STATUTORY SALARIES [MONEY]. (Hansard, 16 February 1937)

HC Deb 16 February 1937 vol 320 cc1023-100 1023

§ Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

§ [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That it is expedient—

(a) to provide for increasing to the amounts hereinafter specified the annual salaries charged on and payable out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom in respect of the following offices, that is to say, the offices—

(i) of county court judges in England and Wales to two thousand pounds;
(ii) of the chief of the metropolitan police magistrates to two thousand three hundred pounds;
(iii) of other metropolitan police magistrates to two thousand pounds;
(iv) of the recorder of Londonderry, the county court judge and chairman of quarter sessions for the counties of Armagh and Fermanagh, and the county court judge and chairman of quarter sessions for the county of Down, respectively, so long (in each case) as the office is held by the existing holder, to such amount as is equal to the total annual remuneration now paid in respect of those offices;

(b) to provide for the annual salaries charged on and payable out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom in respect of the offices of the chairman and of the other members of the Scottish Land Court, and the annual salaries payable out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of the offices of the Commissioners of Crown Lands (other than the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries), of the Lyon King of Arms, of the Secretary to the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in Scotland, and of the Lyon Clerk, being of such amounts as may be determined by the Treasury, and for the annual salaries payable out of moneys provided by Parliament to the clerks attached to the judges of the Supreme Court, being of such amounts as may be determined by the Lord Chancellor with the concurrence of the Treasury, so, however, that any salary of which the amount is to be determined in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph shall, so long as it continues to be payable to the existing holder of the office or employment in respect of which it is payable, be at an annual rate not less than that of the total remuneration at present paid to him in respect of that office or employment;
(c) to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund and out of moneys provided by Parliament, respectively, of such sums as may become payable in consequence of such provision as aforesaid;
(d) to provide for such consequential amendments of the enactments relating to the salaries aforesaid as may be necessary."—(King's Recommendation signified).—[The Solicitor-General.]

1024

§ 3.58 p.m.

§ The Solicitor-General (Sir Terence O'Connor)
The Committee will see that the Resolution falls into two main parts, (a) and (b), and that (a), which I think to be more substantial than (b), is subdivided into four subsidiary paragraphs. The effect of most of part (a) will be to increase by a sum of £350 a year the salaries of county court judges and of Metropolitan police magistrates. The first three paragraphs in Roman numerals provide for that increase. The fourth paragraph in Roman numerals provides, not for an increase, but for a regularisation of the salaries at present being paid. Part (b) provides not for any increase in statutory salaries, but for more flexible arrangements to be made than exist at present.
With that bare preliminary observation I proceed to examine the merits of the Resolution. The Committee will see that the first proposal is that the salaries of county court judges should be increased, or that power should be taken to increase their salaries, to a sum of £2,000 a year. The county court judges' salaries were fixed as long ago as 1865 at the sum at which they stand now— £1,500. The actual salary has remained at that figure up to the present time. During the War, like civil servants, they were accorded bonuses. The bonuses rose till they reached a maximum figure of £750, so that at one time county court judges were enjoying an income of £2,250. That bonus has suffered retractation in the same way as in the case of civil servants, but whereas the civil servants' bonuses have been consolidated with their salaries and a regular salary has been established, the peculiar and anomalous position remains that the county court judges receive their old salaries of £1,500, plus a remanet of their bonus, a sum of £150, in addition. That £150 has no statutory authority and is in fact the subject of periodic criticism by the Comptroller and Auditor-General when the accounts are up for examination. There is no Parliamentary authority for it, but year by year the position has been regularised by including the sum in the annual Appropriation Bill. So that the position is that there is statutory authority for only £1,500, and that there is this very unsatisfactory arrangement 1025 whereby the additional £150 is in fact being paid without statutory authority.

§ Mr. A. Henderson
Is there anything paid in addition for travelling expenses?

§ The Solicitor-General
I will try to find out; I am not quite sure. I will suggest to the Committee reasons why the substantive salary should be increased to the sum that I have mentioned. The increase of the salary of county court judges is, in our opinion, very long overdue. There has been no Lord Chancellor for the last 20 years who has not been agreed that an occasion should be taken as early as possible for putting county court judges' salaries on a more reasonable footing. As I said, the salary was originally fixed in 1865, but since that time the jurisdiction of the county courts has increased beyond all recognition. In 1903 their Common Law jurisdiction was doubled from £50 to £100, and at that figure it has remained ever since. But in 1865 they did not have, as they now have, the power to try remitted actions for tort from the High Court. Since then the power to remit has been extended to cases where the plaintiff has not any visible means of paying the costs of the defendant. The number of remitted cases sent to the county courts in 1935 was no less than 2,018. That figure of remitted actions is actually higher than the number of actions tried in the High Court in London and Middlesex. So that the county courts have had remitted to them, in relief of the work which is done by High Court judges at a much higher salary, more actions than were actually tried in London and Middlesex during the same period.
In addition to that, since 1884 they have had power to remit inter-pleader issues involving disputes up to £500. In 1868 Admiralty jurisdiction was added, and more recently their jurisdiction in Admiralty was raised to £300. They were accorded bankruptcy jurisdiction in 1869, and that forms at the present time a very substantial part of the county court work. There were 3,163 petitions filed in 1935 and 2,869 receiving orders were made. I must mention, in addition to that, their jurisdiction, one of the most important they exercise, in relation to workmen's compensation. That was first conferred in 1897. The limits have from time to time increased and the judges can now award up to £600 in a case of death, and up to 30s. a week for life in a case 1026 of incapacity. In 1935 there were about 2,000 odd arbitrations heard and about 20,000 agreements registered. I am confident the Committee will agree that in the discharge of their duties under the Workmen's Compensation Act the judges have performed services of the very highest public importance, in addition to the work that they were doing before.

§ Mr. Ammon
Commensurate with the increased duties that have been given to county court judges has there been an increase in the number of judges?

§ The Solicitor-General
I will answer that question later. There has certainly not been a proportionate increase in the number of judges, and I do not think that it would affect the point that I am trying to make now, which is as to the vastly increased responsibilities which fall upon the holders of the office.

§ Mr. Ammon
An increase of judges would make for a distribution of the work?

§ The Solicitor-General
A distribution as to quantum but not as to the weight of responsibility that the judges have to discharge.

§ Mr. Cassells
Is it not a fact that the number of arbitrations under the Workmen's Compensation Act is definitely decreasing?

§ The Solicitor-General
I should doubt that, especially after what was mentioned to me only to-day. Provision exists whereby the arbitration in certain cases can be sent to medical referees under a recent Act, and I was told to-day by a practising member of the Bar who has unrivalled experience of this branch of litigation, that the trade unions were the most vehement in their opposition to having these arbitrations tried by any one but county court judges. I shall not weary the House with a long list of matters in which the county court judges now have a jurisdiction which they did not possess at the time when their salaries were fixed, but I would mention the very heavy and difficult work that they have to do under the Rent and Mortgage Interest Act. The work under that Act is, of course, diminishing, but other Statutes continue to pile up new and difficult responsibilities upon their shoulders. The Agricultural Holdings Act appoints them 1027 as a court of appeal from the referee and they have no upward pecuniary limits. They can now wind up companies up to£10,000, which they could not do before. That is under the Companies Act. Under the Housing Acts, 1925 to 1930, their jurisdiction is difficult and important and without limit as to the amount. They have duties under the Adoption of Children Act and various ecclesiastical Acts relating to the Church under the Shops Acts, and so on.
The extent of their present jurisdiction is reflected by the very remarkable figures of the cases that go to the county court—figures which are perhaps not generally appreciated either in the House or in the country. In 1935 the number of proceedings started in the county courts was 1,229,401, the largest figure since 1911, and the magnitude of that figure can be appreciated when it is remembered that in the same period 94,001 was the number of cases commenced in the High Court. So that the figure is well over 10 times the number of cases tried in the High Court. The number of cases commenced in all the courts of first instance in England and Wales was only 180,672, so that it is clear that to-day the county courts are doing the main bulk of the litigation of the country. I suggest that it is work of the highest possible importance to the State. It is work which makes it necessary that my Noble Friend who has the responsibility of making these appointments should be able to draw upon people in the prime of life, of proved ability in their profession, of sound judgment and of judicial temperament; and in the profession he has to go into the open market to obtain people whose duties impinge almost at every turn on the lives of the people, and more especially upon the lives of the poor. It is in the highest degree important that his scope should not be limited as now by a salary which, adequate in 1865, is thoroughly out of touch with comparable salaries now, and does not enable him to make the selection in the appointments that is necessary if the prestige of these courts is to be maintained in the position it holds at present.
In answer to the question that was asked just now, I am told that the increase in the number of county court judges is one, or perhaps two, so that not only has the burden of responsibility 1028 been increasing but, practically speaking, the same number of people have been left to bear the burden. For these reasons I submit that there is an unanswerable case for an adjustment of these salaries to the modest extent of no more than £350, which is asked for in the Resolution. The judges are awarded superannuation under a separate Act. The Resolution does not in terms deal with superannuation, and I imagine that that will still follow the existing Act.

§ Mr. Logan
The increase of £350 to £2,000 would carry superannuation?

§ The Solicitor-General
I would not answer off-hand. I will get the information. We are not asking in terms for authority to increase expenditure on superannuation, but it may be, as the hon. Gentleman says, that an increase will be involved under the Act which deals with superannuation. Let me now deal with the next class of people for whom an increase is being asked for—the metropolitan police magistrates of London.

