HC Deb 16 June 1920 vol 130 cc1361-95
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart)

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty representing that the state of business in the King's Bench Division requires that vacancies, not exceeding two, should be filled in the number of puisne judges of the King's Bench Division, notwithstanding that the number of those judges amounts to fifteen or upwards, and praying that His Majesty will be graciously pleased to fill such vacancies accordingly in pursuance of The Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1910. This Motion is founded, as hon. Members are aware, upon the Act of 1910. That Act, which became law in the month of July in that year, has been very much misrepresented and misunderstood, and I should like to say a word upon its history and effects. That Act is commonly described as authorising the appointment of two additional judges of the High Court, that is, two judges over and above those whose appointment was sanctioned by the Judicature Acts from 1873 to 1902; but it is very important to remember the proviso which is contained in that Act. It by no means appointed or gave power to appoint two additional judges of the King's Bench Division by permanent appointment. What it provided was that after the appointment of those two judges, the Crown might fill any vacancy, with the condition that whenever, after the 1st August, 1911, the whole number of puisne judges in the King's Bench Division amounted to fifteen or more, a vacancy should not be filled unless and until an Address from both Houses of Parliament was presented, representing that the state of business in the King's Bench required a vacancy to be filled. As the House is no doubt aware, at the time of the passing of the Judicature Act, 1873 and 1875, the number of judges in the King's Bench Division was fifteen. They consisted of the Presidents of the then existing three divisions, together with twelve puisne judges.

After the consolidation which was brought about by the Judicature Acts, the number remained the same, but the judges became somewhat different. There remained the Lord Chief Justice of England and 14 puisne judges. More than thirty years after, that total of fifteen was increased by one, in the year 1907, when a further judge was appointed in accordance with the provisions of Section 18 of the Act of 1876, and from that time forth there were in the King's Bench Division, the Lord Chief Justice of England and 15 puisne judges. That was the state of affairs at the time of the passing of the Act of 1910. That Act provides for this increase of the number from 15 to 17, but it made the provision subject to the very important restriction which I have already mentioned. It is true that under the provisions of that Act it was possible to appoint two more judges, so that the number was immediately brought up from 15 to 17, but from that time forward there was an automatic return, in consequence of retirement, to the previous number. When one of these judges or any of the puisne judges died or retired, his place was not filled by another. The number was to return automatically to 15, and not again would a vacancy be filled, at a time when the puisne judges numbered 15 or more, without an address from both Houses of Parliament. In other words, the adding to the strength of the judiciary in the King's Bench Division provided by the Act of 1910, was temporarily evanescent and it left future control of the matter in the hands of Parliament.

There followed what was bound to follow. As deaths, or retirements from other causes, took place, the number came back to what it was before the passing of the Act. That process had been completed in 1914 before the outbreak of the War, and it is under provisions of that Act that the present Motion is made. The access of strength which this Motion suggests will again be of that temporary character. If this address be presented it will be possible now to appoint two more judges in the King's Bench Division, but it will not be possible to fill up the next two vacancies, or any vacancies, so long as 15 judges or more remain, without an address from the two Houses. How many years it will take to get back automatically to the number 15 I cannot, of course, conjecture, but it is obvious that in the normal course of life it cannot be a long period. I should like the House to consider what was the state of business in the King's Bench Division during the period preceding the passing of the Act of 1910. I will give the figures showing the number of causes standing for trial in the King's Bench Division in the three sitting which preceded the appointment under that Act. The number in the Hilary term was 701; in the Easter term it was 650; and in the Trinity term 598. In other words, the numbers were large in themselves, and there was not such a diminution as one would have hoped for as the legal year passed. I ask the House to contrast those figures, which exhibited the congestion in the King's Bench Division in 1910, with the figures for the corresponding sittings of this year. In Hilary term of this year the number of causes standing for trial was 955, compared with 701; in Easter term it was 895 compared with 650; and in Trinity term the figure was 689 compared with 598 in 1910. The case is even stronger than that, because last Friday—up to then my figures are given—that number of 689 in Trinity term had become 709. In other words, it is a fact that since the War, there has been a very considerable increase of common-law cases. There is another very important fact.


How much of the congestion of business that now exists is due to the increase in the number of divorce cases alone?


That is the very point to which I was coming. It is the practice for the King's Bench Division to lend, in case of need, one judge or two judges to help to cope with the work of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division. For a considerable time past that Division, for the purpose of this divorce business, has had the services sometimes of one, and for a long period, of two of the King's Bench Division judges. I should like to give a few figures showing the state of business in that Division at present and during the time preceding the Act of 1910. In Hilary term of 1910 the number of petitions standing for trial in the Probate and Divorce Division was 295. In Hilary term of this year the number was 1,544. In Easter term of 1910 the number of petitions was 141; the figure that compares with that for Easter term of this year is 1,388. By Trinity term in 1910 the number of petitions was 228, and in Trinity term of this year the number was 1,509, and up to last Friday that figure had increased to 1,751. In other words, there has been an increase of 242 petitions in the first eleven days of the term. It may be said that that is a state of affairs which is due to the War, and that it is likely to pass away as soon as the effects of the War have been remedied. That is by no means the whole of the matter. The increase in the number of petitions for divorce is in no small measure due to the fact that facilities were granted to poor persons enabling them, and, if I may say so, most properly enabling them, to obtain divorce in suitable cases. How far one may look forward in the near future to a diminution in the number of petitions rendered possible by that cause I am quite unable to say.

What is apparent is that there is at the present time in the King's Bench Division a very great congestion of business and a far greater congestion than that with which the House had to deal in 1910. More than that, there is in the Divorce Court a far greater call for assistance from the King's Bench Division than there was in 1910. During the War, as the House knows, there has been a considerable number of prize cases. They have gone to the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division and have occupied no small part of the time of the learned President of that Division. For a considerable time to come there will still be a large amount of prize business. It is quite true that we have got through a great many cases and that we have come to settlements in a great many other cases, but the fact remains that for some time to come there will be a considerable volume of such business. There is a further fact, often exaggerated and misunderstood. During the War it happened sometimes that learned Judges of the King's Bench Division were taken away from their normal judicial duties to preside over inquiries which were not strictly of a judicial character. The comparative diminution of business in the Law Courts in consequence of the War rendered that arrangement at any rate possible, however difficult. That necessity has not entirely disappeared. At present, as far as I know, the claims of that character upon the strength of the King's Bench Division are few, and, it may be thought, much nearer to the normal duties of King's Bench Division Judges than some of the duties to which reference has been made. In the first place, in consequence very largely of the representations of Members of this House, it has been decided to appoint for the further business of the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission one of His Majesty's Judges to preside. Of course, in a way that is such business as might come before the King's Bench Division. Nevertheless, to impose upon a Judge in the King's Bench Division work which hitherto has been done, and one might have expected would continue to be done, by the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission, will not facilitate the reduction of the number of cases in the King's Bench Division. Secondly, as I think the House is aware, it is proposed to appoint one of His Majesty's Judges of the King's Bench Division to preside over a special tribunal which has become necessary for Ireland. It follows therefore that this very serious congestion of business cannot possibly be dealt with by the existing judicial staff.

