, as this matter was discussed in 1911. The Bill was again introduced in 1912, almost in the same form, and now in 1913 it has come to us from another place. What it proposes, in substance, is to add two additional Lords of Appeal-in-Ordinary—four being the present number—making in all six Lords of Appeal-in-Ordinary if this Bill is carried. It proposes to appoint them at the same salary as is at present paid to the Lords of Appeal-in-Ordinary under the Statute of 1876, continuing the same system as hitherto existed on the same conditions as have hitherto prevailed with regard to these appeals. Secondly, it is proposed that these Lords of Appeal should be enabled to sit in the Court of Appeal. At present they are not ex officio members of the Court of Appeal, and it is necessary to give statutory power to enable them to sit there in order that they may, if they can and if they are willing, assist the Court of Appeal whenever there is time for them to do so. The third point dealt with by the Bill is that several alterations are made with regard to the numbers of judges in His Majesty's Dominions who are to be
  110
  empowered to sit with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Under the present Statute law only five can sit with the Judicial Committee in certain circumstances, and it is proposed by this Bill to extend that number to seven. This part of the Bill does not create any new Law Lords. What it does is to create these new additional powers so as to give seven as the maximum number of judges in His Majesty's Dominions who may sit under this particular Statute. Those are the main provisions of the Bill.
  8.0 P.M.
  I do not think I would be saying too much if I put forward the proposition that the appointment of two new Law Lords is perhaps the only controversial element in this Bill. I gathered from some observations made during the course of the discussion we had earlier in the afternoon that we may look forward to opposition from some of my learned Friends and some of my hon. Friends who have opposed the moving of the Address. I want the House to recognise and to appreciate to the full that in introducing this Bill we are only carrying out a pledge—I think it is right to call it a pledge—certainly an obligation which we incurred at the Imperial Conference of 1911. It is important that the House should recognise that at the outset. There has been a very considerable amount of discussion in regard to this proposal, and first it was proposed by, I think, the representative of New Zealand, Sir Joseph Ward, at the Imperial Conference of 1911, that it would be well that each Dominion should appoint a judge who should sit on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and form one of the Appellate Tribunal, but, as the result of a considerable amount of discussion, it was found that each Dominion thought it would be a very good thing as regards itself and in respect of law suits which came over to this country on appeal from their Courts, but objected very strongly to judges from the other Dominions sitting in judgment on them. Without going into detail, I can quite well understand Canada, for example, objecting to a New Zealand judge assisting in passing judgment on an appeal which came from

  111
  Canada. As the result of a considerable amount of debate upon this point, the conclusion was unanimously arrived at by those who were present at the Imperial Conference and had taken part in this very important discussion, that the proper way to meet the difficulty was to create two additional Lords of Appeal-in-Ordinary to sit in the House of Lords as a Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and it was in order to give effect to that Resolution that we introduced a Bill in 1911 and again in 1912, and now for the first time are placing this proposal before the House of Commons.
  I doubt very much whether those who hear of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council quite appreciate what its functions are and how wide and extended is the jurisdiction of that tribunal. No doubt hon. Members of this House, and certainly those who are members of the legal profession, are aware of the fact that there are four Lords of Appeal-in-Ordinary, as they are termed, under the Statute which means, translated into ordinary English, that there are four judges who are life peers, who sit in the House of Lords and who take part in the work of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. They are paid a salary of £6,000 a year under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, and they have been paid that sum from 1876 until the present time. There are a number of members of the Privy Council who by virtue of certain Statutes are also entitled, but not bound to sit in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It is a very important distinction when we are dealing with the constitution of the Court—that is, of the Judical Committee. The Judical Committee of the Privy Council is part of the Privy Council, and one of the main connecting links between the various constituent parts of this Empire is the appeal to the Sovereign in Council, which takes place from all our Dominions, and which enables the appeals to come to this country, where they are heard in the Judical Committee of the Privy Council as it is called and where vast interests are dealt with in a very quiet and unostentatious way. It has often occurred to me in entering the room in which this Judicial Committee of the Privy Council sits whether some of those who might stray into the Court have any conception that that body, or perhaps three or four elderly gentlemen which might perhaps be found sitting there, without
  112
  any of the panoply of the law as we are accustomed to see it in the High Court of Justice, quietly listening to an argument from a gentleman bewigged in accordance with the traditions of the profession, is, I believe, the tribunal with the widest and most extended jurisdiction of any Court of Justice which has ever been known to sit in this Empire. That Court has a jurisdiction over more than quarter of the population of the world. Its area is immense; it is co-extensive with the British Empire. I think the laws are as different in one part of the Dominions as they can possibly be from another.
  The Judical Committee has to deal with all these various systems of law. They have not only to be familiar with English law, Scotch law, and Irish law, in order that they may be qualified to sit and discharge their functions properly as members of the Supreme Appellate tribunal for the United Kingdom, but they also have to be equipped wit ha knowledge of the laws and customs of all the nations in various parts of the Empire—French, Roman Dutch, and the old Roman law, and, of course, all the various laws relating to India, and the Maori law relating to New Zealand. I only mention these as some instances, not by any means exhaustive, and when this House bears in mind—as it must, and as it should do when considering the Bill of which I am now moving the Second Reading—the vast extent of area of the jurisdiction of this Supreme Appellate tribunal of the Empire, it will, I think, understand why it is that at the Imperial Conference so much importance was attributed by the representatives of our Dominions at that Conference to the proposal which I am now bringing forward. I may be asked why it is that the Imperial Conference desired that there should be an addition to the numbers. The Court, either in the House of Lords or in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, so far as it consists of Members who are bound to sit in order to discharge their functions, consists only of the Lord Chancellor and the four Lords of Appeal under the Statute of 1876. It is at once seen that that gives you only five, and indeed I very much doubt whether one is justified in reckoning the Lord Chancellor as one of those who can sit in both tribunals at any time, because the Lord Chancellor has many other functions to discharge. He has to attend the Cabinet Council; he has the Cabinet Committee; he has his administrative work as

  113
  the highest judicial functionary; and besides that he presides in the House of Lords, where, of course, he is engaged at times for many hours. So that even if I reckon him, and I do for this present purpose at any rate, in dealing with those whose duty it is to sit habitually in these two Courts, you cannot constitute the two Courts simultaneously out of that nucleus of your four Law Lords and the Lord Chancellor.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I think, in 1910–11, two Committees of the House of Lords, the Privy Council and the Judicial Council, sat on the same days in thirty-four cases.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not think the hon. Baronet has quite taken the point I was making. I said I was dealing with those who were bound to sit, drawing the distinction between them and those who are qualified to sit if they choose. You can only reckon the strength of your Court by counting the heads of those who are bound to be there, and upon whom you can absolutely rely. You can at times constitute Courts from those who are not bound to sit, but who are willing to sit when called upon. There would sometimes have been difficulty if it had not been for the services freely given by an ex-Lord Chancellor, who is not bound to sit at all. [An HON. MEMBER: "Pension."] He gets a pension for services he has performed. Lord Loreburn, another ex-Lord Chancellor, has also, ever since he has been well enough since his retirement, been only too willing to assist in forming a Court and giving his very valuable assistance. There have been distinguished judges who were able to give their services who had retired on pensions, and who very willingly gave them. I think at the moment of Lord Ashbourne, an ex-Lord Chancellor of Ireland, a man with very ripe experience of law and great knowledge, and whose delightful voice and charm of manner will be missed, I am quite sure, by those who have come before that Court. I think also of Lord Gorell. Both Lord Ashbourne and Lord Gorell gave their services, again most freely and most willingly, which they were not bound to perform. Lord Gorell, besides the work of the Royal Commission and other Committees which he took upon himself, was always ready to assist and to give of his great erudition and great legal knowledge and great experience to the assistance of the Court. I may mention last, but by no means least, Lord Macnaghten, who, I suppose, is one of the
  114
  greatest judicial figures that the legal history of this country has ever known, who went straight from the Bar to the highest position of Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, which he continued to adorn until the very last, sitting there for many years, and, I think, conferring a distinction upon every case he heard and upon every judgment he delivered.
  It being a Quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.

    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS, TROLLEY VEHICLES, AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL. (By Order.)
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Mr. BOOTH: I rise for the purpose of eliciting from some representative of the London County Council who may have strayed in by chance some explanation of the large number of Bills the London County Council are bringing before the House. This is one of three County Council Bills on the Order Paper for to-day. There may be some explanation of that, and I think the House is entitled to know, when they come forward practically every year with an Omnibus Bill which occupies the time of this House on these parochial matters, why they need to bring in special Bills as well as a general Omnibus Bill. In the First Schedule of this Bill I find references to the London County Council (Electrical Power) Act of 1900, the Tramways and Improvements Act of 1901, the Subways and Tramways Act of 1902, the Tramways and Improvements Acts of 1906, 1907, 1909, 1911, and 1912. Their idea seems to be that they must get one or more Acts passed every year, and then they come forward subsequently with proposals for dovetailing them or for tinkering up previous enactments. I am perfectly certain that if the London County Council would set their minds to it in a businesslike way they would not need to come a quarter of the times that they appear here. They seem to have little or no regard for the time of this House. It we attempt to discuss a County Council Bill, we find that