§ Mr. E. Dunn
Are all these appointments whole-time appointments?

§ The Solicitor-General
Oh, yes; without any doubt. The appointments, both of the county court judges and of the police court magistrates, are very whole-time appointments, if I may put it in that way. Indeed, they might be called overtime appointments. Paragraphs (a, ii) and (a, iii) of the Resolution refer to the chief metropolitan police magistrate and the other metropolitan police magistrates, in both of which cases it is proposed to increase the salary by the same amount, namely, £350 a year. What I have already said in regard to the method of payment is equally applicable to the metropolitan police magistrates. They receive salaries which are supplemented, in the anomalous way I have described, by the remains of the War bonus, and the result of the Resolution will be an effective increase of £350 a year in each case on their present remuneration.
The field from which my right hon. Friend has to draw for these exceedingly important appointments is, broadly speaking, the same field that is available to my Noble Friend in making his selection for the county court bench; that is to say, in each case it is vitally important 1029 that he should have at his disposal ripe, sound lawyers of judicial temperament, and again in the prime of life. My right hon. Friend has the same difficulties in staffing his benches for these vastly important functions that my Noble Friend has been experiencing in recent years. Again there is the story of increased jurisdiction, and not only jurisdiction which has increased, but jurisdiction which is vastly more complicated than it was, and which occurs without any corollary increase in salary.
I may say that no fair analogy can be drawn from the mere figures of the number of charges and summonses. No doubt there are fewer "drunks and disorderlies," and fewer cases of arrest of common prostitutes and cases of that simple kind with which metropolitan police magistrates have to deal, but the other cases are now of greater complexity, and their duties are of a kind which enters into the domestic life of the people of their neighbourhood. Even, however, taking the actual charges and summonses, for the 12 months ending 31st March, 1936, there were 226,755, which was higher than the total for any previous year since 1902, when figures first became available. That, as I have said, takes no account of the complexity of the work. The Criminal Justice Act, 1925, increased their powers and put upon them the duty of trying many more serious cases; they have more cases under the Road Traffic Act, and a large number of traffic cases, while in connection with maintenance orders under the Act of 1920 additional duties have been imposed upon them. They have important duties under the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1925, the Separation and Maintenance Act, the Moneylenders Act, the Betting and Lotteries Act, and various other Acts, while last, but by no means least, their work in connection with the probation system, which is an especially valued feature of their work in London, has cast upon them arduous and continuous labours, as has also the development of juvenile courts. There is, on the same footing as in the case of the county court judges, an unanswerable case for putting the salaries of these responsible gentlemen on a basis which bears some relation to the rewards of their profession at the present time, and some relation to the responsibilities which they have to bear.
1030 It will be observed that the chief of the metropolitan police magistrates enjoys a salary which is £300 more than that of the rest of his colleagues. That is a state of affairs which exists by Statute, and has continued since 1839. The chief magistrate has many administrative duties to perform. He correlates the work of the magistrates in London, and he exercises jurisdiction in connection with extradition and other matters where jurisdiction can alone be exercised by the chief magistrate. I have dealt with the only instances in which the Resolution involves an increase of salary; let me now pass to paragraphs (a, iv) and ( b).

§ Mr. Logan
Would the Solicitor-General tell us why the metropolitan police magistrates should be raised to the status of county court judges by increasing their salaries to £2,000; and also, what the increase really means? He has mentioned, as regards the county court judges, that the increase on the present salary includes a bonus remnant of £150. What is the addition in the case of the magistrates?

§ The Solicitor-General
I ought to have said that the increase in the case of the magistrates is the same as in the case of the county court judges, namely, £350 for the chief magistrate and for all the other magistrates too. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's first point, I am afraid I cannot have made myself sufficiently clear. What I intended to submit was that the London metropolitan police magistrates have been drawn from the same field as the county court judges since the inception of the offices. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has the same area of people to draw upon; the offices are comparable; the duties in each case have been increased in the way that I have been trying to describe; and we feel that, when an increase is being suggested in the case of the county court judges, there is no case for making a distinction between the remuneration of the two offices.

§ Mr. Logan
I thought I understood the Solicitor-General to say that there was some difference in the scale.

§ The Solicitor-General
They are to get the same amount, namely, £2,000 a year. At the present time they get £1,500, plus bonus £150, the only exception being the 1031 chief magistrate of the metropolitan district, who has these extra administrative duties to perform. He has to see to the administration of the magisterial bench in London, and also has extra duties under various Acts of Parliament which he alone can discharge. He has always enjoyed the extra amount ever since 1839.
With regard to the rather formidable-looking paragraph (a, iv), which deals with the Recorder of Londonderry, the county court judge and chairman of quarter sessions for the counties of Armagh and Fermanagh, and the county judge and chairman of quarter sessions for the county of Down, the position is perfectly simple. There is no suggestion of any increase in regard to any of these offices; the Resolution will merely regularise the position. They are drawing their existing salaries together with their bonuses, and the bonuses are subject to the criticism of the Exchequer and Audit Department in the way that I have been describing. The position at present is unsatisfactory. These gentlemen are existing officers who are retained on the Consolidated Fund by the Act of 1920. That Act provided that the then existing holders of these offices should be borne on the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain. After they have ceased to hold these offices, the new occupants will be borne on the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland. These gentlemen were the holders of the offices in 1920, and it is only in respect of them that the position will be regularised.

§ Mr. Logan
Does, that mean that the salaries have been raised; and, if so, can the Solicitor-General tell us how long the higher salaries have been in existence?

§ The Solicitor-General
These are salaries which have been fixed by Statute for a considerable period. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman exactly when they were fixed, but they have been fixed for a great many years, like those of the county court judges and police magistrates. They are enjoying a bonus at the present time, and the only proposal we are making is that the bonus and salary should be consolidated together. They are not to be given any increase in remuneration at all, and the arrangement will only apply to the present holders of the offices, for whom we have still responsibility under the Act of 1920.
1032 Let me now pass to paragraph (b) of the Resolution. This is not for the purpose of fixing salaries at all. I have dealt with the two proposals that involve the expenditure of money, namely, those in regard to the county court judges and the police court magistrates. The total expenditure involved in respect of both these classes is estimated at £35,000 a year. What is proposed in paragraph (b) is not to fix salaries, but to remove certain statutory limits which exist at the present time and which are unduly fettering on those who have to fill the appointments. The offices concerned are those of the members of the Scottish Land Court, High Court judges' clerks, permanent Commissioners of Crown Lands, the Lord Lyon of Scotland, the Lyon Clerk of Scotland, and the Secretary to the Registrar-General of Scotland. Taking, for example, the members of the Scottish Land Court, at the present time their salaries are limited to £1,200, and there is a supplementary payment of £160 19s., which again is subject to the very just and pertinent observations of the Public Accounts Office, which are reiterated from year to year. The total remuneration is thus £1,360 19s. —

§ Mr. Ammon
The chairman gets £1,950.

§ The Solicitor-General
Yes, I think the hon. Gentleman is right; the chairman gets £1,950. I do not think we are dealing with the chairman under the Resolution—

§ Mr. Westwood
Yes.

§ The Solicitor-General
Yes, that is so. In all these cases there is no proposal that the salaries should be increased; the Resolution is for the purpose of regularising the bonus position and giving greater flexibility for the future. In future the salaries of those who are remunerated under this sub-paragraph will be fixed in all cases by the Treasury, with the exception of the salaries of the High Court judges' clerks, which will be fixed by the Treasury in consultation with the Lord Chancellor. That arrangement is believed to offer greater flexibility. There is a provision that existing holders of the offices are not to suffer a diminution of what they are receiving at the present time. Subject to that proviso, the position will be that in future, if this part of the Resolution is passed, it will be open to the Treasury to obtain the best people 1033 they can get at the market rate without being hamstrung by the salaries being either forced up to a figure higher than is necessary, or being forced to less than the actual amount that is really called for.

§ Mr. Logan
With regard to the salaries of £1,200, plus £160 19s., am I to understand that the position is to be regularised by Act of Parliament, and that there will be no increase of salary beyond the regularisation of salary inclusive of the £160?

§ The Solicitor-General
That is so. Let me give a few figures to the hon. Member. Take the simple case of High Court judges' clerks. Their salary at the present time is fixed by Statute at £400, and in addition they receive a supplementary payment of doubtful validity of £115 18s. That brings their total remuneration to £515 18s. What is proposed is, if the Committee pass this part of the Resolution, not that there is to be any increase above that amount, but no present holder of that office is to have his salary reduced. What we provide is that the Lord Chancellor, with the approval of the Treasury, may fix the salary from time to time.

§ Mr. Westwood
Am I to understand that the purpose of paragraph (b) of the Resolution is to regularise the payment as far as the judges' clerks of the High Court of Scotland is concerned at £515 18s., but that there may be some reduction as regards future holders of that office?