There was passed during the period of actual hostilities a statute which in civil cases, subject to certain well-known exceptions, restricted the right of parties to demand a trial by jury. The result has been that since the passing of the Juries Act, 1918, an enormous number of cases, which, but for that Act, would have been tried by a judge with a jury, have been tried by a judge alone. That fact, while on the one hand it has spared jurors a task which otherwise would have fallen on them, has undoubtedly for the time being enormously expedited the despatch of business. Those who know the procedure of the Courts know that it takes a very great deal longer time to have a case tried before a judge with a jury than it does to have it tried by a judge alone. That state of affairs cannot indefinitely continue. That Act of Parliament, the Juries Act, 1918, must, according to its provisions, come to an end six months after the termination of the War, and I gather from representations from many quarters that there are those who think that it is highly desir- able we should get back as soon as may be if not to the jury system in its pre-War form at any rate to a very distinct modification of the law as the emergency legislation has made it. It is in spite of those facts and in spite of the saving of time that has been rendered possible by the Juries Act of 1918 that one finds this very large increase of the numbers of cases standing for trial in the King's Bench Division. I venture to submit that the case is not only strong, but overwhelming. If it was strong in 1910, it is indescribably stronger to-day. I will end as I began by pointing out that that which is proposed is not in the smallest degree a permanent addition to the number of judges in the King's Bench, but on the contrary. There are now sixteen, one chief justice and fifteen puisne judges. When the appointment of two extra judges has been authorised the provisions of the Act of 1910 will still apply, and at any time when there are 15 or more than 15 puisne judges in the King's Bench Division it will not be competent for the Crown to fill any vacancy that may occur except after such proceeding as that in which the House is taking part to-day. I know that the question of expense must always be present to the mind of the House, but it is quite unfair to represent the emoluments of a judge as something which goes upon the debit side of the account with nothing on the other. The increased business which will be done will of course bring in additional fees, and if one could estimate the sum it would probably be found as an actual matter of pounds, shillings and pence that the total addition to net expenditure in consequence of this would be something comparatively slight. I put the proposal before the House as a temporary measure to meet an exceptional emergency, and an emergency of a very obvious and striking character.


My right hon. Friend the Attorney-General has with his usual lucidity and persuasiveness presented his case for this Motion. Dealing with his last point first I am not at all prepared to accede to the proposal, which he put so persuasively, that the cost is relatively of a trifling character. What does it really amount to? It really amounts to putting another £10,000 on the Consolidated Fund and also the claim which these judges will have, and rightly have, for pensions at the time when they chose to retire or retire owing to ill-health or for considerations over which they may have no control. The case which the Attorney-General has made is, I do not deny, of a character which carries considerable weight behind it. We have undoubtedly very serious congestion in the common law side of the Law Courts, and we have, of course, very abnormal conditions in the Divorce Court. The congestion in the hearing of cases on the common law side is a congestion which is by no means confined to the courts. Wherever we turn in the whole of our industrial and commercial life we find this difficulty of congestion, and people have got to make the best of it. We find it, for instance, in the railways. Litigants in these exceptional and abnormal conditions must also in my judgment make the best of it, or ought to do so. No doubt in time this congestion will be very much mitigated. What are some of the causes of the congestion in the Law Courts? My right hon. Friend dealt with the cause with which I am not myself unfamiliar, that is, the remarkable work of the judges during the War. I had the privilege of sitting with at least three of His Majesty's judges on various Committees. I know the devotion and ability with which they gave their services and also carried on at the same time an immense amount of work in the law courts. Anything I say with regard to that must be taken, of course, with a very complete appreciation of the splendid work they rendered during the War. My right hon. Friend indicated, and I regret to hear him indicate, that that work outside their special and proper function is not to cease at as early a date as I could wish.

8.0 P.M.

I desire to make an observation on that and to press it on my right hon. Friend and the Executive, that is as to the danger to the State of the intervention of judges in work outside their proper functions. It is, I am sure, safeguarded as far as it can be by the distinguished men who undertake those duties, but it is a danger which really cannot be over estimated. The function of a British judge has been hitherto practically strictly confined to his legal duties. Once he gets outside that, difficulties begin to arise, and discussion as to their motives and as to their impar- tiality inevitably arise, and you cannot help it. They become what judges should never become, subjects of public discussion. I leave the point with the expression of a strong desire on my part, and I am sure on the part of the Attorney-General himself, that this state of things should be brought to a conclusion as speedily as possible, not only for the sake of the judges, but for the sake of the public at large. Their duties in future, especially of the common law judges are likely to increase in responsibility and in difficulty by reason of the nature of the cases which must inevitably in the very difficult times that lie before us come before them in their judicial capacity. I cannot say that I am very much affected by the plea the Attorney-General makes in regard to the congestion in the Divorce Court. I think it is a matter of regret that these cases cannot be swiftly heard and dealt with. After all, the root cause of it is war conditions, and no doubt what are known as war weddings have produced this increased divorce and separation business. I am content, so far as I am concerned, to allow those cases to take their time. Many of them adjust themselves, and there is no need to press forward with very great speed in dealing with the congestion there. Give them time. Most of those people are very young, and I do not think an extra two or three months' waiting would do very much harm. In many of those cases a little common sense and the influence of friends on both sides assert themselves and satisfactory settlements very often occur. In any event, this is a really abnormal condition of affairs which we all hope will very speedily develop or adduce itself into normal limits. As to some of the remedies I may say at once, much as I regret it, I feel I cannot support this Motion. I think the position can be met without this additional charge. It will take time, but it can be met. How can it be met? I suggest, first of all, that judges should be taken off even the Losses Commission. I am quite certain that King's Counsel of eminence and experience could be found to discharge that duty thoroughly well. In the second place, I think that a remedy might be found in shortening the Long Vacation and that a week or ten days, or even a fortnight, might be taken off. If you are dealing with an abnormal condition of affairs, as this House, in an abnormal state of affairs, fixes autumn Sessions, why should not the Long Vacation temporarily be shortened? I know it is very hard work on the Judges and officials concerned, and it is very hard work upon the leading silks, but there are many worthy and competent juniors who would be glad of the opportunity to distinguish themselves and who would do very excellent work. Here is another point. What about the gross waste of judicial time and of national expense involved in Judges going on circuit? I know the arguments very well about how much it tends to public respect and regard for justice if a Judge goes on assize rather than the comparative drab of a Commissioner of Assize, but what reason is there, if it is deemed right in the wider public interest to maintain the system of assize in every town, whether there is business to do there or not, that the system of Commissioners of Assize should not be extended until we have got rid of the congestion of business in the courts with the full strength of Judges available?

I am only urging upon the Executive to request the judiciary to adjust themselves, like we have in this House and every other great undertaking throughout the country, to the abnormal conditions, and when those abnormal conditions cease, then the old state of affairs may very easily re-assert itself. I think, with a due sense of my own incapacities for dealing with these questions, that I have submitted a reasonable case for voting against the Motion. May I sum up my points? Great congestion of the courts—admitted; urgency—also admitted, subject to the limitations which I have suggested and caused by abnormal conditions; why not, in the interests of economy, adjust the legal machinery to the abnormal conditions, shorten the Long Vacation by three weeks if necessary, make use of the immense reserve fund that you have of legal capacity in the King's Counsel, who are quite fitted to go on circuit, put a stop at once to the extra-judicial labour laid upon the Judges, have patience, and try these remedies? I believe we should save £10,000 a year to the Consolidated Fund without any real damage to the public interest.


The subject of His Majesty's Judges is one which for many years has occupied a very deep interest in my mind, and I am bound to say that the sentiment has been more or less reciprocated; and I have listened with a special interest to the case made out by the learned Attorney-General for increasing the number of those august functionaries. As one with perhaps a larger experience than the average lay-man of the working of the Law Courts, I am in no carping mood in regard to the administration of justice. I do not think the services of a Judge are to be measured by the exact number of hours he sits; I do not think the fact that he rises at 4 o'clock in any way connotes the conclusion of his day's work—in fact, I have good reason to know that it does not—any more than the closing of the doors of a bank at 3 o'clock indicates that the manager and his staff have gone home; and assuming that there is made out a real case of congestion, I should be the last to oppose this Motion. I do not quite subscribe to the dictum of the last speaker that the administration of justice is a thing which can wait—remote interests and far-reaching consequences often attach to the settlement of a law case—but I am bound to say that I feel there are answers to this demand, some of which, with great force, have been given by the Leader of the Liberal party a few moments ago. It is, to my mind, a little bit unreasonable that in these special time in which we live His Majesty's Judges should insist upon their twelve weeks' holiday. I do not think we get that in this House, and I certainly endorse the appeal that pressure should be brought to bear upon them to curtail their vacation to, say, eight or nine weeks, which, I think, would be ample to recuperate their waning energies.