    115
    the Treasury Bench is almost vacant, and that the Front Bench opposite is vacant. Any Member who thinks the measure important enough to go into it is regarded as one who is keeping back Government business. There is possibly some business on the Paper which the Government wish to get through, and therefore it is thought that private business should be got through as speedily as possible. I ask whether it is not out of all reason for the London County Council to come, as they do to-day, with three Bills for the sanction of this House? I hope the hon. Member for Dulwich, whom we all respect both as a Member of the London County Council and of this House, will explain why these continual Bills are necessary.
    Mr. F. HALL: I quite appreciate the question asked by my hon. Friend, and I say at once that I am sorry it is necessary to come as often as we do to this House seeking fresh powers, but unfortunately it is impossible for us to have all our schemes put in one Bill. It is impossible to get in 1913 a Bill providing for the requirements we may have in 1914. Supposing, for instance, the London County Council during this year have various schemes brought before them with regard to extensions or new lines, it is impossible to have the lines constructed unless the necessary powers are obtained from Parliament. We may get the local authorities to agree to certain lines, but it is necessary to bring a Bill before this House in order to obtain powers authorising their construction. Under these circumstances I hope my hon. Friend will be satisfied that the county council do not wish to waste the time of the House. They wish to make their measures as short, concise, and businesslike as possible. I appeal to the House to have some sympathy with the county council. I trust the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I beg to move, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to insert a provision in the Bill making the erection of trolley vehicle equipment on, over, under, along, or across any street or road in the county of London subject to the provisions of Section 23 of the London County Tramways (Electrical Power) Act, 1900."
    116
    I am really loth to trouble the House with this question, which was virtually settled on the Second Reading of the London County Council (General Powers) Bill of last Session. The question is whether this House, without any cause shown, should practically repeal the provision which was passed for ensuring that overhead wires should not be erected in London without the consent of the local authority of the borough concerned. The proposal to which I take exception in this Bill, and in regard to which I move this Instruction, is that which gives the London County Council power in certain districts to erect overhead wires for the purpose of running what are known as trackless trolleys. There was a general Bill on this subject considered upstairs by a Grand Committee, but in the county of London the measure now before the House would free the county council from the necessity in establishing these trackless trolleys of acting in co-operation with the road authorities, which are the borough councils in the areas concerned. I should have much preferred if the London County Council had been content to accept the decision arrived at last year in this House on a similar proposal. It appears to me that it would only have been seemly if a great local authority like the London County Council had taken the advice and admonition of Parliament to heart. In a matter of this sort there is no question of party politics. The only matter is the public advantage, and so recently as last year a decision was solemnly affirmed by a large majority, and I am bound to say I am surprised that the county council in a Bill of this sort should attempt to reverse the verdict then come to. The whole point of this measure, so far as it concerns the establishment of trackless trolleys in London, is that it reverses the Act of 1900, Section 23 of which provides:—
    "This Act shall not authorise the council to place in any parish or district any posts or wires on or over any street for working tramways by electrical power unless the vestry of such parish or the board of works for such district shall by a resolution have consented to the adoption therein of a system of traction conducted by means of posts and wires placed overhead. Such consent may be subject to any limitations or conditions which may be expressed in the resolution, and may apply to any particular streets or roads or for any limited period

    117
    defined by such resolution. A copy of such resolution under the seal of the vestry or district board shall be delivered to the council and shall be evidence of the due passing of such resolution."
    The Metropolitan borough councils are the successors of the Metropolitan vestries and district boards, and are the road authorities in the county of London. The object of Parliament in inserting that provision was that their power as road authorities should not be overridden by the London County Council. Under this Bill it is proposed to do away with the power of the local authorities in regard to their own roads. I submit that, if we were justified last year in refusing to alter the general law in that respect, there is far greater necessity to do so when it is proposed, instead of overhead tramways, to have trackless trolleys. The overhead tramways might have constituted, as the Board of Trade said they would very likely in London, a public danger, because I would remind the hon. Gentleman representing the Board of Trade that his own officers, when giving evidence before the Royal Commission on London traffic, said that to have a network of wires such as might follow in London from the establishment of overhead tramways would be more dangerous here than anywhere else. Nobody wants the streets of London to be covered by a network of overhead wires, and in the case of trackless trolleys you have to have twice as much wire as you would where there are lines along which the tram would proceed, because you have to take the return current as well. As the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Board of Trade knows, the whole general question of giving local authorities legal power to set up trackless trolleys was considered by a Grand Committee of this House last year. No doubt the principle was admitted, but, of course, it differs according to the circumstances of the case. I submit that the county of London is no place for trackless trolleys. They may very well be established in country districts or to link up the suburbs of industrial towns with villages where a great part of the industrial population may want to live with great advantage to themselves, but that is not the case in London.
    The County of London represents only part of the Greater London. There are no country villages around London to link up by means of trackless trolleys. London ex-
    118
    tends in long chains of streets of houses far beyond its legal borders. The whole object of establishing trackless trolleys in London is to save the cost of laying down tramways and tram lines. That is admitted by the London County Council, because in the Memorandum in support of this Bill they point out that the difference would be very large; that it would be £18,350 for the trolley system, while it would amount to more than twice as much if it were a question of laying down tram lines. I hope that the House will not agree to reverse the principle which has been established in a case where there is so little to be said for it as there is here. These particular lines are to be in the boroughs of Hackney and Lewisham. The borough of Hackney is really a congested part, and even Lewisham has very little vacant ground which can be filled up with houses in the near future. I hope that the Secretary to the Board of Trade will support the Instruction which I move now, because from his own point of view, even if he does not wish to interfere with the possibility of establishing trolleys, this at least will not be a final bar. All it does is to preserve the control of the road authorities. In every other part of the country that authority is, of course, and must be, the local authority for carrying out any such scheme under the Act if passed, but in London we have the dual system. The London County Council are the tramway authorities and the borough council are the road authorities. The present safeguard ensures the appeal to the local authority as a guarantee of the interests of the people, whose wants and necessities they must know, in their closer association with them, far better than a central authority. That is part of the general law. For that reason I ask the House to confirm the verdict which it gave last year. The case is far stronger when you have to deal with these wandering lines of trackless trolleys than in the case of the fixed route of the tramways, whether you have underground conduits or overhead wires, and I beg to move the Amendment that stands in my name, not with any wish to prevent the county council from proposing their scheme, but to ensure that the public, through the mouth of the local authorities, shall be able to say aye or no to it in the particular locality in which they are concerned.
    Mr. MORISON: In rising to second the Instruction which has been moved by the hon. Gentleman I venture to claim the indulgence of the House which is given to a

    119
    Member on the first occasion on which he addresses it. It may not be a very inspiring occasion, and it does not appeal to any party feeling, but the Instruction is a very practical one, and one which I should have thought had been sufficiently and emphatically dealt with in the Debate which took place about a year ago in regard to proposals of a somewhat similar nature. But in this particular case the proposition is to deal not with tramways, but with a system of trackless omnibuses, which is a totally different thing, and a thing absolutely unknown through London or the neighbourhood of London. It is true that the system has been adopted in some provincial towns to a small extent, but it has not been adopted in any shape or form in the London areas, and it seems to me that, under the conditions in which at the moment the traffic of London has increased, to introduce an absolutely new method of traction would be, to say the least of it, an exceedingly dangerous procedure, especially as the attempt has been made to introduce it in districts which are very congested, where the traffic already is exceedingly heavy and the difficulty of dealing with it is exceedingly great. Take the case of Hackney, with which I am more intimately connected, and in which I am more personally interested. The road over which it is proposed that this trackless system should be adopted is one over which there is very large traffic at the present moment conducted by the motor buses. In one of these streets over which it is proposed that this system should be adopted the omnibuses emerge on to the main thoroughfare at a very dangerous point, and to introduce a system of this kind, which is liable at a moment's notice to be absolutely stopped through any breakdown in the electric supply, would in my humble opinion be exceedingly dangerous in the circumstances which exist in that particular neighbourhood. In addition to that, very large power is taken under Clause 16 of the Bill. Power is taken by the London County Council not only to adopt this system along a specified route, but also over a non-specified route as between the terminus either at one end or the other and an unstated destination, namely, the depôt, wherever it may happen to be that is to be provided for the trackless vehicles. That seems to me to give a very large and very unwarranted power to the London County Council in a matter of this kind. In addition, in the Bill the London County
    120
    Council seem to realise that they are departing from a well-known principle that has been adopted and emphasised by this House, because under Clause 7, which deals purely and simply with tramways, they reiterate practically Section 23 of the Act of 1909. They say:—
    "Nothing in this Act shall authorise the council to place in any Metropolitan borough any posts or wires in, on, or over any street for working the tramways authorised by this Act by electrical power unless the council of such Metropolitan borough shall by resolution have consented to the adoption therein of a system of traction conducted by means of posts and wires placed overhead."
    They realise themselves that the power should be retained by these Metropolitan boroughs, yet when they come to deal with a new system, absolutely untried in any very large area in which the traffic conditions are exceedingly grave, they propose that they should be given a free hand, and that the local authorities should be put on one side. I do not speak in any shape or form in antagonism to the work of the London County Council: far from it; I should be the last to seek to interfere, without very strong reasons, with anything that seemed to be for the benefit of the people of London as a whole. I feel that this is a step in the wrong direction, and that they are proposing to take these powers at a time when a change of this kind is absolutely uncalled for. I hope the House will not go back on the decision it came to in 1912, but will adhere in no uncertain way to the decision they then arrived at.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: I rise to oppose the Instruction moved by the hon. Member for Mile End. I do not propose to enter into the question whether the trackless trolley system is suited either to Hackney or to Lewisham. I consider that is entirely a question to be decided by the Committee upstairs. I would remind the House that London is in an exceptional position. In London the tramway authority is not the road authority, the tramway authority is the London County Council, and the borough councils are the local road authorities. Under Standing Order 22 of this House the promoters of a tramway scheme have to obtain the sanction of the road authorities before they can bring their scheme into this House. Therefore in every case the London County Council, before they can bring in a tramway