§ The Solicitor-General
I do not think we deal with Scotland. The proposal does not deal with the clerks of judges in Scotland, but with the judges' clerks of the High Court of England. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate will be able to answer any questions that may arise in regard to Scotland. The intention is to regularise the bonus in the first instance. I think we are all agreed that it is desirable to do that. We have done away with the bonus in the Civil Service, by regularising it. It would not be candid of me if I suggested that this arrangement did not leave the path open to an increase of salaries on some future occasion if that became necessary. The arrangement is to provide that in future the salary is to be determined by the Lord Chancellor and the Treasury in regard to judges' clerks, while in regard to other offices the Treasury is 1034 to be in the position to determine the salary instead of having this cumbersome machinery and of having the salaries of comparatively minor offices in some cases fixed rigidly by Statute.

§ Mr. Logan
I take it that there will be no danger of surcharge, and that the regularisation by Parliament will settle the question?

§ The Solicitor-General
There will be no danger of surcharge, but the Treasury, cautious as ever in these matters, takes good care to regularise the position by seeing appropriate provision is made in the Appropriation Bill. There is no danger of anyone suffering. These amounts are put into the Appropriation Bill and the House of Commons does not in advance have discussions on these sums, but only ex post facto when the amounts have been voted.

§ Mr. Cassells
The Solicitor-General has pointed out that the salaries paid to High Court judges' clerks can in no circumstances exceed £400, plus £115 18s., amounting in total to £515 18s. and yet we find the following words in the Resolution: and for the annual salaries payable out of moneys provided by Parliament to the clerks attached to the judges of the Supreme Court, being of such amounts as may be determined by the Lord Chancellor with the concurrence of the Treasury I assume that the only intelligent interpretation to be placed upon that statement is that the £515 18s. could undoubtedly be exceeded.

§ The Solicitor-General
I did not say anything to the contrary. The hon. Member misunderstood what I was saying. The intention is to leave these salaries to be determined by the Lord Chancellor, in consultation with the Treasury, and not to leave them as they are at the present time a fixed statutory amount. There is not a great deal of common sense in fixing the salary of a judge's clerk by Statute at £400. What I said, or what I meant to say, was that the existing holders cannot have their salaries diminished, but it will in future be open to the Treasury and the Lord Chancellor in regard to judges' clerks to make the arrangement that is proper in the circumstances then prevailing, and not to be fettered by a statutory limit as at the present time. There is no immediate further expenditure contem- 1035 plated or anticipated in future, as far as one can see, in regard to any of these offices. It is merely a question of making the position more flexible and regularising the matter of bonus. Hon. and right hon. Members have had before them a White Paper issued in explanation of the Resolution. With regard to the Scottish part of the Resolution, any matters which are of interest to Scotland will be dealt with by the Lord Advocate. For the reason that I have given, that the time is long overdue for these adjustments to be made in regard to the salaries of county court judges and police magistrates, I submit that part of the Resolution with confidence. The rest of the Resolution is merely tidying-up machinery to regularise a position which is not satisfactory, and to give greater freedom in regard to minor salaries.

§ 4.37 P.m.

§ Mr. Batey
On a point of Order. There are three Amendments on the Order Paper. Is it your intention not to call any of those Amendments?

The Deputy-Chairman
All those Amendments are out of order.

§ Mr. Batey
With due deference, may I point out that the first Amendment in my name deals with the family means test applied to unemployed persons? The increase of salaries proposed in the Resolution will come out of the public purse. The argument that is used for the continuance of the means test is that allowances are being paid from the public purse. Seeing that in both cases the public purse is affected, why cannot I be allowed to move that Amendment?

The Deputy-Chairman
That might be a ground for an argument by the hon. Member against the Resolution, but it has long been the practice of this House that when the House goes into Committee under Standing Order 69 no Amendment that is a reasoned Amendment is permissible. The Amendments on the Order Paper are of an argumentative nature, and are out of order.

§ Mr. Batey
Are we to understand that we can argue the means test on this Resolution?

§ 4.39 P.m.

§ Mr. Stephen
May I submit that these Amendments are not argumentative but 1036 temporal Amendments? They are Amendments providing that this new arrangement in regard to salaries should come into operation at a certain time. They are simply fixing a time limit. The proposal is that the Financial Resolution should come into effect after a certain time, that time being when certain other legislation has taken place.

The Deputy-Chairman
That is precisely why the Amendment is out of order.

§ Mr. Stephen
I understood you to say that the reason why the Amendment was out of order was that this Amendment and the other Amendments were reasoned Amendments, but I am submitting that they are not reasoned Amendments but temporal Amendments. It is not reason that they can be both at the same time.

The Deputy-Chairman
The hon. Member has misunderstood me. If the Amendment had been a definite postponement, then it would not be a reasoned Amendment, but it is an indefinite proposal on the assumption of something else happening. It is, therefore, a reasoned Amendment, and cannot be accepted.

§ Mr. Stephen
I am submitting that it is a definite time postponement—neither more nor less. I fail to see how it can be considered as anything else but a postponement in time.

The Deputy-Chairman
I have given the matter very careful consideration, and I must adhere to my decision.

§ Mr. Westwood
I understood you to say that no reasoned Amendment could be accepted on a Resolution of this kind. May I submit that the third Amendment, which stands in the name of the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston)—in line 5, after "Wales," to insert" and sheriff substitutes in Scotland"—although not a reasoned Amendment seems to me to be a reasonable Amendment. It suggests that when we are dealing with the Scottish question as contained in paragraph (b) this is an Amendment that ought to be discussed, because it seeks to bring within the scope of the Resolution sheriff substitutes in Scotland, who have even greater responsibilities than those which have been put forward so far as certain judges in England are concerned.

1037

The Deputy-Chairman
The Amendment to which the hon. Members refers is out of order, because if it has any effect it would impose a charge that is not authorised by the King's Recommendation.

§ Mr. Batey
I understood you to say that no reasoned Amendments can be moved to this Resolution. That comes to some of us as a great surprise, because we believed that in dealing with this Resolution we could move Amendments. In order that we may have time to quote cases, I beg to move "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again"

The Deputy-Chairman
I cannot accept that Motion.

§ Mr. Stephen
Would an Amendment be in order which sought to provide that this Resolution should only come into effect after a period of five years or after the family means test which applies to unemployed persons has been abolished That would impose a definite time limit, and I submit that such an Amendment could be accepted. I, therefore, ask whether the hon. Member in whose name the first Amendment on the Paper stands, would be allowed to alter it in that way?

The Deputy-Chairman
I would like to see such an Amendment in writing before expressing any opinion upon it.

§ Mr. Westwood
Is the only alternative left to Scottish Members under your Ruling, Captain Bourne, to vote against the Resolution on the ground that no provision is made for sheriff substitutes in Scotland?

The Deputy-Chairman
That may be a good ground for voting against the Resolution, but I do hot wish to be understood as committing myself in any way on the question of whether sheriff substitutes would properly be dealt with under this Resolution. I do not know. All I am saying is, that if statutory authority is required to raise the salary of sheriff substitutes, then an Amendment dealing with them would be outside the scope of the King's Recommendation of this Resolution. If, on the contrary, their salaries can be raised without statutory authority, then their inclusion in such a Resolution as this would be unnecessary.

1038

§ Mr. Cassells
May I ask whether you will allow hon. Members on this side to refer to the salaries paid to sheriff substitutes in Scotland in arguing against the Resolution?

The Deputy-Chairman
I should like to hear the arguments first.

§ Mr. Batey
Did I understand you to say that we could argue the means test on this Resolution?

The Deputy-Chairman
I am not certain what the hon. Member means by arguing the means test. If he means that he can instance the existence of the means test as a reason why this Resolution should not be accepted, he would be in order in doing so, but if he tried to argue the details of the means test then, obviously, he would be going far beyond the Resolution before us.

§ Mr. Batey
We can get over that.

§ 4.48 p.m.