In regard to the appeal in reference to assizes, whilst fully appreciating those grounds which were put forward by the last speaker, I think there are others. First of all, the employment of Judges for duties entirely outside their judicial functions has become a scandal. In the special emergencies of the War sometimes, and sometimes only, that was necessary, but can it be said with any justification that the Law Courts ought to have been deprived, say, of the services of the Lord Chief Justice for very many months on purely political work, however competent he may have been to perform it? To have left the Lord Chief Justice-ship practically in commission for many months, whilst the occupant of that office was performing purely political functions, was, to my mind, a very remarkable illustration of the dangerous modern practice to which the Leader of the Opposition has referred. I want to make a practical suggestion! I made it, I believe, when the Bill was before the House in 1910. Has the learned Attorney-General considered this? How much time could be saved, how many thousands of cases could be expedited, if you only instituted in every court of law—in the High Court, at any rate—the appointment of an official shorthand writer? At present the waste of time involved whilst the Judge is taking down notes of evidence, the long pauses, during which I have heard eminent counsel say to witnesses, sometimes rather impatiently, "Do watch his Lordship's pen," making notes which his Lordship himself sometimes is unable to read, and which, when they occasionally come before the Court of Appeal, are utterly illegible, is a scandal. If you had an official shorthand writer attached to every court, taking down the evidence and leaving the Judge just to make such notes on special points in the evidence to which he desired to call the attention of the jury, you would, I am sure, save an enormous amount of time and money. I know that judges do make remarkable notes sometimes. I do not know whether it might interest the learned Attorney-General to know that I have in my possession one of the notebooks of the late Mr. Justice Hawkins, and in a somewhat famous case, in which the Law Officer of the Crown, who had never previously addressed the jury, was somewhat heavily taxing the patience of the judge, I found this: Patience Competition. Gold Medal—Henry Hawkins. Honourable mention—Job. I think the judges might well be left to make notes of that kind rather than go through the farce of writing down question and answer in the way they do, and wasting an enormous amount of time. That is a suggestion I make to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I do it as one who has been very much impressed by the waste of time involved in the present system. I venture respectfully to endorse the suggestion, if it is not too late, to take a judge away from the War Losses Commission. There is no particular magic in a judge assessing war losses. It is a commercial question. Any chartered accountant could do the work just as well. Why we are sending a judge to Ireland I do not know, and I cannot help thinking that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would introduce a system of official shorthand writers, and if he would also, through the Head of the Judiciary, intimate to some of His Majesty's judges that they might be a little less prolix in their summings-up and judgments, and also in their facetiousness, we might get through the work a great deal better. But I make the practical suggestion that the system that exists to-day in the Central Criminal Court, and certain other tribunals, of employing official shorthand writers should be extended. Let the evidence be taken down in that way, and let the judge make only such notes as are necessary. It would save an enormous amount of time. I have seen enough of these courts to know that the continued delay in the trial of cases may often be wrecking many a home and many a life, and jeopardising many a commercial undertaking. Therefore, I shall reluctantly for the second time—I hope almost the last time of my life—go into the Lobby with the Government.

Commander BELLAIRS

I think it must have been in the minds of the framers of the 1910 Act that the Government would be forced to come to the House with a Resolution of this character, and now that we have the learned Attorney-General and the learned Solicitor-General both on the Treasury Bench, it is as well, perhaps, that they should have to listen for once in a number of years to criticism of judicial procedure. The learned Attorney-General said the case he had submitted was not only strong but overwhelming. I grant it was a strong case, but I do not think it was overwhelming, and the case generally vanished, so far as the necessities were concerned, under the criticisms of my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) and my hon. Friend—I may say also my learned Friend—the Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley), who is so well versed in the law. I will submit one criticism different from that made by the two previous speakers. No attempt has really been made since Lord Brougham's time to make the law more rapid and cheaper. The learned Attorney-General referred to one Act in the War which withdrew a number of trial-by-jury cases. That was excellent, and I hope that something will be done on those lines to make it permanent, instead of temporary. But I submit that we have seen cases often in this country where counsel have addressed the court at inordinate length, and some check ought to be imposed by the judges on these very long speeches. I think there was a case not very long ago where counsel spoke for nine or ten days. I am not sure, but I think it was the Phoenix Gold Mine case. I remember reading in one of Jefferson's works how Washington and Franklin used to carry on the Government of America and never addressed Congress for longer than ten minutes at a time, however important the subject, and he went on to say that it was due to the legal profession that there was so much waste of time and Members of Congress spoke at such inordinate length, there being 150 lawyers in Congress. That occurs in the Law Courts to a very large extent, and something has got to be done to check it.

Both hon. Members who spoke before me referred to the way in which His Majesty's judges had been withdrawn from their proper work. I agree with the right hon. Member for Peebles that even the War Losses Commission would be much better presided over by somebody else than one of His Majesty's judges. There were withdrawals for the Mesopotamia Commission, the Dardanelles Commission, the Hunter Commission and the Coal Commission. Then Lord Cave was sent to South Africa for a long time. I fail to see the necessity for any one of those long withdrawals, and it all indicates to the public that the necessity for these two judges being appointed at a cost of £10,000 a year is not altogether proved. I think it was Dickens who said that "Necessity knows no law, but she has her lawyers." I am quite sure that the learned Attorney-General can always prove the necessity of any case, and I felt rather convinced by his arguments as he spoke, but when I heard the arguments addressed by the two subsequent speakers, the necessity seemed to me to vanish, and, although I shall support the Government in their demand on this occasion, I do ask the Law Officers of the Crown and the Lord Chancellor seriously to address themselves to this question of speeding up the law and trying to make the law cheaper.


I can speak on a matter of this kind only from general observation, and not as the result of any expert or inside knowledge, and I rise to say that if my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) carries his resistance into the Division Lobby, the action of many of us on this side of the House will depend on what the learned Solicitor-General says in reply to the criticisms which have been addressed to him. I think there is a great deal of force in two of the points which have been submitted. The placing of Judges in positions where the application of the judicial mind, and the use of the great store of knowledge and experience which they have acquired can be of service, is quite natural. Those great tasks of investigation have naturally called for the best minds that can be applied to them, and I am not offering any criticism upon particular cases which occur to one's mind on looking over what has happened in the last year or two; but, in view of the great arrears of work, and the ordinary and fixed work which these judges do, I think we should have some assurance of what is likely to be the policy of the Government on this head with regard to the future. My right hon. Friend alleged that there are available a large number of other men of great competence and experience, though not exactly as high in rank as the Judges, who have all the capacity for discharging these very heavy obligations. I submit to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the salary paid to the Judges justifies us in saying that the job is one which is sufficient for one man, and that a man who takes a Judge's job should seek no other. This is essentially an instance in which the principle of "one man one job" might well be applied. As to the amount of the work performed by these Judges in the courts, I have no experience; but an observer may refer to the Long Vacation as too long a period, even for men who are subject to great mental strain during the other portions of the year when they are serving. There is strong popular resentment, I think almost a united public feeling, against the idea of that very great interval between work. On at least these two points some reassuring statement might well be made to the House.