    121
    scheme, have to obtain the consent of the borough councils, and the borough councils, as far as the tramway is concerned, have an absolute veto with regard to tramways in London. In addition to that, under Section 23 of the Tramways Act of 1900, the borough council has an additional power. They can say, "We do not want any posts or overhead wires in our streets." Therefore they can stop the overhead system of tramways in their particular districts. Under this Standing Order 22 trackless trolleys are not included. When the Standing Orders were revised in 1911 trackless trolleys were dealt with, but were not brought within the Standing Order No. 32. In the case of trackless trolleys, the promoters have not got to obtain the authority or the sanction of the road authorities before they come to Parliament. The hon. Member has told us that this question was really decided last year. It was decided last year, I agree, as far as the tramways on the overhead system were concerned. It has not been decided with regard to trackless trolleys, which clearly are not tramways.
    Trackless trolleys, in the first place, do not run on rails; you have not got to pull up the road; they take up a very large extent of the road, it is true, but they are not fixed; they are movable; they do not interfere with the surface of the road as much as do tramways. But if this House to-day decides that the particular Section of the Act of 1900 should be inserted, it means that the trackless trolley system will never be adopted in any part of the county of London. We know perfectly well that each borough council wants to have the best and most expensive system. The conduit system is the best and most satisfactory, but it can only be used in the central parts of the town—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no"]—where the traffic is such that it will pay the council for the very large capital outlay. In outlying districts the overhead system ought to be adopted. It has been adopted in all other towns. It would have been adopted in London to a much larger extent than it has been adopted if it had not been for the opposition of the borough councils. Of course, the borough council, as I say, wishes to have the best system. Shoreditch has got tramways on the conduit system, and Hackney wants to have the same. I entirely agree with Hackney, but from the point of view of the central tramway authority, who have to run the tramways on commercial lines, it is quite clear that
    122
    this expensive system should only be adopted where there is considerable traffic.
    But now you have the entirely new system of trackless trolleys which has been adopted successfully in other large towns, such as Leeds and Bradford, and it has been sanctioned at Chiswick. The hon. Member opposite shakes his head. I can assure him that I was on the Local Legislation Committee when we had the Bill before us, and trackless trolleys were sanctioned at Chiswick. They have not been put down yet, but there is authority to lay them down at Chiswick, which is on the border of the county of London. Therefore the system has been tried successfully in other towns, and there is no reason why it should not meet with equal success, if not in the central, in the other parts of London. If we decided today that the borough councils should have the power of stopping any system which is run on the overhead principle, then trackless trolleys will never be introduced into London. I am sure that is not the wish of the House, and those hon. Members who say there is no desire for the trackless system in London hold a view which is contrary to that of most Members of the House. This is a question which ought to be decided by the Committee upstairs where both parties will be heard. Two borough councils most closely concerned, Lewisham and Hackney, have petitioned against the Bill, and if the Committee upstairs consider that Section 23 of the Act of 1900 should be inserted, that Section can be inserted. The hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Morison) referred to the scheme proposed for Hackney, and told us that in one particular part of the road in which it is proposed to have these trackless trolleys that there were certain difficulties. Those are all points which can be decided by the Committee, and if the Committee considers that trackless trolleys are not suitable for Hackney or Lewisham, then they will reject the scheme brought before them. I do think the House ought not to decide the question without hearing all the evidence both of the county council and of the borough council, and that it will agree to the Instruction which has been moved.
    Sir ALBERT SPICER: As one of the Members for Hackney and as a Londoner, I desire to say a few words in opposition to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, because, after all, he has spoken from the point of view of someone

    123
    who does not understand London. We are not prepared that the one part of London with regard to its tramways should be treated in a different way from other parts. My constituents, though they live in Hackney, ought not to have a second-rate system put upon them. I think the London County Council are making a great mistake in trying in a matter of this kind to get past the wishes of the borough authorities. If they want to make an experiment in some part of London, let them go to the borough authorities and try to make an arrangement with them. With regard to the present case, I am opposed to the action of the London County Council in trying to get the matter through without consulting the borough council. Apart from that, I have been to see this road of about a mile and a half, and it seems to me that it is an utterly unsuitable road to test any system. It is a narrow road, uneven and winding, and I think it will be a most dangerous road for a system like this to be tested on. The motor-'buses at the present time run along that road. Under this trolley system every passenger will have to change from the car at Mare Street, whereas the motor-'bus comes from other parts and goes up the narrow road and traverses three streets. The trolley has to stop at a narrow bridge which goes over the Hackney Cut, while the other side there is a good wide road to the Essex boundary. I need not refer to that, which has been mentioned already by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. Morison), but I hope this matter will not go up to the Committee Room unless this Instruction is passed, because, after all, London is constantly changing, and that which, so to speak, may be a second-rate district to-day may in the course of a few years become a very good district. We are trying to beautify and improve London every year. I am thankful for what has been done by the London County Council in this matter, but I do feel that in a matter of this kind they are taking a backward step. Reference has been made to this system as suitable for some of the provincial towns. I have made a few inquiries, and with regard to that running in Leeds, I am told that some of the people there do not care for it at all. They think it is uncomfortable and a very second-rate system. For those different reasons I hope the House will pass this Instruction.
    Sir WILLIAM BULL: I have been asked by my own borough council to support the Instruction proposed, because they feel very strongly that this is an invasion of their rights as a borough council, and that this is not the time that those rights should be abrogated. We feel strongly in Hammersmith that this is not a matter for the county council at all. We hoped that a Road Board would deal with the whole of this question with regard to the main arteries of London, and that that should be done under a proper system. Whether the authority to do that should be the county council or not is a question, but it is perfectly clear that the whole subject is one which ought to be considered on totally different lines from those on which it is being considered at present. I think it is a patchwork piece of business to propose that a mile or a mile and a half in a borough should be the occasion for the London County Council to try to do away with the provision deliberately put in the Act of 1900 to protect the borough councils, which are as much interested in the roads and in the system of traction as the London County Council. I believe that it is almost unanimously felt by the borough councils that this matter ought not to be allowed to proceed further in this way. Some of them do not, I think, object so strongly as others, but they all feel that this is not quite the method in which it should be done, and they think that the whole question should be considered by a general authority and not as a side issue. Personally, I believe that in twenty years there will not be a tramway in London. I think the tramway system is practically dead. I think we shall find that motor traction will gradually improve, with the result that the inhabitants generally will find either the immovable system on the tramway, which cannot be diverted and can only stop at certain spots on the one hand, and also this newfangled system of immovable trackless trolleys, are both hopelessly out of date. We never stand still. Motor-'buses may be old fashioned in the course of a few years, but at any rate it seems to me that the time is not the present when we should seek to extend what I believe will be absolutely obsolete in a few years.
    Sir EDWARD COATES: As Member for Lewisham I desire to say a few words in support of the Instruction, which I consider should be passed, because I agree

    125
    with some of the speakers who have mentioned the fact that so far as the various boroughs in London are concerned they should be all equally treated. There should be no favouritism. The inner boroughs in London have got the conduit system. It is outside London, to which the county council is looking as portion of its kingdom, which is being tackled on this matter. So far as Lewisham is concerned, we decline, as far as we can, to be the object of experiment. We know that the roads which are put in this Bill are narrow and steep, and that the gradients are bad in many places, and there are bad turns. So far as the road is concerned, Lewisham should surely know best what is good for it. They object strongly to the road and also to the taking away of the powers from the borough councils so far as their highway authority is concerned. The hon. Member for Stowmarket mentioned that the tramways were run on commercial lines. I am very glad to hear it.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: That they ought to be.
    Sir E. COATES: I think the whole of this question, as submitted by the London County Council authorities in this Bill, is really a question of finance. They have been running trams for some years. We know that in the early part of the running the competition which they had to go against was simply the old horse - bus and the railway. We know that the railways and the horse buses suffered from the trams. The trams are now up against a strong combination of motor buses and tubes, co-ordinated and working together, and it is only right that the county council should see whether or not they can compete successfully with their opponents. If they are to do so, I suggest that they should not endeavour to sacrifice some of the borough councils, who are their own friends in the matter of London government, but should, as far as they are able to do so, alter their management. I cannot speak definitely, but I suggest that there are ways in their management whereby they might reduce expenses and increase their revenue. Every business man has ups and downs in his business. When the business is up the wise man realises that bad times will follow, and he endeavours so to guide his business that when the bad times come he is able to meet them. Bad times appear to have come to the London County Council
    126
    tramways. I believe that the tramways are an admirable institution in London; they are wanted by Londoners; they are required by the people, not only in the interior, but on the outskirts of London; and they will be wanted more and more. The fact that they will probably be wanted more and more is all the greater reason why the system should be the same in all parts, rich and poor. You ought not to pick out one part for the purposes of experiment as against another. If the county council have arguments showing that the trackless trolley system is a good, convenient, and paying system, and one which people would desire to have in their neighbourhood, let them, instead of coming to the House of Commons to coerce the borough authorities, use their arguments with them. The borough councils consist of hard-headed men of business, commercial men who work in the City of London, men who recognise and realise the requirements of London, and know something about finance. Why not consult with them? Why try to override them? Are the county council afraid of them? They must be afraid of the borough councils if they are trying to force the matter through the House of Commons instead of submitting their propositions to the borough authorities. There are many other matters in the Bill which require attention, and will no doubt be fought out in Committee. As far as this Instruction is concerned, I hope it will be supported by the House.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. F. HALL: I have listened with keen attention to the remarks of all the speakers, and particularly to those of the hon. Member far Lewisham (Sir Edward Coates). He suggested that by some subterfuge we want to get round the veto of the borough councils. We have no desire to do anything of the sort. The hon. Baronet has suggested that we are not prepared to inform the borough councils what we desire to do. With all due deference, he is not aware of the whole facts connected with the scheme. It is necessary perhaps, to say that whenever the county council has any scheme to bring before the House, one very busy borough council seems to do all in its power to circularise the other borough councils, to see whether they cannot coerce the London County Council. Why is that? We have worked harmoniously on the London County Council with all the borough councils with, unfortunately, one