§ Mr. Ammon
The House is indebted to the Solicitor-General for a statement which left nothing to be desired as far as clarity of expression was concerned. I suggest, nevertheless, that the hon. and learned Gentleman was not technically accurate when he said that the increase of salary proposed in this Resolution is one of £380 a year. As far as I can make out, it is a flat rate increase of £500 a year. The hon. and learned Gentleman, of course, carried into his calculations the residue of the war bonus, but that was not a permanent addition to the salary. It had to be approved from time to time by Parliament and I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will find that it did not carry with it superannuation rights as would a permanent addition to salary. In considering a flat rate increase of £500 per year, we have to remember that the superannuation of these judges and magistrates is on very much the same basis as that of the Civil Service, and in that connection I imagine the factor which I have just mentioned must be taken into consideration.
It is not usual for Members of the party which occupies these benches to oppose payments of salary or remuneration for necessary work which is properly and adequately performed. I need only point to those places where the Labour party is in control of the municipal authorities to show that they have never hesitated 1039 to pay adequately for professional and technical advice on the understanding that they got full value for their money. The opposition to the present proposal is based largely on the ground that there is no certainty that we are getting the best possible return for the money paid. There is also a general feeling that these appointments are not wholly free from the suspicion of political patronage and, further, there is a feeling that this is a most inopportune time at which to bring before Parliament a proposal to increase the salaries of those who are already fairly well remunerated. This proposal comes before us at a time when many of the population are suffering a reduction in their standard of living, and are finding it hard to get consideration from Parliament for such questions as that of payments to the unemployed. Those are points which have to be taken into consideration, and the Amendments which appear on the Paper, even though, it appears, they cannot be moved, do to a certain extent indicate the feeling in the Committee.
There is another consideration which cannot be overlooked. As far as the county court judges are concerned, there is a possibility that their work in some branches may be diminished. One admits readily that in recent years it has increased, and also that it is highly technical work and of importance to the community. But it is not out of the question that the volume of this work may decrease. For instance, under the Rent and Mortgage Interest Act, and even under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, it is suggested that there may be a diminution in the number of cases brought before the courts.
I look at this question from the point of view of the ordinary layman. I see trade unionists on both sides of the Committee who will, no doubt, deal with technical aspects of the matter, and I do not complain at that in connection with this profession, any more than I would in connection with any other profession. The first question which I put to the Solicitor-General is: Can we have any assurance that those who are best qualified in the profession will be appointed to these positions? The legal profession is one in which there are some large plums. It is also one in which there is a good deal of competition, and it is prob- 1040 ably, to some extent, overcrowded. I gather from the conversation of some of my legal friends that even fairly successful banisters would not look askance at an assured income of £2,000 a year, and that there is an uncertainty in connection with general practice at the Bar, to say nothing of the work involved in getting up briefs, and so forth. I, therefore, ask what assurance we have that the best possible recruits will be, in open competition as it were, appointed to these positions?
I do not know whether there is any truth in a statement which is freely circulated, but I, as a lay justice of the Peace, know it is common talk in certain circles that many of the persons appointed to these positions have been, to say the least of it, not the most successful in their profession. It is suggested that they are in many cases persons who have had some political pull, with the result that somebody has obligingly put them on to a permanent source of income. If the Committee is to agree to this Resolution, we ought to have an assurance that that kind of thing is not going to operate any more. In regard to positions like this, with stabilised salaries of not less than £2,000 a year, Parliament and the country have a right to expect that only the best available persons shall fill those positions.
It is true that civil servants have had part of their bonus consolidated with their salaries or wages, but I doubt whether there is any case in which civil servants have actually had the remaining portion of their War bonus increased and then carried into the consolidated salary as is here proposed. I wonder what justification there is for giving these gentlemen a consideration over and above that extended to other salaried civil servants by treating them in this favourable way. I have some remembrance that when the cuts took place these gentlemen accepted with less grace than any others the reductions made in their salaries. They protested most vigorously, both at the time and later on, against being asked to do the same as other members of the community after the trouble of 1931.

§ Mr. Magnay
Is the hon. Member sure of that? Was it not only the judges of the High Court who complained about the cuts?

1041

§ Mr. Ammon
I am open to correction. I was speaking as far as my memory served. One is aware that there is considerable pressure in the county courts, and that that is like a barometric indication of the position of trade and industry generally, affecting other walks of life. The mere fact that these gentlemen are over-burdened with work is an indication that other members of the community are suffering considerably at the present time. Other citizens who are feeling the economic pinch of hard times may look with disfavour on a proposal that this favoured class, at this inopportune moment, should have their salaries increased. I submit that it was ill-advised to bring forward this proposal at a time when so many other equally deserving citizens are being subjected to all sorts of indignities and inquiries into their means, and when even those who are in employment are suffering from an increase in the cost of living. That increase will become more marked if the policy recently announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of a big loan for increased armaments is carried into effect. One inevitable effect of that policy will be to send up the cost of living. The people dealt with in this Resolution are being prepared in advance for such a catastrophe, whereas in the case of the ordinary wage earner the axiom applies that wages always follow prices—often a long way behind. [An HON. MEMBER: "They never catch up!"]
There is a good deal of feeling on this side of the Committee, which is quite understandable, at this proposition that something like 56 county court judges and 26 metropolitan stipendiaries should have increases of £500 a year in their salaries. How will that proposition be regarded by men and women who are equally deserving and in their way equally valuable to the community; who through no fault of their own find themselves unemployed, and who have to suffer indignities before they can get enough to keep body and soul together? Surely, in the present circumstances, it is not wise to give colour to certain suggestions which have been made. Ever since this Government have been in it has been doling out largesse to favoured sections of the community by way of tariffs or in some other way, and this seems to be an addition in that respect.
1042 It is also as well to bear in mind that proposals like this seem to take for granted certain theories which in these days can no longer be accepted, the assumption, for instance, that there is a definite difference of standard of living and well-being between certain sections of the community which can never be bridged or overcome. The sort of thing which cannot be maintained and is not tolerable in these days is the suggestion that, no matter what happens in regard to the economic position of other persons, in the community, a certain section must not suffer in any way in their standard of living. The whole difference between people such as these and those that one has already called into comparison is that, when they feel any difference, it does not affect what one calls the cost of living, but the luxury margin of it, which is an entirely different thing from that which falls on the ordinary citizen when the cost of living rises. The War bonus is supposed to have kept pace to see that they suffered no diminution in their income as far as the standard of living is concerned. In that they have been favoured over and above the rest of the ordinary community hitherto. Other members of the community have had to suffer the rise and fall caused by the play of economic forces, not a little of which has been promoted by the policy of the Government itself. It is not unfair to say that one objects to seeing what one might call the luxury margin of certain members of the community mounting at a time when the ordinary living margin of the rest of the community is being depressed. From that point of view we offer pretty strong criticism and objection.
On the other hand, it is elementary economics that, had a similar or even a larger sum of money been expended in raising the standard of wages or salaries of ordinary workers, the effect on the community as a whole would have been of very much greater benefit, for you would have the money expended on things that are necessary for the maintenance of industry and for the well-being of the rest of the community. Here it means that it is going to be expended on that margin over and above this. It is asking the House to accept as an axiom that there is always going to be a difference in the standard of living of different sections of the community, that one section must have a right to claim only a bare standard 1043 of living, while another shall always claim the right to a considerable margin over and above that. It is for these reasons that we feel that we cannot support this proposition. We want, first of all, an assurance that the persons who will be appointed to these positions will be those with the best qualifications to fill them, that there will be no falling off in the work that they will be called upon to perform, and, at the same time, we cannot consent to it while there is such an utter disregard of the claims of the smaller salary and wage earners, and particularly of the indignities that are still imposed upon those who, through no fault of their own, are in the army of the unemployed, to which they have to go in order that they may gain the bare necessities of life.
It will be said with truth that it is no fair argument to say that, because some people are suffering hardships, you should not to a certain extent help other people. There would be something in that argument if the margins were nearer together, but, apart from that, one cannot but take cognisance of the fact that it is not a case of being selfish and looking with jealous eyes on those who have more, but a mere protest at the expenditure of public money in giving increases of salary to persons who are already highly remunerated while so many millions of our people are going short, or living on the border line of sheer necessity. For that reason it may be necessary to ask my friends, and I hope others, to register their votes against this proposal.

§ 5.7 P.m.

§ Mr. Keeling
Although I should not be in order in proposing any increase in the salaries mentioned in the Resolution, I should like to express my regret that the Government have not proposed a higher rate than £2,000 for county court judges. There are lawyers on both sides of the Committee who are much better able to argue this point than I am, but who may, perhaps, feel a natural diffidence in suggesting an increase of salary for posts for which conceivably they might one day be candidates. Therefore, though not a practising lawyer, I venture to step into the breach. County court justice now is cheap and it is swift. It is of the utmost importance that it should also be good, and that is in the interest not least of the poor men about whom the hon. Member who has just spoken was so 1044 eloquent. It is, therefore, essential that the county court bench should attract first-rate men, and all that the hon. Gentleman opposite has just said seems to me irrelevant in the light of that governing consideration. I suggest that £2,000 is not adequate to attract first-rate men.
As my hon. and learned Friend stated, the salaries of county court judges were fixed at £1,500 in 1865. In the intervening 70 years two things have happened. In the first place, an enormous increase has taken place in their jurisdiction, both in its range and in its importance. Their work now covers almost the whole field of law and equity, and it is not too much to say that the county court judge has to know as much law as the House of Lords. It follows, I think, that we want more experienced and abler men than we wanted in 1865, when the duties and responsibilities were so much less. The other thing that has happened is that there has been a large increase in the cost of living and in taxation, and it is safe to say that £2,000 in the present year will not attract as good a man as £1,500 did in 1865.
This Resolution proposes the same salary of £2,000 for county court judges as for Metropolitan magistrates. That is not an increase of £500 as the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) said, but only £350, because at present they are getting £1,650. In saying that county court judges should receive more than £2,000, it is difficult for me to avoid a comparison with Metropolitan magistrates, though I am not seeking to belittle the work of Metropolitan magistrates. Perhaps £2,000 does no more than justice to them, but it certainly does less than justice to county court judges. The Solicitor-General has pointed out that a great deal of extra work has been thrown on Metropolitan magistrates, but their functions have not been enlarged to the same extent and their powers are not comparable with those of county court judges. The duties of county court judges require a far wider knowledge of law than those of Metropolitan magistrates and it would be reasonable to give them a salary of £2,500, which is half the salary of the High Court judges. However, half a loaf is better than no bread and I shall vote for the Resolution.

§ 5.13 p.m.