If it would not be quite outside the scope of this discussion I should like to address an observation or two on a slightly different point, still having some bearing upon the administration of the law of the country. There are a large number of unpaid judges in this country—I refer to the ordinary magistrates. There is very great congestion in regard to the ordinary work of the magistrates. Their work does not consist, as some imagine, of sitting once a week on the Bench. There are a large number of papers, documents, and forms of many kinds that have to be signed by them. We have numerous instances of the impossibility of working people in congested areas getting to the men who have power and authority as magistrates to affix their signatures, and deal otherwise with these matters. Without labouring the point, or arguing it, I should like to assure the right hon. Gentleman opposite that there is a very strong sense of protest against the non-appointment of a large number of working men and men of the lower middle classes who are excellently fitted for the discharge of these magisterial duties. The House is well aware that appointments of this sort were in former years mostly, if not solely, partisan appointments. We are, happily, I think, travelling from that condition of affairs, if we have not absolutely departed from it. I am not suggesting that these appointments should be made for any partisan reasons, but I do suggest, with regard to the administration of that part of the law, it is of the first importance that those who have these appointments in their keeping should look sympathetically upon the claims of many men who are competent for that kind of work. Returning to the Resolution, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give some reassuring statement to the House upon what, I think, are the very potent criticisms which have been addressed to him.


I beg to move, after the word "that" ["that vacancies not exceeding two"], to insert the words "one of the".

I wish to endorse what has been said by the last speaker, and to make a suggestion following upon the speech of my hon. and not unlearned Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley). In my opinion, these new judges, despite the very good case the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General has attempted to make, are entirely unnecessary. The Attorney-General said that the congestion in the Courts could not be dealt with by the existing judicial staff. I maintain that it can be dealt with by the existing judicial staff if you change the system. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who spoke previously that if you could get away from this miserable idea that the Courts must rise for 10 weeks in the year, and 10 weeks at, one time despite other holidays, you could wipe off almost the whole of these arrears. Is there a man in any other profession in the country who can claim, and be certain of getting, each year 10 weeks' holiday? There is hardly a Member of this House, not excluding the Law Officers of the Crown, whose holidays are not small and miserable in comparison with the vacation taken by the Judges. I suggest that if the Government will only bring in a Bill removing from the High Court the numerous divorce cases, and put them on to Assizes, to which very often the Judge goes down, and goes through the formula of white gloves, and also of bringing in a Bill giving power to the County Court Judges to deal with these cases, you would save a good deal of time and, what is very much more important at the moment, a great deal of money.

I look upon this thing from the point of view of another—10,000 put upon the taxpayers of the country. The Attorney-General suggested that the Judges earn their money. I say with all deference to him that in the King's Bench Division the fees are not of such a character that the Judge earns his salary. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman were talking of the Chancery Division I would agree, but in respect to the King's Bench Division, honestly, I think that he is wrong, and he is rather overstating his case. I associate myself with all that has been said in the matter of taking Judges from their proper duties for matters and inquiries which are not their concern. In my hunble way I enter my protest against this continual attempt of the Government to mix up the judiciary with the executive of this country. It is a most vicious principle. It was largely adopted, possibly owing to difficulties during the War, when the Lord Chief Justice, a man whose duty it is to administer the law, was largely concerned with the Government with making and framing the law. I shall feel it my duty to vote against this Resolution, but rather than take an absolute negative stand I desire to put forward the Amendment I have put forward.

To-day we are faced with an enormous expenditure. I do think that if the Government cannot make out a better case than this, in their own interests they ought to try to stop this constant demand upon the public purse. The Government should realise the strong feeling in the country. If they did they would try to create an atmosphere of economy, even if it was not true. They should try to camouflage some of their demands by the suggestion that they were as anxious for economy as are the people of this country. In passing, may I remark that we are fighting now in regard to the £3,000,000 for the Army. We are fighting in regard to the enormous waste due to the War Secretary in Mesopotamia, and the other excursions in all parts of the world. To-day we stand here fighting for a principle in objecting to this £10,000 extra being put upon the taxpayers of this country, and to mitigate the expenditure suggested in this Resolution. The Attorney-General has told us that these proposals will come up for revision under the terms of the Act of 1910, whenever the effluxion of time or the necessity arises, and that the number may fall again to 15 puisne judges. I do feel so strong about this matter that I shall ask hon. Members to stand with my hon. Friend and myself for economy. I ask them to vote with me in this matter. We think that the number of times in which learned judges have been withdrawn from their duties to assist the country and the Government in important inquiries is utterly unnecessary. My hon. Friend (Mr. Bottomley) secured the appointment of a Committee to deal with courts martial. I do not know why we should have taken Mr. Justice Darling from his ordinary duties to spend his time presiding over that Committee because it was largely conducted by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney, who might very well have been put in the Chair. My hon. Friend has a sufficient knowledge of the value of evidence and the demeanour of witnesses to have taken on that task, and yet, for some reason, Mr. Justice Darling was brought from his duties, sometimes I admit at four o'clock, to preside over this Committee, which had to deal with what was almost entirely a House of Commons and a Departmental matter.

Then we have the Hunter Commission and there was another judge appointed. There was also the Coal Commission, and Mr. Justice Sankey, who ought to have remained free from all political and controversial measures put forward a wholly partisan report which set the country by the heels. If the Government would keep the judges of this land to their proper duties they would enlarge the scope of their possibilities in regard to divorce business. The Attorney-General made a point of this congestion in the divorce courts which is largely the trouble to-day. It is one of the results of the War which we all deplore, but it is only transient and will pass away. I hope the Government will take advantage of the fact that there is congestion by utilising the judges of Assize and county court judges to take up these cases and if they do great benefit will result.


I beg to second the Amendment, in order to protest against this attempt to increase the number of judges. In the past judges have been taken away from their ordinary duties to do political work. We are always talking here about economy, but if the Government want economy they can easily get two or three Irish judges who have nothing to do in Ireland and bring them over here, or they can get three or four Scottish judges who have no legal work to do, and they might be brought over here. The law may be different in Scotland, and some people are pleased that it is, but so far as the law in Ireland and England is concerned, there is no difference between the two countries, and therefore if you want two or three judges here to do the extra work, you can easily get them from Ireland at the present time. It is not so much on that point as on the point that His Majesty's Government have been taking these judges and using them for political purposes that I rise to second the Amendment. I have discovered that the judges of the High Court in Ireland are indulging in the work of politics. It is difficult under the rules of the House to draw attention to this fact, but at the present time we are afforded an opportunity, and therefore I want to protest against the fact that judges who have been—


Is it in order to take advantage of this Motion to attack the conduct of existing judges?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir E. Cornwall)

Certainly not.


I am glad the hon. and gallant Member has raised this point. We have judges in Ireland who are available, and might be used to carry out what is wanted under the Motion before the House. Instead of putting the country to extra expense, they might easily use these judges to carry out this extra work.

Captain BENN

I presume that some reply is going to be given, and I am in hopes that the Attorney-General will answer definitely the questions put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), as to whether it is intended to attempt to overtake the arrears of legal work by a curtailment of the long vacation. Now we are only voting that £10,000 should be placed on the Consolidated Fund to pay the salaries of the judges, but that is not the end of this expenditure. What we are voting will imply a new staff, new clerks, and all sorts of subservient officers. I know that this will come on the votes, but I do not think the expenses of the law staff are paid out of the Consolidated Fund at all.