    127
    exception. I am not going into that question to-night, because it was very fully discussed a twelvemonth ago on the question of reconstructing on the overhead system the tramways of Burdett Road and Grove Road. That is the Alpha and Omega of the trouble. We do not intend to be coerced by the borough council of Stepney. At the same time, the House should clearly understand that we have never had any intention of overriding the veto of the borough councils. We have respected that veto. I have stated in this House and in the county council and elsewhere that I would always do my best to uphold the veto of the borough council. I repeat that to-night. Hon Members are probably not aware of what the position really is. Reference has been made to the Tramways Act, 1900. But we live in hurrying, enterprising days. The point to which the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Lawson) referred was only the question of the veto of the tramways in 1900. It was not a question of trackless trolleys at all. Rightly or wrongly—some Members will perhaps say wrongly now, although they were parties to it—Parliament has decided that trackless trolley vehicles and tramways are totally different in the matter of locomotion. Trackless trolleys are, to all intents and purposes, electrical motor 'buses. Unfortunately in the county council we have had to suffer from the competition of motor 'buses. We are business men, and we have prepared ourselves for competition. Hence our opposition to the Instruction proposed so admirably by the hon. Member for Mile End.
    The hon. Member for Lewisham stated that the county council would probably have to pass through a bad time. We have not come here to cry, but we are endeavouring, if possible, to mitigate the evil of having to spend such very large sums on very small lines of tramway. The hon. Member for Central Hackney (Sir A. Spicer) stated that he had been through the thoroughfare where it is proposed to have the trackless trolley. I endeavoured to go through it to-day, and if the hon. Baronet succeeded in getting through he has beaten me into a cocked hat. I went down there particularly to refresh my memory as to what exactly the road was, but I found there was a drop of about two feet in consequence of the road being in a state of reconstruction. I have endeavoured, as I always do in these
    128
    matters, to make myself thoroughly conversant with the whole of the facts. I am not going to say that it is a hundred-feet road. If it had been we should have been able to construct the tramway, and probably should have done, although I do not say that we should. It would not have been necessary to spend £267,000 on a mile and a quarter of tramway, which is, practically sneaking, the cost of the mile and a quarter in the Hackney Division. We should probably have gone into the pros and cons of the matter, and seen whether it was likely to be a reasonably remunerative undertaking. After all, the county council is not entirely a philanthropic body. It has had £12,160,000 placed under its care, and all members of the council, irrespective of party, have endeavoured to protect that money. If we are going to spend £267,000 on a mile and a quarter of tramway, I do not know that even in these enterprising days whether we could manage to see a return for our money. We have on the one hand the people of Hackney who want a certain means of locomotion, and we have on the other hand the London County Council desirous of having a method of linking up our tramways. My hon. Friend spoke this evening about the linking up. We proposed to Hackney a scheme of linking up. That is the proposition. The hon. Member for Central Hackney rather sneered at the idea of linking up. The whole question is that we have got to link up our system in order to be in a position to carry people from one point in London to another, and if we cannot do it in one way we must endeavour to do it in another. I said that the cost of that would be a very large amount, £267,000. A trackless trolley system would cost £18,350—a very different proposition. The working expenses would practically be the same as running the tramways—
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: May I ask my hon. Friend whether this is not for a widening of the road which ought to be done in any case?
    Mr. F. HALL: My hon. Friend thinks that the road ought to be widened under any circumstances. If that be so, surely that cannot be a question for the tramways authority. In this matter the borough councils will see to it that they get their pound of flesh out of the London County Council. Whenever we have any of these schemes they do not come to the county council and say, "We are

    129
    delighted to see you; we want your trams and you need not trouble to widen the street." What they say to the county council is, "The county council is going to put a tramway down, and we are going to get all we can out of the county council." That is what we have experienced up till now. Perhaps it would not be out of place for me to tell my hon. Friend that during the past few years we have spent over £600,000 in widening and improving the roads. What happened? After we have widened and improved the roads along came a fleet of motor omnibuses and got the whole of the benefit which we had created. We are now only asking to get a little of our own back. We have plenty of motor omnibuses. I have no feeling against the motor omnibus companies, but it must not be forgotten that the motor omnibus companies are allowed to put on as many 'buses as they like, provided that they notify Scotland Yard, and that they can go up and down any street or road, either residential or business, without question. My hon. Friend referred to the question of widening. The tramways are widened for the benefit of other people. We have rendered unto Cæsar the things which were Cæsar's. We have debited the tramway accounts with a fair and equitable proportion of the widening of these roads. Perhaps it would not be out of place if I mentioned—the hon. Member for Lewisham referred to the question of finance—to the House what is the position. The total borrowed on the tramways undertaking was £12,162,000. There has been repaid about £2,250,000, or, roughly, two and a quarter millions, leaving outstanding just under £10,000,000. The debt has been reduced by £2,250,000 by repayment out of revenue. The Committee had met the whole of the charges and the interest, and they have, in addition, set aside two-thirds of a penny per car mile, amounting to £650,000, and the surplus, after that, amounting to about £250,000, they have carried to their General Reserve Fund. I hope, therefore, I have satisfied the House that the County Council, though they have often been called over the coals, have, at all events, shown business capability in the way they have managed that £12,000,000 of the ratepayers' money which has been entrusted to them.
    What is the meaning of this Instruction? It is simply this, that if you pass the Bill with this Instruction to-night, you are going to place the Houses of Parliament in a
    130
    derogatory position to the borough councils. Suppose we bring forward our Bill and get a Second Reading in the ordinary course We go upstairs with the Instruction which is proposed by my hon. Friend. We come before the Committee of the House. There is counsel on both sides. This House subsequently decides to give us powers to construct certain trackless trolleys or to arrange other equipment. The borough councils come along and in consequence of this Instruction say, "We do not mind what Parliament has done." So the local authorities are going to override Parliament. That is the position, and I challenge my hon. Friend or any hon. Member in this House to say that I have overrated the position. I do not want to take away any credit from the borough councils, but I do want to say that Parliament should have this matter placed carefully before it, so that having it so placed the House should be able to consider the whole question and decide, for the trackless trolleys and the tramways stand in a totally different position. A trackless trolley, as the House has been told, does not run on any road. The House has been told that it will stop because there is no current. I have seen broken-down motor omnibuses. I have seen tramcars that have been stopped. We get accidents in all these sort of matters. We need not overrate the difficulties. We ought to look at the matter in a reasonable manner. Even if you pass this without the Instruction the borough councils will be still able to come to this place and state the whole of their case before the House of Commons Committee. If that Committee decides that they have made out their case, then we do not get our powers. But do not check us in this way. Do not let the House of Commons say that the county council shall not come and ask for powers to run certain systems. Hear our case. That is all we ask. We shall be quite prepared, after you have heard our case upstairs, to abide by the decision. We are told on both sides of the House that we want to take away the veto. That is not so. I have endeavoured to place the matter fairly and concisely before the House. I have had something to do with the tramways of the county council. I am not going to sing their praises—or that of other systems! I hope I have made it perfectly plain that I do think it is an unfair position in which to place the county council, that after Parliament has decided that it is not

    131
    necessary that a veto should be given to the borough councils to prohibit the county council from coming here and asking for certain powers. I would be the last to stand up and vindicate the position that the borough councils ought not to have the same right as other bodies to come here and defend their position in the Committee Room of the House of Commons, where they can be represented by counsel, and where they can—as they do—put their case so fully, clearly, and concisely that we have always had a difficulty to succeed in getting through our County Council Bills. I should like to read one extract from a document circulated by the proprietors of the Associated Omnibuses. It says:—
    "Your petitioning Federation is a body formed for the protection of the rights and the privileges of the owners of the omnibuses running through the Metropolis, and represents practically the whole of the omnibuses working in the Metropolis which at the present time are carrying nearly 1,000,000,000 passengers annually, and which has a large capital and interest at stake paying large sums of money annually in rates. They strongly object to the wide and injurious interference with the roads and streets which the Bill seeks to authorise, and especially to the Clauses and provisions hereinbefore cited; to the proposed tramways and trackless vehicles running along the streets upon which your petitioners have for years supplied an ample system of omnibuses, and your petitioners respectfully submit that these tramways and trolley vehicles will establish an entirely unnecessary and unfair competition with them in carrying on their trade and business."
    We might say exactly the same. We do not seek to stop ordinary competition. The motor omnibus companies have not had to contribute large amounts towards the maintenance of the roads and towards the improvement of the roads the same as the London County Council has.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): These rather general questions do not arise upon this Instruction, which deals with the application of the Act of 1900, and not with the general purposes of the Bill.
    Mr. F. HALL: I do not wish to go outside your ruling, Sir, but I do think it is necessary to show when we have a document placed in our hands by those who are the opponents of our Bill that that is not the position the county council has taken up. We have contributed £500,000 for roads, added to the £650,000 which we paid for the improvement of roads. We do not ask for any favour, we only ask the House of Commons to confirm what it has previously done. The House of Commons has given this matter careful consideration, and it has decided that it was not necessary for the borough councils to have a
    132
    veto with regard to stopping the county council in asking for powers, and I trust therefore that the Instruction moved by my hon. Friend will be rejected by the House.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Maclean): I venture to make a suggestion to the House in connection with the private business which still remains upon the Paper to be dealt with. As hon. Members are aware if this discussion goes on until 9.30 the remaining business cannot be taken if opposed. I suppose some hon. Members who have taken part in this Debate have some interest in the other Bill of the London County Council, and I am very much afraid that the private business of the London County Council will be very seriously hampered indeed if these proceedings are carried on at any very great length when there is a great amount of business in a very crowded Session.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: The House will have noticed with some interest that among the speakers upon this question tonight only one London Member, the hon. Member who has just sat down, has defended the proposals of the London County Council. He represents a district well served by conduit tramways.
    Mr. F. HALL: And overhead tramways.
    Mr. CROOKS: But no trackless vehicles.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: I represent a district also well served by the conduit tramway system which has provided most successfully for the people, and which has always given satisfaction. The House will be interested to note that the hon. Member who has just sat down has proved by the figures he placed before the House that the conduit system can be made to pay if fairly treated, and that it would have paid very well if it had not been overburdened with charges for road widening which makes it appear not to be paying anything like as well as it has paid. I on behalf of a borough council support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Mile End. It is desirable, so far as possible that the tramway system of London should be uniform, and that the routes should be linked up. The most effective way of linking up the routes is to have a uniform system. You do not want to carry a passenger half his way and then compel him to alight from one vehicle and to enter another. If that system were satisfactory why do not the county council come for powers to run 'buses, when there would be