§ Mr. Tinker
Usually proposals of this kind are taken the last thing at night and 1045 rushed through at 12 o'clock. I am grateful that this Resolution has been brought on early in the day. I want to pay a compliment to the county court judges for the way they deal with compensation cases. We miners' agents who have to attend the courts recognise the skill with which they watch the workmen's interest. Coming to the real question, I notice a clean-cut division between hon. Members opposite and ourselves. When the Solicitor-General said that this was long overdue, his statement was applauded. I never hear them cheer when we are pleading for the poor people. They do not say anything, but they vote against all the appeals that are made. It is always, "The country cannot afford it," "It is so stupendous that it would be very difficult to meet the cost," and we get little or no support. There may be one or two but, generally speaking, very few support us. When it comes to a question of highly-paid officials, it is always "long overdue" and "We cannot get the best men unless greater payment is made" There is not a Member in the House, whatever his salary is, who would refuse the offer of a judgeship. It is not merely a question of money, for it is considered to be one of the greatest positions in the land. That is why very few people would, refuse the offer of a judgeship. I always have in mind, when I listen to speeches of hon. Members opposite who are practised in the law, that they are perhaps playing up for a judgeship and trying to impress the Prime Minister with their ability as lawyers, so that possibly when an appointment has to be made, they may be successful. Most of the persons to fill these positions are chosen from hon. Members opposite. I recollect only one being chosen from this side. I do not know whether it is because many hon. Members on this side are not considered to have the ability or that they are not sufficiently trained in the law. But we have to consider the disparity between the various sections of the community.
I hope that the Solicitor-General will not take what I say the wrong way, when I tell him that he has not done himself justice to-day. I do not think he prepared his case very well. When he was the occupant of one of the back benches he was always very lucid when he had any arguments to put forward, but this afternoon he was not as clear as I would 1046 have liked him to be. There were a few things in regard to which he did not give information, and I hope that they will be cleared up later. One of these points was the question of expenses. The salary of county court judges, who receive £1,650 a year, will be raised to £2,000, an increase of 21 per cent. That is a tremendous advance. When we are fighting for working men in order to try to obtain an increase in their wages of 5 per cent., or something like that, we are urged to accept what is offered and told that we might do worse. In this case an increase of 21 per cent. Is being given to a body of people who are not in need.
The present salary of the Chief Metropolitan Police Magistrate is £1,952 and he is to receive £2,300, an increase of £348, about 18 per cent. This sort of thing will mean ultimately the expenditure of £35,000, and taking the round figure of £350 as the increase to about 100 persons, it makes the amount very important, and we have to make comparisons with what other people receive. I have the pensions anomaly in mind. We have brought up the matter from time to time and have urged upon the House of Commons the necessity of doing something in this direction. Every time we put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or to the Financial Secretary, we are told what a tremendous burden it will mean. It is not argued that the people are not in need of the money, but it is a question of what it will mean to the Treasury. Yet now and again we are asked to grant various sums of money to various people. A few weeks ago we were asked to grant small sums amounting to £3,000 to traffic commissioners, and to-night we are asked to grant £35,000. We shall on all these occasions take the opportunity of raising our voices in protest.
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, said that we should oppose this proposal, because I had made up my mind that, whatever the Front Bench did on the matter, I should go into the Lobby against the Resolution as I shall on all such occasions. It is not because I am against judges being well paid, for they deserve all they can get, but it is as a protest against what has been done to other people with regard to pensions and 1047 the means test. These things constantly come to mind, but we cannot get the Government to see our point of view. It is always said that they cannot afford it. To-night I shall go into the Lobby to register my protest, not against the work that the judges do, for which I have the highest regard, but against the way our people are treated whenever we urge their claims and the Government say that they cannot afford the money.

§ 5.22 p.m.

§ Sir John Withers
I can assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that I am not playing up for a judgeship, which is entirely out of my line, so that any remarks that I make may be put aside on that score. I entirely appreciate what the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) said. I understand his point of view entirely, but I do not agree with it, because in this matter we have to take the men we can get now upon the market, and pay for them. That is the reason for the advance in the standard of pay. If there were as many competent people as there are miners, I daresay that we should not want to pay the judges very large fees. On the other hand, it is very important that the judges should be well paid, and be above temptation and able to live a dignified life. I support the Resolution. The increase of the salaries of stipendiaries and county court judges is long overdue, as the learned Solicitor-General has said. I welcome these remedial measures, although they are late.
Comparisons are odious, and I do not want in any way to enter into the details of the duties of county court judges and stipendiaries. My attention has been drawn, however, to a considerable number of Press cuttings from various legal newspapers and others drawing attention to the difference in the duties and jurisdiction exercised by those two classes of people. I do not think that that is quite fair. Suppose a county court judge does not do well in a particular part of the country, he may be moved to another part, but a stipendiary magistrate cannot be moved, and, therefore, you have to treat the stipendiary magistrates and the county court judges upon rather different lines. It might well be said that the county court judge has much more work to do and has longer hours, and should be a man of very much wider knowledge 1048 than the stipendiary. On the other hand, the stipendiary has to be a particular class of man not only learned in the law, but a particularly good-natured man. In police courts with which I have had to do he has to have a sympathetic nature and has to listen to the poor people who come before him. He must be able to appreciate the lives they may be living and to put himself into that sort of position.
I have many extracts from the legal papers to the contrary, but I do not propose to weary the Committee by reading them. Obviously, the objection is on the question of principle. It is not so much the amount as the question of principle. As was stated by the hon. Member for North Camberwell, the salary of county court judges was fixed in 1865 and there have been practically no increases. The work is really enormous. The hours of county court judges are very long indeed, and they have a great amount of new jurisdiction. They have to take up Chancery, Admiralty and bankruptcy cases, even perhaps more than High Court judges have to do. High Court judges are divided into various classes. There are Common Law judges, Chancery judges who do Chancery work, and Admiralty judges who do Admiralty work, but in the county court the judges have to do it all. I have taken the trouble to obtain the return for 1936 from the three busiest two-judge courts in the country. In the Manchester Court there were 38,184 plaints issued, and the fees paid to the Treasury amounted to £8,135; at Birmingham the number of plaints was 53,228 and the amount of fees paid to the Treasury £4,521; and in Westminster there were 72,097 plaints, and the amount of fees paid to the Treasury was £38,911. These are extraordinary figures and show that justice is being administered at no very great loss. I do not know how it works out on a profit and loss basis, but certainly there cannot be a great loss; the county court judges are to a great extent paying for themselves. These considerations ought to be taken into account, and I very heartily support the Resolution.

§ 5.29 p.m.

§ Mr. Cassells
As a member of the legal profession I would have liked, if possible, to have supported this Resolution, but, frankly, I have been completely unmoved 1049 by the explanation which has been given to us from the Government Front Bench. This is the Government of all Governments which has become infamous in so far as its policy is concerned in putting public funds into the pockets of persons who, in point of fact, do not need them. Yet when we on this side of the Committee come to the Government and ask, not for £35,000, but for quite trivial requests, we are repeatedly turned down on the ground of finance. To give a typical illustration of why I cannot support the Resolution, only a few days ago I put a question to the Minister of Labour in connection with a case arising in my own constituency where men are compelled to travel from one parish to another three days each week to the Employment Exchange in order to collect the small pittance they get. Their travelling expenses are 3s. per head, and I put the reasonable proposition that a small Employment Exchange should be erected in the village. The answer was, "No, we cannot do it because it will cost too much." Yet the Government to-day ask hon. Members on this side to support a Financial Resolution increasing the salaries of English county court judges and stipendiary magistrates by no less than £35,000.
Let me put this question to the Government. Can they say honestly and frankly that in their financial policy they are treating all sections of the community on an equal basis? If they can prove conclusively to me that they are, I will support the Resolution. But they are not. You have ruled, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, out of order an Amendment dealing with Scotland. I do not know why it was ruled out of order, but I assume that I am entitled, for the purpose of my argument, to direct the attention of the Committee to the salaries paid at present to sheriff substitutes in Scotland. The Minister who spoke on behalf of the Government based his argument for this increase on the volume of the work, but I can assure the Committee that the work performed by sheriff substitutes in Scotland as compared with that performed by English county court judges is far greater, much more onerous and much more responsible. That is not merely an ex parte statement by me. No doubt the Lord Advocate will be able to confirm or repudiate the statement I am about to make. For example, sheriff substitutes 1050 in Scotland deal with all kinds of civil actions, no matter what their value may be, except such cases as divorce, reduction of heritable title, and one or two other cases which are privy to the Court of Session. They deal with bankruptcy and workmen's compensation claims.
I asked the Solicitor-General whether it was a fact that arbitration cases under the Workmen's Compensation Acts were declining. I cannot speak with regard to England, but I can say that so far as Scotland is concerned the number of arbitrations—I do not mean the cases to which the Solicitor-General referred, cases which ultimately go before two referees—cases which actually go to proof before the judge of first instance, is definitely falling. I trust the Lord Advocate will be able to give us specific information as to whether similar circumstances apply also to England. Sheriff substitutes deal also with fatal accidents—

§ Mr. Stephen
I should like your advice, Mr. Deputy-Chairman. Is it in order to discuss sheriff substitutes in Scotland on this Resolution? There is nothing in it dealing with sheriff substitutes in Scotland.

§ Mr. Westwood
Is it not in order to discuss omissions when you are debating a Financial Resolution in order to give your reasons for voting against it?

§ Mr. Cassells
In order to assure the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) I can assure the Committee that I am only using the Scottish position as an argument.

The Deputy-Chairman
Perhaps I had better deal with the point of order. I understood the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Cassells) to say that he was bringing in the position of sheriff substitutes in Scotland as a comparison with the proposed rates in England. That would appear to be in order, but at the same time I thought he was going a little wider than that.