Before we pass this Motion, I think we ought to have a pledge that we shall have an estimate of what the cost is going to be. The Lord Privy Seal said that he would not propose any Motion involving the expenditure of money without circulating a White Paper, showing the details of the proposed expenditure. Here is a Motion which involves an indefinite enlargement of staff. I do not know whether it involves additional premises, printing and stationery, but I think we are certainly entitled to base ourselves on the pledge given by the Leader of the House, and ask that this Motion should not be proceeded with until a White Paper has been presented. I do not know whether new buildings are involved.


Of Course not. It will be very slight, if any.

Captain BENN

I think this is such a case as was contemplated by the Leader of the House when he said he would not ask us to vote any sums without giving us an estimate of the cost. I understand that judges are to be sent to Ireland to investigate the case of the untried prisoners, and I want to know if that is going to be a permanency. The Government are pursuing a policy in Ireland which involves the arrest of a number of persons without charging them, and their detention for a long period without trial. This involves the detailing of a judge of the English High Court to go to Ireland to look into these cases and to find out why people have been arrested and whether it is proper to retain them in custody. In the meantime, Irish judges have nothing to do. Will the Attorney-General tell us how many of the Courts in Ireland have really suffered a sensible decrease in the number of cases they are called upon to deal with? Everybody knows that in the County Courts and other smaller Courts there is practically no work at all. What about the High Courts in Ireland. Has there been a sensible diminution in their business, and, if so, what a curious procedure it is to find Irish judges out of work and English judges being sent to try Irish prisoners. Surely, that requires some explanation? The points upon which I hope the Attorney-General will give us some enlightenment are these: Will there be a curtailment, temporary or otherwise, of the legal vacation in order to enable the judges to pick up the arrears of business; secondly, in regard to the judge who is going to be sent to Ireland, is it to be a full-time permanent job; thirdly, is it the fact that the work of the Irish judges has been sensibly lessened, owing to the peculiar conditions obtaining in Ireland; and fourthly, bearing in mind the definite pledge given to this House at the request of the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), what is going to be the incidental cost of this Resolution, and I want to know if we are to have presented to us a White Paper showing that cost before we are asked to pass the Resolution?

Colonel YATE

I accept the statement of the Attorney-General as to the neces- sity for these two extra judges, and I shall support this Resolution in the Division Lobby. I agree, however, that a proposal to curtail the legal vacation to eight or nine weeks in the year will certainly meet with general approval. I should like to know what arrangement has been made with regard to the pensions of these two new judges? So far as I know, English judges are the only people in the country who get a pension which represents more than 50 per cent. of their pay. I believe the ordinary Civil Servant's maximum pension does not exceed 50 per cent. of his salary. Is there any special cause why a larger pension should be granted to judges? Their salaries are £5,000 a year, their pensions are £3,500. Why should they get more than £2,500. I hope the Attorney-General will take this matter into consideration. We are all desirous of economy, and if these two new judges are to be appointed, I see no reason why they should be given a higher pension than is granted to any other public servant—naval, military or civil.


In replying to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for the Wrekin Division (Mr. Palmer), perhaps I may also, by leave of the House, take the opportunity to refer to various points made in the general Debate. I will, if I may, deal first with the observations of the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) who, indeed, in the course of his speech anticipated a great part of what was afterwards submitted by other speakers. The first point the right hon. Gentleman made was that it was by no means only in the Law Courts that congestion was to be found. I quite agree, and I hope it is not going to be made a grievance against me that this Resolution does not deal with congestion in other places besides the Law Courts. I shall feel I have discharged my part if I satisfy the House there is undoubtedly in the Law Courts such a congestion as needs to be dealt with in this way. It is said that the case presented for this Bill is not really strong. I am not going to repeat the figures which have been given, but I do suggest there has never been put forward a stronger case. If the case was sufficiently strong in 1910 to induce the passing of the Act under which this Motion is made, I can only say it is still stronger to-day. The next point made by my right hon. Friend was as to the employment of judges of the King's Bench Division upon duties which are really not judicial. The right hon. Gentleman said, and I entirely agree, that it is highly desirable that the employment of judges in that way should cease at the earliest possible moment. If I may anticipate what was said a little later on in the most temperate speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Platting Division (Mr. Clynes), I think I am expressing more than a personal opinion when I say that the employment of judges in that way is on many grounds undesirable. It can only be justified on the ground of necessity. Let me add this observation. The employment of judges upon the kind of task to which reference has been made took place mostly during the War. It was the diminution of the ordinary judicial business consequent upon the War which rendered such a course possible. I entirely agree that, whether we look at it from the point of view of what is fair to the learned judge himself, or from the point of view of what is really desirable in the public interest, it is not a thing which should be done if it can by any possibility be avoided.

May I pause to make one reference to a criticism which was levelled against the absence of the Lord Chief Justice in America? With regard to that, one may say, without presumption, it could only be justified by necessity. I do seriously suggest, however, to every Member of this House that it was justified by necessity in that particular case, and that the brilliant and unexampled success with which the Lord Chief Justice conducted that difficult task is an admirable recompense for the loss which the Law Courts suffered by reason of his absence from this country. It has been further said, with regard to the employment of learned judges upon duties not of a distinctly judicial character, that it is to be regretted that their further employment in that way is contemplated. Let me observe that in the only two cases which, so far as I know, are contemplated of employing judges of the King's Bench Division outside the Law Courts, their task is really of a judicial character. The hearing of claims before the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission is essentially judicial. My hon. Friend the Mem- ber for South Hackney seemed to think that a judge was at present being employed for that purpose. He suggested that he was taken away for that purpose. On the contrary, up to the present time a judge has not been employed in the work of the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission; but it was in consequence of the very strongly expressed view of this House that, in the altered circumstances which had arisen, it was decided to ask one of His Majesty's judges to begin—he has not yet begun—that task.


That was requested; I am quite aware of that.


The other matter is that of presiding over the inquiry in Ireland. I am rather surprised at the criticism of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain Benn). I certainly thought it was a little ungrateful that he should have complained of our contemplating a judge for that purpose. If I recollect aright, he himself was strongly of the opinion that an inquiry of that kind should be presided over by a judge.

Captain BENN

That is quite a mistake. I said you ought to try people by the law of the land.


This may be a convenient moment for me to refer to what has been said further upon that matter. The hon. and gallant Member asked whether it was not the case that in Ireland, in the ordinary courts of law, there had been a sensible decrease of business. I am assured that that is not the case. The further point was made that the great number of cases in the Divorce Court might—not to put it too strongly—be left to take care of themselves. With great respect, I cannot agree with that criticism. Nothing, I should imagine, causes greater unhappiness than a divorce suit which is long pending and the decision of which is long delayed. These cases, undoubtedly, are for the most part cases in which the parties are poor people, and I am by no means sure that it is true to say, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) said, that they are cases arising for the most part out of War weddings. I think I dealt with this matter in part in the observations I made in moving the Resolution. It is a fact that this great increase in the number of divorce petitions has, indeed, coincided with the difficulties arising out of the War, but it has also coincided with the granting of new and excellent facilities to poor persons for bringing in their petitions. It was said by more than one hon. Member—I think the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) urged the point, and it was also urged by at least one other hon. Member—that some alleviation may be obtained if the present system is altered, and divorce cases are allowed to be tried at Assizes. I am expressing only a personal opinion when I say that that seems to me a highly desirable method.


And in County Courts.