    133
    no need for all this miserable disfigurement and noise just for the purpose of saving the necessary expenditure which would be involved in putting down a proper uniform system. I understand why the London County Council are so very anxious to get powers to carry out this system in spite of the wishes of the local people. They will be enabled thereby to run this service at a comparatively cheap rate through congested streets which need to be widened whether tramways are put down or not. They would be enabled to avoid the immediate widening necessary in order to accommodate the immediate traffic, and they would be enabled to make profits they otherwise would not be able to secure.
    Although one of the duties of the tramway authorities is to avoid loss it is not their primary duty to make profits. Their primary duty is to provide such a system as will conveniently and quickly convey passengers from one part of London to another, but not necessarily at a profit. Private companies, of course, run their 'buses for profit and profit only. Their conveniences for the public are such as will attract profit into their own coffers. But the function of the London County Council is quite different. It is to provide a system whereby the people of London can get from one place to another. Their first consideration should be the public service. We have it proved that in spite of all the burdens under which the county council tramway system is labouring it has made very large profits indeed. If you adopt a different system on the new routes you would make them less profitable from the point of view of revenue earning than if you had through routes. It is perfectly certain if passengers have to change from one vehicle to another, they will often change from the county council vehicle to the private vehicle, and the county council tramway will feed the coffers of the private companies running along these routes. I think it is extremely desirable that if this thing is done, it should at least be done with the assent of the people through whose district it runs. I do not agree that the local authorities should override the wishes of the county council. But at the same time there are questions in which the general interest should override the local interest, still I object to this alteration being made upon a side issue. If a change is to be brought about in the relations between the two authorities then it should be done by a general Bill to reorganise the
    134
    whole administration of London. Believing that not only the local administrators, but the local people living along the routes to be served by the proposed 'buses object to this proposal; believing that I express their views in regard to the disfigurement of their streets and the noise in connection with the overhead system; believing that they will be the sufferers, and that the convenience to be placed at their disposal will not be commensurate with the disabilities under which they will suffer; believing that the conduit system which the Metropolitan authority has laid down will best serve their purposes and that it can in the near future actually be made to pay, although the capital outlay will be greater in the first place, I support strongly the Instruction which has been moved by the hon. Member for Mile End.
    Mr. AMERY: I do not propose in the few remarks I am going to make to go into the question of the difference between the London County Council and the borough councils which apparently has been the chief subject of discussion to-night. It seems to me that a wider and a very much more important point had been raised. I gather that if this Instruction is accepted it will, in all human probability, prevent the county council from carrying out a very important experiment which may have a very wide and far-reaching effect upon the problem of transportation. That problem is one of the most important questions which this House will have to consider within the next few years. One of the greatest difficulties which our industries have to contend with at the present time is the whole question of transportation and the means of communication. I understand that the particular system which the county council are now endeavouring to make an experiment with for the carrying of passengers in the London area is one which may develop very greatly in the near future, and which may have a very great effect in relieving congestion. It may also at the same time be an important factor in solving the problem of transportation. I brush aside what has been said about the trackless trolley system, and I suggest to the House that it really is from the broader national point of view better to resist this Instruction and give the county council an opportunity of trying this very important experiment.
    Mr. RADFORD: The hon. Member who has just spoken does not represent a division in the county of London, and therefore he runs no danger of being called upon

    135
    to justify to his constituency the fact that he has allowed this Bill to have its Second Reading without passing such an Instruction as that which has been moved by the hon. Member opposite. I think any hon. Member representing a London constituency must feel that this is a very serious matter. The London County Council has inaugurated an admirable system of tramway traction throughout the county of London. The people of London are thoroughly familiar with the conduit system, and they know that their neighbours also have this system of traction in use, which is much to the advantage of all. The inhabitants of every Parliamentary division which has this system appreciate it very much, and those who represent other constituencies which have not this system naturally feel that they ought not to be put off with any other system which is not as good. In this case the London County Council has selected Hackney and Lewisham as the places to make an experiment in a new system which, by common consent, is inferior and perhaps more dangerous than the system which is generally prevalent throughout London. As the representative of a London constituency, I feel that I could not justify myself in the eyes of my Constituents if I allowed this Bill to be passed without supporting the Instruction of my hon. Friend opposite, otherwise it would be possible for this experimental system to be brought into the constituency of Islington to the dismay and consternation of the inhabitants there. May I remind the House of the words of Section 23 of the London County Council Tramways Act of 1900:—
    "This Act shall not authorise the council to place in any parish or district—"
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That Section has already been quoted several times to the House. No doubt the hon. Member is aware of the fact that we have a Standing Order against repetition, and I ought not to allow that Section to be quoted too often to the House.
    Mr. RADFORD: As it has been read to the House more than once, I have no wish to repeat it. My suggestion is that the proposed Bill is an infraction of the spirit, if not the letter, of that Section which is already the law of the land. I think the proper method upon which to proceed is to bring in a Bill dealing with the relations between the London County Council and the Metropolitan Borough Council in the
    136
    matter of tramways, and if such a Bill is brought in I can promise it my impartial consideration. I do not think that the present system of the government of London under which, as in this case, the London County Council promote a Bill and two Metropolitan boroughs oppose it, and under which the ratepayer has to pay for the promotion and the opposition, is one which can be justified at all. I think some scheme for the better government of London might be introduced which would relieve us from such a painful position as we find ourselves in at this moment. I think that any representative of a London constituency, in view of these facts, will find himself bound to vote in favour of this Instruction. If this Bill is passed this year and another year two other constituencies are chosen, it will be impossible after a few years to resist a similar attempt on the part of the London County Council, and the whole of London will suffer from this evil. For these reasons I shall heartily support this Instruction.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I shall be in the fortunate position this evening of voting with hon. Members opposite in support of the Instruction of my hon. Friend. The London Members as a body have always supported the principle that the borough councils should have a voice in the management of their own affairs, and that they should have an opportunity of saying whether they will have the trackless trolley or the underground or the overhead system. The notes that have been sent out by the London County Council seem to me to be rather of a prevaricating character. They say that the question here is not the same as that on the last occasion when a similar Instruction was proposed. The House then, by a large majority, objected to the overhead system because they thought it was unsightly and dangerous. There was a case where a wire or a conductor fell and a horse and, I think, a man were killed. They objected to it on that ground, and it does not in the slightest degree remove the objection because the overhead system is to be applied not to a vehicle running upon lines, but to one running upon the road loose. I say it is a prevarication on the part of the London County Council to say this is not a similar case. It is in effect, because if the Instruction is not passed the overhead system will be allowed. I venture, with all humility, to say that the London County Council are not well advised in continually endeavouring to