§ Mr. Stephen
I want to be quite clear on the point. Amendments have been ruled out of order, but I understand that they may be brought in as illustrating the comparison with the position in England, but that the hon. Member cannot press for similar treatment for sheriff substi- 1051 tutes in Scotland and get a reply from the Lord Advocate? Am I right in my submission? They can be brought in only as an illustration.

The Deputy-Chairman
I do not think that is necessarily so, but I would rather hear the argument before I give a definite ruling.

§ Mr. Cassells
For the purpose of my argument I am referring to the work performed by sheriff substitutes in Scotland, and I maintain that it is as great as that performed by county court judges in England, to whom increases are being made under the Financial Resolution. I do not see how there can be any justification for the suggestion that the argument is irrelevant. I will leave my argument on this point, that Scottish sheriff substitutes at least do as much work as English county court judges. A few weeks ago I put a question to the Secretary of State for Scotland as to the position to be taken up by the Government with regard to sheriff substitutes. Since then absolutely nothing has been done. At the present moment I do not know what is to be done, but I assume, having regard to the terms of this Resolution—

The Deputy-Chairman
The hon. Member cannot drag in the question that sheriff substitutes should be included in the Financial Resolution.

§ Mr. Cassells
The only point is that Scotland to a limited extent is dealt with in the Financial Resolution because it refers to the salaries payable to members of the Scottish Land Court.

§ Mr. Stephen
I am rather worried about the position into which we have got. We are to be asked to vote for or against the Resolution. A similar situation occurs in Scotland with regard to officials who are in practically the same position, but it means that we cannot get any information as to what is to happen in Scotland, and we cannot decide whether we should vote for or against the Resolution until we know the position in Scotland. I am wondering how we are going to get this necessary information, and whether it will be possible for the Lord Advocate to say that there will be a similar Financial Resolution for Scotland.

1052

The Deputy-Chairman
I am afraid that the hon. Member must use his great Parliamentary experience to answer his own question.

§ Mr. Cassells
At the present moment we cannot possibly say what is to be the position of sheriff substitutes, but I am assuming that the Government intend to do nothing. What salaries are payable to Scottish sheriff substitutes? We find that Scotland is divided into four different groups, Glasgow, with 1,500; Aberdeen with 1,300—

§ Sir William Davison
Surely this cannot be illustrating the argument?

§ Mr. Cassells
Banff with 1,044; and the Dornoch district with 850. If the Government say that they will consider the Scottish position we can see our way to support the Resolution, and I trust that the Lord Advocate in his reply will give us some hint that the Scottish position will receive sympathetic consideration from the Government.

§ 5.41 p.m.

§ The Lord Advocate (Mr. T. M. Cooper)
I rise for the limited purpose of clearing away certain misconceptions which appear to affect the minds of hon. Members opposite. As I wish to avoid transgressing the rules of Order, although I confess that I am a little puzzled to know how far I can go, let me say at once, in answer to the hon. Member, that the Resolution now before the Committee is concerned with salaries the amount of which is fixed by Statute. So far as sheriff substitutes in Scotland are concerned the amount of their salaries is not fixed by Statute and, accordingly, they have no relevancy to the present Resolution or the present discussion. Beyond that I think I may simply say that I have no reason, broadly speaking, to challenge what the hon. Member has said regarding the comparison between Scottish sheriff substitutes and English county court judges, but by way of relieving the apprehensions of any hon. Members whose support of this Resolution may be withheld because of their doubts as to what is to happen, may I say that from the time when the question of the salaries of county court judges and the other officers dealt with in the Resolution was first raised it was fully recognised that a revision would have to be made of the salaries of other 1053 officials in comparable positions whose salaries were not fixed by Statute? I assure the Committee that a revision, so far as sheriff substitutes and sheriffs are concerned, is in progress, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has given an assurance that when the figures are adjusted consultation will take place with the representatives of the Association of Sheriff Substitutes. With that explanation I think Scottish Members will realise that their fears are groundless and that the Resolution may therefore be considered on its merits.

§ 5.44 p.m.

§ Mr. Westwood
The statement just made by the Lord Advocate, that the salaries payable to sheriff substitutes in Scotland, who are doing equal if not more onerous work involving greater responsibilities than county court judges in England, will be considered, will be very acceptable to Scottish Members, who had a feeling of uneasiness that the Resolution was going to create an altogether invidious and indefensible inferiority in salaries as far as sheriff substitutes in Scotland were concerned. I noticed with keen interest the way in which this Resolution was introduced to the Committee. With an extraordinarily sweet reasonableness, the Solicitor-General tried to palm off on the Committee this particular Resolution and to give the Committee only a minimum of information. There are one or two questions I would like to ask as to the cost. Before the Committee comes to a decision, we are entitled to know what will be the cost to the country of this particular Resolution when it is carried out. For instance, we were not told the number of county court judges in England and Wales who are to have their salaries increased, and we were not told the number of chiefs of the Metropolitan police magistrates. As a matter of fact, I understand there is only one chief magistrate. We have not, however, received any figures from the Solicitor-General as to the actual cost of the proposals that are now before the Committee. I presume that we shall be able to get that information now that we have asked for it.
The second point I wish to make is that, having received only a minimum of information, I am not prepared to admit, as a layman, that salary, and salary alone, will enable us to get the best type of judge, either county court judge or sheriff substitute in Scotland. I am satisfied that 1054 in many instances the ordinary layman could mete out justice in a far better way than some of those who in the past, and possibly even at present, are occupying the positions we are discussing now. My third point is that there is a special reference in the Resolution to the Scottish Land Court and to the Lyon King of Arms. As the representative of a Scottish constituency, I am pleased that something is to be done to regularise the salaries in the Land Court. The Land Court of Scotland, when established, was an honest attempt to get a court of equity to deal with rural subjects in Scotland. If there is a good argument for an increase in salaries in the case of county court judges or even sheriff substitutes in Scotland—I do not grant that there is—then there is an equally good argument for an increase in the salaries in the Land Court of Scotland.
I would like to put a question to the Lord Advocate. We have been asked to regularise the salary of the Lyon King of Arms. All I have been able to learn about his work in Scotland in recent months is that he has made a deliberate attempt to prevent the Scottish people from flying a Scottish flag. That seems to be the only thing for which he has been paid in recent months. I would like to know what are his duties. I am anxious to know the cost of that particular post. I am wondering whether economies could not be effected in that direction without any dire effects on Scotland.
We on this side oppose this Resolution because we are being asked to dole out money to those of whom it cannot be argued by any stretch of imagination that they are in circumstances of poverty and that they cannot get all that is required to give them a decent standard of living. Time and again the Government have asked for more and more money for those who are well paid, whereas every attempt to obtain improved conditions for the poorest of the poor has been rejected by the Government. For those reasons hon. Members on this side oppose this Resolution and will continue to oppose similar Resolutions until we can get some reasonable justice meted out by hon. and right hon. Members opposite to the class to which we belong.

§ 5.51 p.m.

§ Mr. Magnay
I would like to make one or two observations, because I think I am peculiarly qualified to do so. For 1055 20 years I was inside a county court, and on this occasion I really know what I am talking about. [An HON. MEMBER: "In what capacity?"] As chief clerk, the youngest in England. I was National Secretary of the County Courts Officials' Association. I am amazed by the manner in which hon. Members opposite have approached this very sensible and, if I may say so, belated proposal to increase the salaries of county court judges. May I remind the Committee—for it is not necessary to tell it—why the county courts were founded? The object was to bring justice—in the words if I remember aright of King Alfred, who founded them—to the doors of the common people. As springing from that class myself, the industrial aristocracy, the best breed in the world, I suggest that nothing but the best is good enough for the common people, certainly in regard to justice, for I think every Englishman and certainly every Scotsman will agree that justice is the most sacred word in human speech, coming indeed beforce mercy, because mercy cannot be given until justice is recognised. I suggest that only the best barristers and lawyers should be appointed as county court judges. Many a time I have drawn up and had signed by the sitting judge the appointment of a deputy, and I think the rule then was, if it is not now, that the barrister must be of seven years' proved experience.
To show the ridiculous nature of the opposition—for I must be frank and straightforward—let me point out that the salaries of county court judges were fixed by Statute in 1865, and that the cost of living has gone up immensely since that time. If one makes a comparison—it would be more fair to say a contrast—between wages in 1865 and wages at present, are there any grounds why county court judges should not have their salaries increased at any rate pro rata to the increase in wages since that time? I think that is a fair comparison and a fair argument. Over and above the cost of living, which has been immeasurably increased during the period from 1865 to 1937, there have been changes in legislation. I remember that in 1895 the job of the county court judge was the easiest in the world, but it has since become very complex, with workmen's compensation cases and a thousand and one other things. At that time, there was not a 1056 trust fund in any county court, but when I left 20 years later, my carry-forward cash balance was £14,000, and I had to balance it to a penny for the Treasury auditor. That is only one illustration of the increase in the volume of work of the county court judges. The judges and officials in the county courts received their War bonus only in 1920, and that belated War bonus was in consonance with the niggardly way in which the State has treated those faithful servants.
To show again how ridiculous the opposition is, I ask any hon. Member opposite what are the salaries of county council clerks, or town council clerks? They are far in excess of the salaries of the county court judges. The county court judges have to execute justice, whereas the clerks of county councils or town councils have only organising, executive and administrative work. The county court judge has to sit not only as judge but as jury, and if he is a wise man and there is any doubt as to which way he should give his verdict, he always decides on the facts, on which there is not any appeal, and not on the law. There is another consideration. In Northumberland and Durham, the county court judges are also chairmen of quarter sessions. That is extra work which they have had to do within recent years.