I am not so sure as to that. I am quite sure the hon. Member will agree that in divorce cases, where there is a large amount of room for judicial expression, it is very important to preserve uniformity and consistency of decision, which might be difficult if the work of dealing with these cases were committed to the enormous number of county court judges in various parts of the country. It is, however, a suggestion which I may say is also well worthy of consideration. Many hon. Members dwelt upon the point that the Long Vacation was too long, and ought to be shortened—at first it was said by one week, then by two weeks, and afterwards by three weeks. I should like to point out what does not seem to be generally understood, namely, that the machinery of the High Court by no means stands still in the Long Vacation. The work of the offices is going on, and a Vacation Judge sits at regular intervals, so that urgent matters can always be dealt with. I am by no means sure that the parties in important proceedings would welcome the notion of having their causes tried and their witnesses summoned in August, September, and the early days of October. I am not complaining at anything that has been said, or of the tone of this Debate, but it is very easy to imagine that judges are less busy than they are. One sees the work that they do in court, from a quarter past ten till a quarter past four. I wonder how many of those who criticise the work which judges do, reflect on the strain it is upon the human faculties, however brilliant they may be, to sit for five hours day after day with fixed attention, not upon one side or the other of the case, but upon the case as a whole. I know from my own experience that very busy counsel, who have stood for a long time the strain of advocacy in the courts, have been astonished, when they came to preside over an arbitration or sit as umpire, to see how exacting is the labour of the judicial office. It has further to be remembered that the judges of the High Court are of necessity appointed somewhat late in life. Before they reach the point at which it is possible that they should be considered for the judicial bench, they must have spent many laborious years, and their work, as I have said, is far more laborious and exacting than is commonly imagined. So far as the public facilities in getting legal business done are concerned, it is quite erroneous to imagine that the machine stands still on the 1st August and does not come into operation again until some day in October. I quite recognise—and here again I am expressing a personal opinion—that the curtailment of the Long Vacation to some extent is a matter well worthy of the most careful consideration. It would not only affect the judges but everyone—judges, counsel, solicitors, witnesses, everyone whatsoever who is concerned in the actual administration of the law.

9.0 P.M.

The remaining point that was urged and anticipated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles was that a great deal of time was wasted in going circuit. That matter was very carefully examined some time ago by a Royal Commission, and I do not know that those who have looked into the matter with care and authority would express so confident an opinion. It is not a small matter that periodically—not at frequent intervals, but periodically—one of His Majesty's Judges, the Red Judge, should go from London to the assize town, and should be seen there as one of His Majesty's Judges, coming there to administer the law, both criminal and civil. Then it was further said—and this argument was employed by my right hon. Friend both with regard to the question of circuit and with regard to the employment of Judges in any capacity whatsoever—that it would be possible to employ upon a much larger scale distinguished King's Counsel, both as Commissioners of Assize and the other capacities. Does he suppose that he would employ them without remuneration? Does he suppose thatthat system would be a complete saving of expense? I do not think that matter has been sufficiently considered.

Now I come to the arguments, so far as I have not dealt with them already, of the hon. Member (Mr. Bottomley). In my opinion, there is a very great deal to be said for the regular employment of official shorthand writers, but please do not let the House imagine that that would necessarily lead to a saving of time. An official shorthand writer, no doubt, is a great boon in the sense of saving the time of those who otherwise would have to make a very full note, but there are two observations to be made. The first is that an official shorthand writer and the obtaining and multiplying of transcripts of official shorthand notes tend to be surprisingly expensive sometimes, and the labour of reading an official shorthand note which contains everyting is very different in point of time and in point of labour from the task of reading a note of what are the essential points taken by an experienced Judge. But I agree that it is a matter well worthy of consideration. Further, it was said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Commander Bellairs) that there had been no attempt since the time of Lord Brougham to expedite the law.

Commander BELLAIRS

Not in a general way.


If time permitted and if this were a suitable occasion it would be interesting to trace the various steps which have been taken in that direction. There are the enormous simplification and shortening of pleas, and all the saving of time that gives, the devolution of work upon a great scale, which I hope will be carried further, from the High Court to the County Court, and there are other matters also which I might mention. The hon. and gallant Gentleman also alluded to a certain disposition, as he thought, on the part of lawyers to tedious argument. I do not think in this House it is the legal speakers who speak at the greatest length, and so far as the Law Courts are concerned, although you may point to individual exceptions, I should have thought nothing was more manifest—and I speak with 20 years' experience—than the increas- ing tendency to shorten the arguments and speeches of counsel. Finally, it was said by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes) that where a learned judge is taken away for extra judicial duties, one ought to remember the maxim that there should be one job for one salary. I may have completely misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, but was it in his mind that where a judge is taken away for work of that kind he continues to receive his judicial salary and a salary for the other post as well, because if that really is his impression, I can assure him that it is an impression without foundation. When the learned judges to whom reference was made were taken away for the performance of extra judicial duties, the emoluments which they continued to receive were the emoluments of their judicial duties alone, to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Then it was finally put to me that if these new judges are appointed some collateral or ancillary expenditure will also be necessary. There may be an usher, there may be a clerk. Really, if that is to be suggested, we have come down to the very smallest points. It was said, with apparent belief, that some pledge had been given that, where a Money Bill involving the payment of money was introduced, a White Paper should be circulated, showing what the expense is. Is it really suggested, except for the purpose of controversy and delay, that where we ask for the appointment of two additional judges under the conditions of the Act of 1910, we are to be stopped because we have not published a White Paper showing what would be the salary of the usher and the clerk? I will not deal further with that point. Finally, my hon. and gallant Friend opposite raised the point that these additional judges would receive a pension in the fullness of time at the end of their service. It is to be observed of a judge's pension that he does not receive it until he has served fifteen years, and, further, with regard to the distinguished men who accept these position, usually, in order that they may take them, they make very heavy financial sacrifices. It would be rather odd at this time of day, when taxation is so high and the cost of everything that has to be bought is so much increased, that one should propose to reduce the pensions of the judges of the High Court. To the best of my ability, I have dealt with the various points that have been raised. There is one further matter to which I should like to refer. The House is not being asked to sanction a permanent increase of the King's Bench Division by two judges. It is being asked, in the terms of the Act of 1910, to sanction the appointment of two Judges subject to this, that no vacancy can be filled, so long as the number of Judges is fifteen or more; without further reference to both Houses of Parliament.


Beyond these two?


No, instead of these two. Let me make that point very clear There will be, as time goes on and retirements take place through death and otherwise, an automatic return to the number of fifteen, and it will not be possible, so long as there are fifteen remaining, to fill up a vacancy without coming to this House.


And meanwhile there are seventeen?


Meanwhile, and for a little time.


Judges never die:


The right hon. and learned Gentleman rather brushed aside the point which was made by my hon. and gallant Friend with regard to the White Paper. I do not say that we desire to go so far as to insist that there should be delay by reason of the absence of a White Paper, but in the interests of economy I think that this requirement is one that should be most rigidly observed because it is of vital importance that in these times we should have a proper account of what the proposed expenditure is to be. I think that this is a case in which that should have been done, and I rather regret that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not express his own regret that it had not been done. It appears that he regards it as a small matter, but in consideration of this point, it does not matter so much whether it is small or large. I think that whether the money is to be large or small we should make sure that a White Paper is presented.

Question put, "That the words 'one of the' be there inserted."

The House divided: Ayes, 58; Noes, 158.