    137
    flout the decision of the House. It is the practice of the London County Council, when they have been defeated in this House, to come again in the following Session and propose the same thing. They ought not to be encouraged, and I shall therefore vote for the Instruction.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): The question is really rather one of procedure than of public policy. The hon. Baronet, in accusing the London County Council of prevarication, has alleged that if this Instruction is not carried the trackless trolley system will be carried, but that is not so.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The overhead system. I understand that if I vote for the Instruction the Committee will not have power to sanction the overhead system without the consent of the borough councils, and that is what I want to support. I think the borough councils ought to have the last word.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The Committee upstairs will have perfect power to veto the whole thing.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Yes, but my point is that this House should have the deciding voice and should say to the Committee, "You are not to take into consideration that particular system."
    Mr. F. HALL: May I inform the hon. Baronet that the House has already decided that matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I am not going into the merits of the issue between the county council and the local authorities, and still less between the overhead and the conduit systems. The question is really one of House of Commons procedure. It is a Committee point. The Bill is so framed that the London County Council do not ask for a general power to set up a trolley system anywhere. If they did, there would be some point in the Instruction. It is for routes which are specified in every detail that power to set up the trolley system is asked, and for those routes only.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: It establishes the precedent
    Mr. ROBERTSON: It will be for the Committee upstairs to settle whether any precedent in the matter is to be set up. There are four routes specified, and the
    138
    Committee will be free to veto any one or all four of them. Under those circumstances, the Instruction that the local authority shall have power to object seems to me quite inappropriate for dealing with the issue. I am not speaking on behalf of the trolley system as against any other. I merely suggest that the proper course would be to let the Bill go to the Committee and let them veto or approve any one or all four of the routes. The hon. Member would be taking the proper course if this were a Bill giving general power to construct trolley routes, but it gives the county council no such right. The hon. Baronet did not do the London County Council justice in regard to the question which was before the House last year. It is obvious that there are three or four ways of running a tramway, and it was claimed that the local authorities should have the right to say which system should be adopted. But there is only one trackless trolley system. The point here is whether with regard to specified routes the trackless trolley system shall be permitted and to raise the question of overhead wires is a circuitous way of dealing with it. We have had too many cases in which we have threshed out Committee points in this House. I suggest that the House should allow this Bill to go to the Committee before which every one of the local authorities concerned can appear, and ask for the absolute deletion of any part of any Clause or the veto of any one or of all four of the routes. All that is desired by those who object to the trackless trolley system can be achieved in that regular way as opposed to that which I think is the irregular course of passing the Instruction proposed.
    Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: I should not have intervened in this Debate but for the remarks to which we have just listened. The argument used by the hon. Gentleman amounts to the old one, that this is a matter which ought to go upstairs, and ought not to be decided by this House. That is a position which I strongly contest in such a matter as setting up a precedent which would tend to destroy the very great boon London has obtained in connection with its tramways—the conduit system. It was open to London to have the overhead system for its tramways, and there were many advocates of that course. The question was carefully considered over and over again, and the system was ultimately rejected by this House. It was

    139
    always felt that this was a matter on which this House had a perfect right to decide, as every Member has a sufficient knowledge of the facts regarding the two systems to enable him to come to a decision. I have never heard any argument used in support of the county council proposal, which goes to show that a Committee upstairs is better qualified to form an opinion on this subject than any ordinary Member of this House. That opinion
    Ordered, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to insert a provision in the Bill making the erection of
    has already been declared within the short space of a year, when a proposal similar to this was rejected by a very large majority, and I really cannot help thinking it shows considerable hardihood on the part of the London County Council to come forward, after so short an interval, with exactly the same proposal. I heartily support the Instruction of my hon. Friend.
    Question put.
    The House divided: Ayes, 119; Noes, 40.

    Division No. 89.]

    AYES.

    [9.48 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Forster, Henry William

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Adamson, William

    Gilmour, Captain John

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Glanville, H. J.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Goldstone, Frank

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Phillips, J. (Longford, S.)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Barnes, George N.

    Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

    Radford, G. H.

    Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Black, Arthur W.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Reddy, M.

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Boyton, James

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Higham, John Sharp

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hodge, John

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Robinson, Sidney

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Hudson, Walter

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    John, Edward Thomas

    Royds, Edmund

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Scott, A. MacCallum, (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Joyce, Michael

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Clough, William

    King, J.

    Sutton, John E.

    Clynes, John R.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Lynch, A. A.

    Thomas, J. H.

    Cotton, William Francis

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Craik, Sir Henry

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Crooks, William

    M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)

    Watt, Henry Anderson

    Crumley, Patrick

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Martin, Joseph

    Williams, Liewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Doris, William

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Essex, Sir Walter Richard

    Norton, Captain Cecil William

    Wing, Thomas

    Falconer, James

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Fell, Arthur

    O'Doherty, Philip

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    O'Grady, James

    Harry Lawson and Mr. Morison.

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    NOES.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Nuttall, Harry

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Gulland, John William

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Hayward, Evan

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Shortt, Edward

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Dawes, J. A.

    Jowett, F. W.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Kelly, Edward

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Denison-Pender, J.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Furness, Stephen

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    F. Hall (Dulwich) and Mr. Goldsmith.

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    trolley vehicle equipment on, over, under, along, or across any street or road in the county of London subject to the provisions

    141
    of Section 23 of the London County Tramways (Electrical Power) Act, 1900."

    CITY OF LONDON (CELLULOID REGULATIONS) BILL. (By Order.)
    Second Reading deferred till To-morrow (Wednesday), at a Quarter past Eight of the clock.
    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL. (By Order.)
    Second Reading deferred till To-morrow (Wednesday), at a Quarter past Eight of the clock.

  APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL [Lords].
  Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time." Debate resumed.
  10.0 P.M.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS (who was very imperfectly heard in the Press Gallery): I was dealing with the constitution of the tribunal and the assistance which might be given, as the House knows the very valuable assistance, by those Law Lords who have retired. Besides them there are a number of judges who are Members of the Privy Council who sit in our Courts, like the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, who are also qualified to sit, but who have their own work to do, consequently they are unable to give much assistance to the Judicial Committee. The consequence is that substantially there are only these four Law Lords and the ex-Lord Chancellor, Lord Mersey, to whom I have referred, and occasionally Lord Dunedin, to constitute the two Courts, the House of Lords and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. At the Imperial Conference it was pointed out very clearly that it was desirable to have an addition to the strength of the Judicial Committee. It was thought that a quorum of three was insufficient and that there should be a quorum of five. That is the point to which considerable attention was directed. There is no doubt that some of the Dominions have a strong objection to the decisions of their Supreme Courts, sometimes consisting of five or six judges, being overuled by three judges sitting here. The whole discussion eventuated in this: that the recommendation was made and a resolution passed to the effect that there should be these two new Law Lords constituted so that there
  142
  would be greater opportunities of forming a satisfactory quorum. If you take into account the number of judges who are available, it must be obvious to the House that there is not a sufficient number to man both the Judicial Committee and the House of Lords. The recommendations of the Conference were formulated in eight propositions which were agreed to by the Conference. I will read those which are material to this Bill. The first was:
  "At present the House of Lords is the Supreme Court of Appeal for the United Kingdom, and the King in Council (in effect the Judicial Committee) is the Supreme Court of Appeal for the rest of the Empire."
  The second was:—
  "It is proposed to take a first step towards combining these Courts into a Supreme Court of Appeal for the Empire, and towards strengthening them by adding to the number of judges composing them."
  The third was:—
  "The scheme is that the Home Government should add two selected judges to the Lords of Appeal. There would then be six Law lords devoting their whole time to sitting in the two Courts."
  It is that proposition which is embodied in the Bill now before the House of Commons. Undoubtedly the work of the Judicial Committee has increased very considerably during the last three years. Those recommendations were decided upon at the Imperial Conference of 1911, and from that time, including last year, the number of appeals which have been dealt with has increased, and it is certain that the work of the Judicial Committee and of the House of Lords will in all the cases tend to increase most certainly in complexity, and I must also say in duration of argument. There is one case at the present time pending before the Judicial Committee which comes from the Commonwealth of Australia. It has already lasted some ten days. It involves a great many difficult questions. It will be resumed, and it will certainly require another three or four days before it can be concluded. The most important questions come from the Dominions, and altogether the Judicial Committee deal, I suppose, with the most vital points that arise ire our Dominions, and also with the constitutional points which are constantly occurring in Canada, Australia, and elsewhere. The substance, therefore, of the proposal of the Government is to embody the Resolution of the Imperial Conference by the addition of these two Law Lords. When this is done, it is quite true that even with the six Law Lords and with the Lord Chancellor presiding we should not be able to man the two Courts simultaneously without the

  143
  assistance of some of those who are not bound to sit, but who are willing to give assistance whenever it is required, whenever they can. We shall undoubtedly have to call upon them in the future as in the past, but it will be possible now, when you have this nucleus of judges who are under an obligation to sit, to so arrange the business of the Judicial Committee and the Judicial Tribunal of the House of Lords that you will have these two Courts effectively manned, as they are at present, but also with an increased number. I think that everyone who has practised before these Courts, not only those who come from the Dominions to argue cases here, but those who are in the habit of appearing before the Courts, will agree it is very unsatisfactory to have to argue the kind of cases which go to the House of Lords and to the Judicial Committee when they are composed of three judges only. Our Dominions themselves have objections to that, and I know perfectly well that those who practise in this country before these Courts are of the same opinion. I suppose there is no supreme tribunal in any country which has so few judges, and which will have so few judges, even when we have added thereto those proposed to be added under this Bill.
  A question to which I should refer for a moment is the salary of the two new Law Lords. I indicated just now that it was the intention that the salary should remain the same as had been fixed hitherto for the Law Lords up to the present moment. At one time it was thought that the salary might be reduced to £5,000, and that was the first proposal, but it was pointed out then that that really was putting the members of the highest tribunal at a lower rate of salary than a judge of first instance in the High Court, because he gets the assistance of a clerk, who is provided outside his salary. As the result of the criticisms which have been directed to this proposal, we came to the conclusion that it is better to maintain the same rate as before, and not make any distinction, and, at any rate, as matters are at present, to give the increased salary of £6,000 a year to these new members of the highest tribunal. We are not making any proposal to increase the salary. What we are proposing is that the salaries of the two new Law Lords shall be the same as the salary of the four Law Lords since 1876.
  One other matter is worthy of observation. In the proposals formulated by the
  144
  Imperial Conference, it was proposed that, in accordance with the wishes expressed by the Dominion representatives, the practice of the Judicial Committee should be modified, so that, in Dominion cases, any dissentient judge may be free to give his reasons if His Majesty's consent is given to this change. At the time of this discussion it was thought by some of the representatives of the Dominions that it would be desirable that the constitutional practice should be departed from which has hitherto always existed. All the members of the House of Lords tribunal are entitled to give their judgments separately, and, if they dissent from the majority to express their dissent in their own judgments. But in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which is an appeal to the King-in-Council, the Judicial Committee gives advice to the King upon which the King either accepts or rejects the petition which is presented to him from the Dominion, and that opinion is always the expression of the Judicial Committee, and there is nothing to indicate whether there is any dissension between the members of the Committee. It has hitherto been thought undesirable that it should be so, and that it would be much better that there should be the one judgment expressed, and that undoubtedly would be the constitutional practice. Since this proposition which I just read, there has been a good deal of correspondence with the Dominions, and as the result of that, as I know from my right hon. Friend, the Dominions have substantially agreed to the view which was expressed, certainly by the representatives of the tribunal here, that it was better to adhere to the old practice and to give one judgment which was to be the decision. The Dominions have now agreed to that, and therefore it becomes unnecessary for us to formulate any proposition of that kind in the Bill. And, moreover, it is not necessary to do it by legislation. It could be done by Order in Council. But it is not proposed at present that effect should be given to that proposition, because the Dominions have agreed to adhere to the old course which has been hitherto pursued.
  That, in substance, deals with the various proposals of the Government. I have not gone in any length into the other two. So far as I have been able to ascertain from any of those who had intimated their intention before they had heard the proposal of the Government of opposing