§ Mr. James Griffiths
It is purely voluntary.

§ Mr. Magnay
Why should they not have some increase in their salary for the work they have done for years on a voluntary basis? All hon. Members who are lawyers will agree that it is to the advantage to the quarter sessions that competent lawyers should be chairmen.

§ Mr. J. Griffiths
Does the hon. Member suggest that the Committee, in considering this Resolution, should take into account the fact that occasionally the county court judge accepts an invitation from his fellow magistrates to preside at the quarter sessions, and that because he accepts that invitation and serves there, not as a county court judge, but as a magistrate invited by his fellow magistrates to do so, he should have an increase in his salary?

§ Mr. Magnay
I would like to know the inwardness of the invitation before I answer that question. I would like to know whether it has not been suggested to 1057 him by his Department that it would be to the advantage of the State in general and the county in particular that he should take the office of chairman at the quarter sessions. Placing the monetary aspect on one side, it shows their willingness as public servants to do anything they can in the way of voluntary work for the benefit of the State and the county in which they serve. There is a final point to which I wish to refer, and it is that the fees in county courts have been vastly increased in recent years. I would like to see, not a profit and loss account, for that would be a wrong term, but an account of receipts and expenditure, a statement as to what has been received in fees by the county courts and what has been paid away in salaries to the judges, the registrars and the staffs. I would like to see that account before the Committee can really judge as to whether or not this Resolution is extravagant. I suggest that here we are giving belated consideration to the county court judges who cannot come here to speak for themselves. I have known one or two of them, and I have had the honour and privilege of serving under them. I am speaking from disinterested motives. I think it is fair and reasonable consideration of the county court judges that they should have this adequate salary, which has been so long delayed.

§ 6.0 p.m.

§ Mr. Batey
I come from the same county as does the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay), who has just sat down, and I am very anxious that he should not consider that one is occupying a ridiculous position in opposing this Resolution. Let me tell my hon. Friend one or two reasons why I oppose this Motion and will gladly go into the Lobby to vote against it. The Resolution proposes to increase the salary of county court judges from £1,500 to £2,000 a year and the salaries of magistrates of the Metropolitan police courts also from £1,500 to £2,000. In each of these cases they get a bonus of £165 a year at present. The Resolution also proposes to increase the salary of the chief magistrate of the Metropolitan police court, who is now paid £1,800, to £2,300, and he too is receiving £165 a year bonus. That is a total cost to come out of the country's purse of £35,000. I will not vote against the Resolution to-night on 1058 personal grounds in regard to any single county court judge or other official affected. My objection is bigger than that; it is against the class policy of the Government. The Government can always make out a case if they want to give any money to the wealthy, but they are always at the same time robbing the poorest of the poor, and I object to that policy. The Government are living up to the real Tory reputation, which was described by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), at Nottingham, on 30th January, 1909, when he said of the Tory party: The party of the rich against the poor, of the classes against the masses, of the lucky, the wealthy, the happy and the strong against the left-out and the shut-out millions of the weak and poor. The Government are just living up to that reputation. They are prepared again and again to ask this House to vote money for those who have sufficient already, but at the same time they are prepared to take from the poor every sixpence they can take from them. I am objecting to this £35,000 coming out of the public purse, because the Prime Minister, delivering a speech in Glasgow on 18th November last, said: When it comes to making payments from the public purse, then the only basis on which such payments can equitably be made is on the basis of need. Is any hon. Member opposite going to argue to-night that this money should come from the public purse on the basis of need?

§ Mr. Magnay
Obviously, the Prime Minister was referring to payments to those who were not working. We are talking to-night of salaries for those who are working.

§ Mr. Batey
For the benefit of the hon. Member opposite, I will re-read what the Prime Minister did say.

§ Mr. George Griffiths
Yes, say it again, and then they will have it.

§ Mr. Batey
Well, I think it is worth it. The Prime Minister said: When it comes to making payments from the public purse, then the only basis on which such payments can equitably be made is on the basis of need. That was the Prime Minister, not a member of the Labour party. Will any- 1059 body opposite tell me that there is any need in connection with these people? County court judges now have £1,650 a year. Is there any need there for an increase of salary? I fail to realise where the need is. We object to this Resolution just as we objected to the Resolution for the Traffic Commissioners' double pension the other day. We object to these payments on principle. We object to the Government continually being prepared to make payments where there is no need at the same time as they are taking from the poorest of the poor the very last shilling that they can take from them.
The only argument that I have ever heard used in favour of the means test being applied to the unemployed is that the money comes from the public purse. Well, let the Government apply that argument all round, and let them stop making increases of salaries until such time as they can afford from the public purse not to rob the unemployed. I submit that those who are under the means test to-day have a stronger claim to consideration by the Government than anybody else, and that the Government are treating those people in one of the shabbiest ways any Government could treat any body of people. They are proposing under this Resolution to increase the salaries of these rich men, and at the same time we read in to-day's Press that they are making drastic reductions, ridiculous reductions, from the very poorest of the poor. In to-day's "Daily Herald" there is a statement of some sweeping cuts that are being made in Plymouth, and when hon. Members are prepared to vote these increases of salary to these gentlemen who do not need them they should remember these cases: Some households are losing up to nearly £1 a week. This is money that is coming from the public purse and that the Government are squeezing from these people in order to give to these rich men. The quotation continues: Some married couples are to lose 2s. a week in instalments of about 6d. a week. Single men are being cut by 7s. or more a week in some instances. A head of a family in which there are several earning members has had his determination reduced from 17s. to 7s. a week. A man—

1060

§ The Chairman (Sir Dennis Herbert)
I must remind the hon. Member that he is going rather far.

§ Mr. Batey
I have no intention of discussing the means test.

§ The Chairman
There are several other matters which the hon. Member must not discuss either.

§ Mr. Batey
We raised this matter with the occupant of the Chair at the beginning of the discussion, Sir Dennis, and we were given to understand then that, while we could not move an Amendment on the means test, we could use it as an argument.

§ The Chairman
I happened to be within hearing at that time, but whether that was the case or not, it is true that the hon. Member can refer to certain matters without debating or discussing them at length. It is clear, however, that the unpleasant duty of the Chair came in, and that I had to tell the hon. Member that I thought he had gone far enough.

§ Mr. Batey
I have no intention of discussing the means test in face of the Ruling given by a former occupant of the Chair; I have no intention of breaking that Ruling. As a matter of fact, I prepared my speech on the means test, and the difficulty is to pick pieces out, but what I was doing at the moment when you called me to order, Sir Dennis, was to show the severe cuts that have taken place in regard to people who are paid from the public purse in Plymouth. If those cuts have been taking place at the moment, the House is not justified at the same time in increasing the salaries of men who have already got quite sufficient to live on. What I object to in the policy of the Government is that they stand for the rich classes, that they depend upon the rich classes, and that they are prepared to pay the rich classes, and all the time they are trying to rob the poor. Against that we protest as strongly as we can protest.
Those who need the first consideration are the poor. You talk about county court judges being hard-worked and not being paid sufficient, but consideration should be given not so much to county court judges as to the people who have to go to the county court for justice. It is the people who are forced to go to the 1061 county court through poverty that this House should consider, and until the House is prepared to give some consideration to these people we shall object to all these Resolutions. When the Government come forward to increase the salaries of Cabinet Ministers, we shall oppose that on principle. We say that the first people who should have consideration from this House are the poor of this country, and until they get that consideration we shall oppose grants to everybody else.

§ 6.14 p.m.

§ Mr. Bull
In supporting this Resolution, I agree with those hon. Members who have spoken from this side of the House that the increases in salaries proposed in this Resolution are long overdue. In so far as the county court judges are concerned, the learned Solicitor-General has told us that there has been no change in their statutory salaries since 1865, although various Bills to increase their salaries have been introduced since that date but they have never reached the Statute Book. The learned Solicitor-General also told us that the bonus reached its maximum of, I think he said, £750 at or shortly after the end of the War, and I believe that it is correct to say that the net income enjoyed by county court judges is less now than it has been for 70 years. I am open to correction on that statement, but I believe that that is the case. While there have been no changes in the statutory salaries of county court judges, there has been an enormous increase in the work which they have to do as the result of the increase in their jurisdiction and the number of cases heard. There is also a decline in the value of money since these salaries were fixed, and an enormous increase in taxation. I do not think we can emphasise too much the importance that we should attach to the fact that the Lord Chancellor should have the best men at the Bar on whom to draw for these appointments. Lord Buckmaster, speaking in 1921 on this point, said: In this country high judicial office should be placed above all temptation and those who discharge high judicial duties should be placed above all temptation and be placed in such a position that the adequacy of their position should be fully recognised. Alone among all public servants they stand in the position of having had no alleviation. If that has no interest for hon. Gentlemen opposite, possibly they will be a little more interested in what Lord Sankey 1062 said in 1930, when he observed that it seemed to be the policy of every Government to place more work and responsibility on the county court judges. In his view their remuneration was inadequate. I find it difficult to understand the point of view of the Opposition because the county court is surely a poor man's court, and I cannot understand why hon. Gentlemen opposite can talk in such a way as would lead one to suppose that the poor man should not have just as good a judge as anyone else. I sympathise with the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) when he said he had prepared a speech on the means test, because I prepared a speech in the hope that I should be able to answer his speech on that subject.