Division No. 140.] AYES. [7.17 p.m.
Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S. Atkey, A. R. Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte Bagley, Captain E. Ashton Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)
Armitage, Robert Baird, John Lawrence Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. Baldwim, Rt. Hon. Stanley Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Barnett, Major R. W. Gritten, W. G. Howard Prescott, Major W. H.
Barnston, Major Harry Guest, Major O. (Leic., Loughboro') Purchase, H. G.
Barrand, A. R. Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Rae, H. Norman
Barrie, Charles Coupar Hailwood, Augustine Ramsden, G. T.
Barrie, Rt. Hon. H. T. (Lon'derry, N.) Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) Hanna, George Boyle Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. Harris, Sir, Henry Percy Renwick, George
Betterton, Henry B. Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston) Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)
Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F. Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Rodger, A. K.
Borwick, Major G. O. Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith- Hills, Major John Waller Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Bottomley, Horatio W. Hinds, John Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Breese, Major Charles E. Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.
Bridgeman, William Clive Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central) Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Broad, Thomas Tucker Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian) Seager, Sir William
Brown, Captain D. C. Hopkins, John W. W. Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H. Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B. Simm, M. T.
Butcher, Sir John George James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Campbell, J. D. G. Jephcott, A. R. Stanier, Captain Sir Beville
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. Jesson, C. Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.
Casey, T. W. Johnson, Sir Stanley Stanton, Charles B.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston) Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke) Steel, Major S. Strang
Chadwick, Sir Robert Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) Stephenson, Colonel H. K.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.) Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) Stevens, Marshall
Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood) Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey) Stewart, Gershom
Clough, Robert Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham) Sturrock, J. Leng
Cobb, Sir Cyril Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. Knights, Capt. H. N. (C'berwell, N.) Sutherland, Sir William
Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely) Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.) Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)
Coate, William (Tyrone, South) Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales) Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)
Cope, Major Wm. Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd) Taylor, J.
Courthope, Major George L. Lindsay, William Arthur Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Lister, Sir R. Ashton Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.) Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P. Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)
Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid) Lowe, Sir Francis William Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W. Thorpe, Captain John Henry
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Macmaster, Donald Townley, Maximilian G.
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) M'Micking, Major Gilbert Tryon, Major George Clement
Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh) McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) Turton, E. R.
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) Maddocks, Henry Waddington, R.
Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.) Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.) Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)
Dawes, Commander Marriott, John Arthur Ransome Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.
Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham) Middlebrook, Sir William Watson, Captain John Bertrand
Doyle, N. Grattan Mitchell, William Lane Weston, Colonel John W.
Duncannon, Viscount Moles, Thomas Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.
Edge, Captain William Molson, Major John Elsdale Whitla, Sir William
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) Moreing, Captain Algernon H. Wigan, Brig.-General John Tyson
Falle, Major Sir Bertram G. Mount, William Arthur Wild, Sir Ernest Edward
Farquharson, Major A. C. Murchison, C. K. Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)
Fell, Sir Arthur Murray, Major William (Dumfries) Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald
Fildes, Henry Neal, Arthur Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue Newman, Major J. (Mid'x, Finchley) Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)
Forrest, Walter Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster) Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot Nield, Sir Herbert Wolmer, Viscount
Fraser, Major Sir Keith Oman, Charles William C. Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)
Gange, E. Stanley Parker, James Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool) Woolcock, William James U.
Gilbert, James Daniel Pease, Rt. Hon Herbert Pike Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John Percy, Charles Yate, Colonel Charles Edward
Glyn, Major Ralph Perkins, Walter Frank Yeo, Sir Alfred William
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington) Perring, William George Younger, Sir George
Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry Pilditch, Sir Philip
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Gregory, Holman Pollock, Sir Ernest M. Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.
Gretton, Colonel John Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D. Finney, Samuel Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Barton, Sir William (Oldham) Galbraith, Samuel Morgan, Major D. Watts
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) Glanville, Harold James Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central) Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Briant, Frank Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Bromfield, William Grundy, T. W. Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)
Cape, Thomas Hancock, John George Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) Hartshorn, Vernon Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin) Hayday, Arthur Raffan, Peter Wilson
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R Hayward, Major Evan Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)
Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe) Hirst, G. H. Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Davies, Major D. (Montgomery) Johnstone, Joseph Robertson, John
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Lawson, John J. Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) Lunn, William Shaw, Thomas (Preston)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) Wallace, J. Wilson, W. Tyrone (Westhoughton)
Sitch, Charles H. Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince) Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough) White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)
Swan, J. E. Wilkie, Alexander TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett) Major Mackenzie Wood and Major Entwistle.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Division No. 141.] AYES. [9.12 p.m.
Barton, Sir William (Oldham) Hall, F. (York, W. R. Normanton) Shaw, Thomas (Preston)
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. Hancock, John George Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) Hartshorn, Vernon Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Hayday, Arthur Sitch, Charles H.
Bromfield, William Hayward, Major Evan Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Hirst, G. H. Stanton, Charles B.
Cape, Thomas Lawson, John J. Sturrock, J. Leng
Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) Lunn, William Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R. Lynn, R. J. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian) Tootill, Robert
Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe) Morgan, Major D. Watts Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross) White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)
Davies, Major D. (Montgomery) Newbould, Alfred Ernest Wignall, James
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) O'Grady, Captain James Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)
Finney, Samuel Raffan, Peter Wilson Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Galbraith, Samuel Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple) Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)
Glanville, Harold James Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central) Robertson, John TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Grundy, T. W. Rodger, A. K. Mr. Bottomley and Mr. Palmer.
Guest, Major O. (Leic., Loughboro') Royce, William Stapleton
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham Parker, James
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)
Atkey, A. R. Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington) Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Bagley, Captain E. Ashton Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) Peace, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Baird, John Lawrence Gregory, Holman Perkins, Walter Frank
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Gritten, W. G. Howard Perring, William George
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
Barnston, Major Harry Hallwood, Augustine Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Barrie, Charles Coupar Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Preston, W. R.
Barrie, Rt. Hon. H. T. (Lon'derry, N.) Hamilton, Major C. G. C. Prescott, Major W. H.
Beauchamp, Sir Edward Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton) Rae, H. Norman
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston) Ramsden, G. T.
Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West) Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.
Blake, Sir Francis Douglas Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Blane, T. A. Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon Renwick, George
Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F. Hinds, John Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)
Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith- Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Breese, Major Charles E. Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central) Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Broad, Thomas Tucker Hopkins, John W. W. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Brown, Captain D. C. Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.
Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H. Hurd, Percy A. Seager, Sir William
Campbell, J. D. G. Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B. Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Simm, M. T.
Casey, T. W. Jephcott, A. R. Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W. Jesson, C. Stanier, Captain Sir Beville
Clough, Robert Johnson, Sir Stanley Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.
Cobb, Sir Cyril Johnstone, Joseph Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) Sutherland, Sir William
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)
Colvin, Lieut.-Colonel Richard Beale Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)
Conway, Sir W. Martin Knights, Capt. H. N. (C'berwell, N.) Taylor, J.
Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely) Lane-Fox, G. R. Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)
Cope, Major Wm. Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.) Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Courthope, Major George L. Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd) Thorpe, Captain John Henry
Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.) Lindsay, William Arthur Turton, E. R.
Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid.) Lister, Sir R. Ashton Waddington, R.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P. Wallace, J.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Macmaster, Donald Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)
Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh) Maddocks, Henry Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) Mallalieu, F. W. Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.) Watson, Captain John Bertrand
Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham) Middlebrook, Sir William Weston, Colonel John W.
Doyle, N. Grattan Mitchell, William Lane White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)
Edge, Captain William Moles, Thomas Whitla, Sir William
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) Molson, Major John Elsdale Wild, Sir Ernest Edward
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) Moreing, Captain Algernon H. Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert
Elveden, Viscount Morison, Thomas Brash Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M. Mount, William Arthur Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)
Falcon, Captain Michael Murchison, C. K. Yate, Colonel Charles Edward
Farquharson, Major A. C. Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Fell, Sir Arthur Neal, Arthur TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Fildes, Henry Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.
Gange, E. Stanley Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Gardiner, James Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark

Main Question again proposed.

Captain BENN

I beg to move "That the Debate be now adjourned."

I move the adjournment until we have the White Paper which will show what the expenses will be. The Attorney-General, judging from the indignation with which he spoke, had not any answer to the question I put to him about expenses.


I was amused.