  145
  this Bill, no objection was raised to the proposal of the Government to increase the number of five to seven, of judges, Chief Justices, and Judges of Dominions who were members of the Privy Council and were qualified to sit on the Judicial Committee. Under the present system, with the number limited to five as it is by Statute, it is not possible to give representation to New Zealand. New Zealand desired it, and it was thought New Zealand should have it, and consequently we propose to take the additional two by extending the five to seven. That does not involve for a moment any increase of expenditure or the creation of new judges. What it does is to give the right to a certain number of judges of particular Dominions to sit in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to assist the Committee but they have their duties in their own country and must try cases there. I do not anticipate for a moment that there will be any difficulty about that. The other proposal is one which I am sure I need not dwell upon. It is simply to enable the judges and the Privy Council to sit in the Court of Appeal, so that, if the opportunity offers, they may lend assistance to the Court of Appeal if they are willing to do so. It is necessary to do that by legislation, to make them ex-officio members of the Court of Appeal. That is all that it is necessary to say upon that.
  At the present moment there are altogether sixty-three appeals which stand in the list for hearing. There are fifteen appeals from India, twenty-four from the Dominions otherwise, including fifteen from Canada, and there are twenty-four to the House of Lords. That makes a total of sixty-three, involving many very difficult, intricate, and complicated points. If you get the advantage of the assistance of these two Law Lords there is no doubt that both the Judicial Committee and the House of Lords will be able to cope with the work. Without that assistance, as I know from the Lord Chancellor, and as I am empowered to say, it will be quite impossible to deal with this huge list and quite impossible for them to make the arrangements which are necessary. I may point out, as showing some of the difficulties which confront those who are responsible for the constitution of these Courts, that counsel come from Canada for the purpose of representing their cases, and it is necessary to constitute your tribunal some time ahead in order that you may be able to take these cases from Canada so that they may be heard,
  146
  and the counsel who are over here may be able to argue all the cases with which they are concerned, and then go back to their own country to take up their own work. I hope the House, when it understands why it is that this Government is making these proposals, will not persist in the objections which have been foreshadowed with regard to the creation of these two new Law Lords. It is impossible for the work of the Empire to continue and to be properly done unless this House allows us to create these two new Law Lords. It is impossible for us to give real satisfaction to the views which they have expressed unless we are empowered to create these two new judges, and I cannot but think that when the House realises what importance is to be attached to the Bill in this particular respect, its passage will be a little less stormy and a little less obstructive than was indicated during the earlier stages of another discussion. May I say before I conclude in reference more especially to an observation which fell from the hon. and learned Member for East St. Pancras (Mr. Martin) in the speech which he made in the course of the last Debate, that no question has been raised as to the age at which any of these Law Lords should retire? I am quite sure that those who have practised before the Law Lords will readily recognise that Lord Halsbury, who has given so much valuable service, both in the House of Lords and in the Judicial Committee, has been one of the most assiduous workers in appeal cases. I do submit to the House that this Bill should be passed. This is the third time we have tried to pass it. We tried in 1911. It was then rather late in the Session, and there was a remonstrance from some of my hon. Friends below the Gangway, with the result that in the end we gave way to their views. It was too late in the Session to attempt the impossible. In the congested state of business last year it was impossible to pass it through the House, and now, two years after the Imperial Conference, we are under obligation to pass it, and I do hope that the House will see fit to give it a Second Reading.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I feel in a peculiarly difficult position in rising to oppose this Bill after the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General. I would ask the House to observe that in all the observations which the right hon. and

  147
  learned Gentleman addressed to the House he has not in any way touched upon the question of the reforms which we have been asking, and which ought not to be confined to the High Court, but should be extended to the House of Lords as well. All the arguments in the main which apply to the High Court apply equally to the House of Lords. If the House passes this Bill, I am afraid we shall be absolutely precluded from modifying the present system, or having any reforms whatever carried in respect of the legal body sitting in the House of Lords. Let me first of all refer to the pension question. I am very sorry to deal with the matter, because it is a personal one, but I consider it my duty to do so, although it is an uncomfortable position to take as a Member of this House. The late Attorney-General, in 1910, was appointed a member of the Privy Council and sat for, I think, a few months, retiring in 1911. He retired after considerably less than two years' service. I think it was sixteen months' service, after which he retired with a pension of £3,700. It may be that that is a proper allowance to be paid for His Majesty's judges who retire on account of ill health, but the private Member of this House after all is sent here to guard the public purse, and having regard to the long period which the ordinary citizen has to serve before he obtains his pension, it does seem to my mind a grievance that a pension of this kind can be granted by the Government—because I wish to point out that there was no obligation on the part of the Government to have granted this particular pension. I might refer the House on this point to Section 7 of the Judicature Act of 1876. That Section reads:—
  "Her Majesty may by letters patent grant to any Lord of Appeal in Ordinary who has served fifteen years or is disabled by permanent infirmity from the performance of the duties of his office, a pension byway of annuity to be continued during his life equal in amount to the pension which might under similar circumstances be granted to the Master of the Rolls in pursuance of the Supreme Court Judicature Act, 1873."
  The Act of 1873 provides by Clause 13—
  "Subject to the provisions in this Act contained in respect to existing judges, there shall be paid the following sums, which shall in each case include any
  148
  pension granted in respect of any public office previously held by him to which the judge may be entitled: to each of the judges of the Court of Appeal the sum of £5,000 a year, and to the Master of the Rolls a salary of £6,000."
  We on this side of the House claim to be the party of economy, and how any country can justify the payment to any public servant of the large sum of £3,700 a year after only a few months' service is to my mind incomprehensible. I do not for a moment suggest that a judge who has sat and done his duty year after year should not be entitled to a pension adequate to the high office which he held. It would be outrageous if the judges upon whom such great responsibilities rest were not to have proper pensions after they leave their offices. But this is a very different matter. Owing to the system on which judges' salaries are based we have no opportunity on the Estimates of discussing these questions. The only opportunity which we have is on an occasion of this kind. I am not opposed to the proper number of judges being appointed to deal with the business that comes from the Empire. It is, as I think the House will freely grant, a great honour conferred on this country by the great Dominions, for it shows great respect for the ability and integrity of our Courts that they should bring their cases 12,000 miles to this country to have a final decision given on legal matters. But that is all the more reason why we on this side of the House, who have to take part in the setting up of the Court, should see that the business of that Court is conducted in a manner, to use the language of Lord Loreburn, which meets with the approval and is followed by the ordinary man. After all, the judges are not more entitled to special privileges than the ordinary citizens of this country. Under this Act we allow the Government of the day to give a pension when the judge has served the period which I stated in the particular case I have cited, and I defy any Member of the House to go down to any meeting of his constituents, or any body of the electors who find the taxes that we vote here, and justify the action of the Government in this matter. This Government claim to be a democratic Government; they claim to be here representing the great industrial classes of this country. Will the Attorney-General go to his constituents at Reading and tell them that a judge who has served his