Captain HENN

This is a serious question. Even if it is meticulous I am not ashamed of it, because it is time that we should exercise meticulous care in the matter of expenditure. The Attorney-General says: "The hon. Member wants to know what is the cost of an usher. Because we are appointing two additional judges it involves an additional usher, and he protests because the cost of the usher is not put in the White Paper." The right hon. Gentleman has not read the Estimates of the Supreme Court of Judicature. I do not know the actual number of judges in each Division, but the total cost of the judges, not including their salaries, is £129,000 a year.


Have you looked at the other side of the account?

Captain BENN

What other side?


The credit side

Captain BENN

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean the Appropriations in Aid? I am talking of the money we vote. The Appropriations in Aid are £67,000. A very considerable sum is necessary, and we are going to add two additional Judges. We have the most definite pledge by the Leader of the House that we shall not be asked to vote additional sums of money without an Estimate. Surely it is not an unreasonable request to put forward that that pledge should be kept. That which I understood was indignation on the part of the Attorney-General he now says was amusement. He says that I want a White Paper for some trivial sum. So carefully has the Leader of the House been to fulfil his pledge that we have actually had a White Paper, I have it in my possession now, for a sum which is not to exceed £5,000 in a year. Therefore the House of Commons in the interest of economy should insist upon the fulfilment of the pledge of the Lord Privy Seal and protest against expenditure until we know what increased expenditure will be necessary.


I beg to second the Motion.


I am going to make a suggestion which I hope the Attorney-General may be able to accept. If he is determined not to give the White Paper which has been asked for, I do not think it is an unreasonable request that after the Debate is over, and after the Motion has been carried, as no doubt it will be, he should give the House information by means of an Estimate of cost being laid on the Table. I am not suggesting that he should create any precedent of any real merit at all likely to obstruct business, but only as an aid to common-sense finance. The proposal is one which involves an additional charge of £10,000 upon the Consolidated Fund for the Judges' expenses, with all the ancillary expenses to which my hon. and gallant Friend has referred. I am sure that I can persuade my right hon. Friend to give the House of Commons the information for which I ask. Under the Rules of the House we cannot discuss on the Estimates anything about the Judges. That is withdrawn, very properly, from the purview of the House, except on a Motion which is regularly laid before the House. Therefore I hope the Attorney-General will give the information in the way I have suggested.


I have little to add to what I have already said. The position as I understand it is this: The House is asked to pass a Resolution contemplated by the Act of 1910. If that Resolution is passed the consequence will be or may be the appointment of two learned Judges at certain salaries, and with the possibility of receiving pensions of which the House is well aware. All kinds of suggestions, which I regarded with amusement, were made as to the possible consequential expenditure upon the appointment of these two new Judges. I was asked, for example, whether there would have to be new buildings for them to sit in. That is a kind of question which a man asks in order to create a smile. He is not asking for information. Then I was asked whether there might not have to be an additional doorkeeper or an additional usher. I do not know whether the existing staff of ushers and doorkeepers will be sufficient to provide for the needs of the Judges and the Courts ever which they will preside. I have no information upon the matter. If I had I would cheerfully give it here and now.


The Attorney-General has supplied an admirable argument in favour of the Motion. Not only has he declined to give information, but he has told us he is not in possession of information. In the circumstances the House cannot profitably go to a Division, because it is not in a position to know what cost will be involved in the proposal before the House. As the right hon. Gentleman has been aware that this matter was to be brought forward this evening, he might have made inquiry as to the cost, so that he might have been in a position to put the House in a position to vote on the matter. We are told that the House of Commons must exercise economy. How is the House of Commons legitimately to discharge its function as the custodian of the public purse if before we vote for this

money we are not in possession of information as to the sums which we are voting? Under the circumstances the Motion is fully warranted, and I hope the Government will not press the matter further to-night. However, as that is a hope which I am afraid will not be realised, I trust that the House, which has been lectured so often by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to its duty as a vigi lant guardian of the public purse, will in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer remember that injunction and vote for the Motion.

Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and negatived.

Main Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 163; Noes, 48.

Division No. 142.] AYES. [9.31 p.m.
Agg-Gardiner, sir James Tynte Gardiner, James Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham Parker, James
Atkey, A. R. Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)
Bagley, Captain E. Ashton Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington) Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Baird, John Lawrence Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Gregory, Holman Perkins, Walter Frank
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Gretton, Colonel John Perring, William George
Barnston, Major Harry Gritten, W. G. Howard Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
Barrie, Charles Coupar Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Preston, W. R.
Barrie, Rt. Hon. H.T.(Lon'derry, N.) Haliwood, Augustine Prescott, Major W. H.
Beauchamp, Sir Edward Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Rae, H. Norman
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton) Ramsden, G. T.
Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West) Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston) Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.
Blake, Sir Francis Douglas Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Blane, T. A. Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Renwick, George
Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F. Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)
Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith- Hinds, John Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Breese, Major Charles E. Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Bridgeman, William Clive Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central) Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Broad, Thomas Tucker Hopkins, John W. W. Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.
Brown, Captain D. C. Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H. Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B. Seager, Sir William
Butcher, Sir John George James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)
Campbell, J. D. G. Jephcott, A. R. Simm, M. T.
Casey, T. W. Jesson, C. Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W. Johnson, Sir Stanley Stanier, Captain Sir Beville
Clough, Robert Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.
Coats, Sir Stuart Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) Stanton, Charles B.
Cobb, Sir Cyril Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr Sutherland, Sir William
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Knights, Capt. H. N. (C'berwell, N.) Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale Lane-Fox, G. R. Taylor, J.
Conway, Sir W. Martin Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.) Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)
Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely) Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales) Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Cope, Major Wm. Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd) Thorpe, Captain John Henry
Courthope, Major George L. Lindsay, William Arthur Turton, E. R.
Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.) Lister, Sir R. Ashton Vickers, Douglas
Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid.) Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P. Waddington, R.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W. Wallace, J.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Macmaster, Donald Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)
Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh) Maddocks, Henry Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) Mallalieu, F. W. Watson, Captain John Bertrand
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.) Weston, Colonel John W.
Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham) Marriott, John Arthur Ransome White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)
Doyle, N. Grattan Middlebrook, Sir William Whitla, Sir William
Edge, Captain William Mitchell, William Lane Wild, Sir Ernest Edward
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) Moles, Thomas Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) Molson, Major John Elsdale Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)
Elveden, Viscount Morison, Thomas Brash Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M. Mount, William Arthur Yate, Colonel Charles Edward
Falcon, Captain Michael Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)
Farquharson, Major A. C. Murchison, C. K.
Fell, Sir Arthur Murray, Major William (Dumfries) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Fildes, Henry Neal, Arthur Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Ward.
Gange, E. Stanley Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Barton, Sir William (Oldham) Guest, Major O. (Leic., Loughboro') Robertson, John
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Rodger, A. K.
Bottomley, Horatio W. Hancock, John George Shaw, Thomas (Preston)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Hartshorn, Vernon Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Bromfield, William Heyday, Arthur Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Hayward, Major Evan Sitch, Charles H.
Cape, Thomas Hirst, G. H. Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) Hogge, James Myles Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Johnstone, Joseph Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)
Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe) Lawson, John J. White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) Lunn, William Wignall, James
Davison, J. E. (Smethwlck) Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian) Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity) Morgan, Major D. Watts Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)
Finney, Samuel Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross) Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)
Galbraith, Samuel Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Glanville, Harold James Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Grundy, T. W. Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Mr. Palmer and Mr. Raffan.

Resolution agreed to.

Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty representing that the state of business in the King's Bench Division requires that vacancies, not exceeding two, should be filled in the number of puisne judges of the King's Bench Division, notwithstanding that the number of those judges amounts to fifteen or upwards, and praying that His Majesty will be graciously pleased to fill such vacancies accordingly in pursuance of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1910.

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