  149
  country for a period of thirteen or sixteen months is entitled to receive a pension of £3,700 a year? It is unthinkable, and the whole system is wrong. Then there is the question of the Long Vacation. Is there to be any reform in that matter, or is it to be the same as before. We understand that we are to have another Royal Commission, but I do not think that I am disclosing anything in breach of confidence when I say that it is the general opinion that one recommendation will be the shortening of the period of the Long Vacation. Will legislation be necessary, or will the reduction of the Long Vacation equally apply to the House of Lords, if the Bill is passed?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: If by Statute the Long Vacation is altered, it would have application just as much to one branch of the judicature as to another.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: The Long Vacation is not fixed by Statute.
  Mr. MARTIN: The same thing would apply to changes in the rules of the Court.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I think my right hon. Friend is incorrect. The Long Vacation is fixed by a committee of the judges, and not by Statute.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That would not affect legislation.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Of course, this House can alter anything, and it might very well be that a Statute might regulate the time of the Long Vacation; but what I particularly ask is whether the alteration would equally apply to the House of Lords. It would meet one of my objections if I could feel that when we have those reforms for the High Court, that they will equally apply to the other Courts and to the House of Lords.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The House of Lords and the Judicial Committee do not sit as they do in the High Courts from day to day, but if you have a Statute affecting the Long Vacation, then as far as the Long Vacation affects either the House of Lords or the Judicial Committee it will affect them as well as the other Courts.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: May I ask the attention of the House to the fallacy underlying the argument of the right hon. Gentleman? He told the House that if two extra judges were appointed the arrears would be dealt with and more speedy justice would be obtained, and he
  150
  said that the work of the Empire could not be carried out unless those additional judges were appointed. I do not understand that argument. The Attorney-General tells us that in the opinion of the Dominions the Court should not be less than five. The quorum at present is three, and if you are going to have a quorum of five how is it going to deal more expeditiously with those appeals which it is absolutely necessary should be dealt with? The course of business will remain exactly as it is. I should think that the wheels of justice would move more slowly with five than with three. In my opinion, in an industrial business the best board of directors is two when one does not attend. That, to my mind, is the ideal system under which business can be rapidly and efficiently carried out. In this case we are asked to appoint five judges, not because there is in this country any demand on the part of litigants that there should be an additional number, but simply because the Colonies say, according to what the Attorney-General said, that it is not in the interests of the dignity of the judges in the King's Dominions that their decisions should be overruled by a minority of judges sitting in the House of Lords. I do not know whether that actually was stated. I cannot find it. On this point the House ought to bear in mind that on the title page of this Bill we are referred to the Imperial Conference of 1911. There is not a single copy of that to be obtained in the Library. There was one copy there, but it has disappeared, and I have not been able to get hold of it. I think, therefore, we might have had some papers to enable us to have gone more fully into the points raised on the title page of the Bill itself.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): The whole of the proceedings of the Imperial Conference will be found in the Blue Book, Imperial Conference, 1911, Command Paper, No. 5745, which has been in the hands of hon. Members for two years, and of which there is a large number of copies, bound and unbound.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: My hon Friend knows perfectly well that we all get these Papers, and—at any rate, I do—toss them the morning they are received into the waste-paper basket. I have no doubt every Member does the same. To ask me to carry in my mind a Blue Book printed two years ago is really not a reasonable proposition.
  Mr. HARCOURT: I was not asking my hon. Friend to carry it in his mind. I was asking him to refer to it in the Library.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I took this memorandum to the chief librarian. He told me there was one copy in the Library, but it had disappeared. I do not know whether any Member is going to produce it later in the discussion. I understand that the delinquent is the Attorney-General himself. Possibly that is the reason why I have not been able to obtain a copy in the Library. As to the Vote Office, owing to lack of space these documents are only kept for the particular Session in which they are issued. Hence, not having the Papers before me, I cannot refer to the statement. In any case, the mere fact that the Dominions ask for an increase is not a sufficient reason for asking the House to appoint two additional judges at the salaries named. The total cost is not to be measured by the amount of the salaries. It is always said that the fees pay for the running of the Courts, but anyone who examines the amount voted year by year in respect of the administration of justice can see that the salaries of the judges represent really an insignificant sum compared with the gross amount voted. The Attorney-General has not given any figures as to the arrears except for the present time. He has given no comparative figures to enable the House to judge whether there is any accumulation of arrears. I do not think there is.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I have not said that there are arrears.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Then what is the reason for this demand? If there are no unreasonable arrears and speedy justice can be secured, there must be some other reason. Why should the Government ask for these additional judges simply to have a quorum of five instead of a quorum of three? In the House of Lords judges sat in 1910–87 days; in 1911–100 days; and in 1912–86 days. The Judicial Committee sat in 1910–76 days; in 1911–101 days; and in 1912–101 days. The Attorney-General says that there has been an increase in the number of cases. If there has been an increase it has been dealt with in the same number of days, because the figures for 1911 and 1912 are precisely the same. The total number of cases heard before the Judicial Committee was 34, 50 and 39 in the respective years. The reasons that the Attorney - General
  152
  has advanced that we should sanction this proposal do not seem adequate. Again, are these judges to sit in the Court of Appeal only when they think fit? After all they are public servants. In my opinion they ought to be under the direction of the Lord Chancellor, and if the Lord Chancellor directs them to sit in the Court of Appeal they ought to sit. This matter ought not to be left to the discretion of the judges. I fail to see why the Lord Chancellor should not have the power to say to these judges in the House of Lords, when no business is available and the Court is not sitting, that they should take their places in the Court of Appeal and help to dispose of the arrears. This is usurping a power that Parliament possessing, should emphasise at the present time, for after the judges have been appointed we cannot do so. I do not wish to obstruct this Bill; if I did I should proceed to read Statutes which would continue the discussion for a much longer period. The Attorney-General put before the House a most conciliatory statement, although he seemed to give a kind of sanctity to the Appeal Court and the House of Lords, but with that exception I think his speech was admirable. Still, I think the reasons given for the appointment of those judges are wholly inadequate.
  Mr. SANDERSON: I do not think the arguments advanced against this Bill by the hon. Baronet who has just sat down are very convincing. I am strongly of opinion that four Lords of Appeal are not sufficient for the highest tribunal not only in this land, but the highest tribunal in the Empire. The Attorney-General put the case very well, if I may say so, from that point of view. He pointed out that the Dominions have expressed the view that it is undesirable that perhaps six or seven judges in the Colonies or Dominions should be over-ruled by three individuals sitting in this country, no matter how learned these individuals may be. I have often heard the same opinion expressed in this country. It does sometimes happen that a judge of first instance who may be very highly thought of as a lawyer may decide in one way, and may be upheld by the Court of Appeal in which three Lords Justices were sitting, and therefore a suitor may have the opinion of four very learned judges in his favour. Then the case may come to the House of Lords where he may find only three Lords of Appeal-in-Ordinary sitting, and these three may

  153
  over-rule the Court of Appeal, and by so doing they over-rule the considered opinion of four learned judges. That is a point that some people in this country do not understand. I have heard suitors say, "I have the opinion of four learned judges in my favour, but when I go to the House of Lords I find that opinion overruled by three other judges." When one considers, in reference to the highest Court in the Empire, what important interests they have to decide, and what a variety of subjects they have to deal with, I think it most desirable that the number of Lords of Appeal-in-Ordinary who sit in the ordinary course of events should be increased from a minimum of three to a minimum of five. I think that that alone is sufficient reason for supporting this Bill. In one sense I am sorry the hon. Baronet raised the question of pensions, though in another sense I am glad, because I think there is a perfectly obvious answer. For a tribunal of this kind you have to try and get the very finest intellects available. In fact, I see in this Memorandum drawn up by the Colonial Conference the words are used that there should be added to the highest Court of Appeal "two English judges of the finest quality." I do not quite know what the expression "finest quality" means. It is an ill-chosen phrase, but I think it means you should get the very best men available. If you wish to get the best men available you must have some substantial consideration to attract them. If you wish to induce the best men from the learned profession to give up their position and their incomes in order to take a seat on the judicial bench, you must give them something which is likely to attract them, and £6,000 a year is by no means sufficient to attract some of the finest intellects in the profession. I have in mind one or two individuals who are not Law Officers, but who are Privy Councillors, and are much thought of throughout the world, and you must offer such men something which is really attractive. A man may be attracted by £6,000 a year if he understands that when he breaks down in health he will get a substantial pension. In the case which the hon. Baronet has referred to it was the greatest possible misfortune to the individual and a great loss to the country that he was taken so seriously ill a short time after he was appointed to the high office from which he was compelled to retire.
  154
  Under the Section the pension is limited to such sum as might in similar circumstances be granted to the Master of the Rolls. That is the limit of authority given by the Statute. In regard to that matter, I do not think there is any real cause of complaint. With regard to the number of days, I do not think that is a good way of arriving at the amount of work done by any Court. Such returns are apt to be very misleading. For instance, one learned judge told me, with regard to the particular commission now sitting, that a return had been made of the number of days he was supposed to have occupied on Circuit. With regard to one place, it was stated that he occupied one day in going there, another day in sitting there, and a third day in travelling away from it. What were the actual facts? He said that h cancelled the Assizes at that place altogether, and sat for three days in London. That shows how inaccurate those returns are in some cases. It may be the same with regard to the ultimate tribunal in this country. When you have got a tribunal like the House of Lords, you must remember that nearly every judgment that is delivered is either a very important judgment to a large class of individuals or is one upon a principle of law, and you have not only to count the days which are occupied by arguing the case, but you have also to count the days which are occupied by the members of the Court in considering their judgment. You might thus, if you are estimating the real amount of the work, very nearly double the number of days that the Court sits.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: If you double the number you get 420 days in the year.
  Mr. SANDERSON: Perhaps I am putting it too high; it makes them perhaps half as many again. At all events, I am quite certain you ought to add to the number of days which the Court sits the large number of days that judgments are being considered. For these reasons, and there are others which could be put forward with equal force, I think this Bill is one which should be supported by the Whole House.
  Mr. MARTIN: I think the Government have treated Members sitting below the Gangway with rather scant courtesy. The Attorney-General has placed the matter very nicely indeed before us, and if the conduct of the Government in dealing with it had been as gracious, we should not have had any cause to complain. I object to this Bill because I cannot agree

  155
  with the statements made by the Attorney-General. If I could look upon the position as he put it in his speech, I should support the Bill. It is because I differ almost entirely from him in regard to the real situation that I oppose it to-day as I have done previously. The Attorney-General said there were sixty-three cases standing for hearing in the Court between now and the end of July. He put that forward as a strong reason for passing the Bill. When the Bill was introduced in 1911, there were not sixty-three cases, nor were there
  156
  when it was introduced in 1912. This is a new reason which has been discovered. It has not affected the Government at all, because they had made up their mind to appoint these two judges.
  It being Eleven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned. Debate to be resumed To-morrow (Wednesday).
  The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
  Adjourned at Four minutes after Eleven o'clock.