§ 6.18 p.m.

§ Mr. Mander
We support the Resolution because we feel that whatever occupation a man may have, he ought to have a standard rate of fair remuneration for his job. As things are organised in this country, county court judges and others are getting substantially below it and I do not think it is going too far to say that the rate which is now proposed is not really what they are entitled to. We are just as keen to get rid of the household means test as hon. Members above the Gangway, and we shall take every opportunity to do so, but the fact that you cannot remedy one particular grievance is no reason for making other people continue to suffer under a grievance. I am in favour of getting rid of all grievances and remedying all injustices as opportunity occurs. Here is one that occurs to-day. Before long we may have an opportunity of dealing with the abolition of the means test, and I hope we shall.
I want to ask whether it is proposed making the office of county court judge attractive to distinguished members of the Bar, and whether it is proposed, as opportunity occurs, to raise them to the High Court bench. There has been only one case as far as I know in judicial history, and it would be a great stimulus to county court judges if they knew that one of the possibilities of their accepting that position was that if they proved extremely efficient they might have a chance of going to the High Court. It ought to be done now and then in suitable cases.

§ 6.20 p.m.

§ Mr. Silverman
I would like to address my remarks to that part of the Resolution which deals with county court 1063 judges, although may I say in passing that I am at a loss to understand what a judge's clerk does that entitles him to a salary about 30 per cent. in excess of that enjoyed by Members of this House? The Solicitor-General, in moving the Resolution, seemed to me to be proving either too much or too little. His argument was that county court judges are called upon to deal with a larger volume of work than is dealt with in the High Court, that their work is of the highest intricacy, and that, although he did not say this but implied it, the importance to the litigants before county court judges of the matters which are litigated there, is every bit as great as the matters litigated in the so-called High Court by High Court judges. Therefore, I understood that his general argument was that, as the county court judge was doing as much and as important work as the High Court judge, his salary ought to be about two-fifths of the salary of the High Court judge. I find it impossible to understand that argument. Either the Solicitor-General ought on that argument to propose for the county court judge a salary of £5,000, or he ought to have proposed as part of the Resolution to raise the county court judge's salaries up to £2,000 and at the same time reduce the High Court judges' to £2,000.
Unless he does one or the other, the proposal which he puts before the Committee will not achieve the end that he has in view. I understand the end to be that the Government wish to attract to the county court benches men of maturity and of the same calibre as the High Court bench, because it is doing work of as great importance. If you want to attract to one job men of equal calibre to those who are fulfilling another job, it is hopeless to expect it if you offer only two-fifths of the salary. Surely, it will not be suggested that by raising the county court judge's salary by a mere £350 a year you are going to make him adequate for High Court work, which, as I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman, they are in fact doing. The Government are attacking this proposal at the wrong end. While this system of society remains you will not persuade men of ability to do jobs unless they can get the same amount of money as they would get in other jobs requiring the same ability. That is the principle which 1064 the Committee are asked to accept. If, therefore, you want to solve the difficulty of getting men of the right type for this work, you must at the same time avoid the difficulty, in which we on this side of the Committee find ourselves, of not wishing to pay out of the public purse to people who are in no need greater sums at a time when vast numbers of people in far greater need are denied what every Member of the Committee will agree is their just claim. The way to avoid that is to begin at the other end.
It is true that county court and High Court judges will require something more than the average level of earnings at the Bar, but if those earnings are too high, I would suggest that the Government introduce legislation limiting the earnings of banisters and solicitors. I can speak freely on this subject because I practise as a solicitor, and I readily admit, provided that every other member of the profession would admit it too, that I earn far more than I deserve when I compare the value of my services to the community with the value of the miner's services, or with the value of the services that would be rendered by a skilled unemployed craftsman who is unable because of our organisation of society to find any employment by which he can contribute anything at all. If the Solicitor-General would tackle the problem in that way, he would render a great public service. He would bring down the cost of litigation enormously, and, if he is anxious about the ability of poor people to obtain justice in the courts, it would bring down the cost of obtaining that justice. It would do far more good than the raising of county court judges' salaries. He would bring a whole level of law costs and he would then be able to get able men to fill judicial positions without so great a financial sacrifice as is sometimes now entailed.
It would have the effect of splitting up the amount of work among banisters more equitably. It would bring to an end the practice of going to fashionable silks with huge incomes, not because of their ability. It would set a fashion of valuing services rendered to the community by different professions in such a way as to lead to some kind of equalisation of income. It would enable the Solicitor-General to select men of ability 1065 out of the ranks of legal labourers at a cost which the State could afford, and it would not allow such great bitterness as the proposal which he is making to-day has aroused in so many people's minds. He is approaching a difficult question from the wrong end and saying that because one class of privileged people earn to-day, as they have always earned, sums far in excess of the value of the services which they render to the community we must pay servants of the State salaries which cannot be justified on their own merits and are only justified by the difficulty of obtaining the right kind of people otherwise. Let me commend that proposal to the hon. and learned Member and ask whether he will not withdraw this Resolution for the time being, until the Government are in a position to come to the House with a considered scheme embracing not merely this one point of inequity in our legal system but a general scheme which would remove a great many of the abnormalities and, in its stride, deal with the immediate difficulties which this Resolution is designed to meet.

§ 6.31 p.m.

§ Sir W. Davison
I think the country will he amazed to note the lack of responsibility which has been evident on the Socialist benches in dealing with this most important matter. We had the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) actually referring to some remarks of the Prime Minister in which he stated that all payments should be on the basis of need, and asking whether any need had been shown in these cases. Could there be anything more misleading, more mentally warped than that quotation from the Prime Minister when referring to people whose unemployment benefit had expired and who were asking for maintenance from the State because they were, unfortunately, unable to maintain themselves? There could not be a more fallacious argument to bring forward against increasing the salaries of these judges and magistrates. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Cassells) said that this Resolution was another instance of the infamy—he used that word—of the Government in putting money into the pockets of people who do not need it. Practically every speech from the Socialist benches has dealt with this quesiton on the basis of need, and yet 1066 another Socialist Member asked whether a man with £1,500 or £1,650 a year could be said to be in need of any increase in remuneration to maintain himself and his family. Of course those arguments are absolutely futile and beside the point. The Committee is asked to consider what is a proper salary, such as will enable the best men to be obtained. It is only the best men that the country wants for these important jobs.

§ Mr. G. Griffiths
Forty pounds a week.

§ Sir W. Davison
Listen to that. Could there be any better example of what I have said? The country will be amazed at the frivolity with which the Socialists are talking about £43 a year—[HON. MEMBERS: "He said £40 a week!"]—a week then—I thought he said £40 a year; his interruption is equally frivolous. These gentlemen, who have to decide most complicated cases of law and fact, must have accurately trained minds. If there is one field of public service which is of greater importance to the poorer classes of the community than any other it is that in which the county court judges operate, and I was pleased to note the practically unanimous agreement on the Socialist benches over the admirable way in which county court judges deal with workmen's compensation cases, how their decisions are preferred and with what fairness they deal with them. Therefore, in the interests of the poorer people especially, it is well to get the best men possible as county court judges.
Of course one could put an advertisement in the papers offering the appointment at £1,000 a year, and even if only banisters of seven years' standing could apply there would be hundreds of applicants, but they would not be from men such as the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary want for these important posts. They want the very best men, men who are earning £4,000 or £5,000 at the Bar. [Interruption.] Somebody says "Rubbish!" It is not rubbish and the hon. Member ought to know it. We want the man who is getting anything from £3,000 to £5,000 a year at the Bar and who has experience of all the branches of the law, and, further, is a man whom the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary can trust to deal with this work in a sympathetic and judicial way, and the field open to them in 1067 making such appointments is not nearly so large as hon. Members opposite think. One could not expect a man with a family to support, in these days of heavy expenses and heavy taxation, to give up £3,000 a year in order to take an appointment of £1,500 a year. This Resolution ought to be discussed on its merits and not with silly ideas about the means test, an entirely different matter.
There is the further point that these county court judges earn very large fees for the Treasury from the people who appear in their courts. I think it was the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir John Withers) who gave us some remarkable figures on that aspect of the question. I think the Westminster County Court takes £30,000 a year in fees and Manchester £10,000 or £I2,000—I cannot remember the exact figures, but they are far and away higher than the salaries of the judges, and why should the litigants who pay these fees not have the very best men to decide their cases? Of course they ought to get the very best men, and to talk in this connection about people who get small wages and who want extra pay in order to bring up their children is futile. We want the best men for these appointments, and it is more to the interest of the poorer people than of any other class in the community that we should get them. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, East (Mr. Mander) support the Resolution on behalf of the Liberal party. He made a valuable suggestion, which I hope the Government will take into consideration, that more promotions to the High Court might well be made from the county courts. Some of the judges who have for many years done valuable work in the county courts are well able to discharge the duties of the High Court. The real reason why I rose was to try to bring this Debate back to a sense of reality after the very frivolous lines on which the Opposition had conducted it, and I end by saying that the county court judges are especially the people's judges and that we ought to have the very best judges we can for the people's work.

§ 6.38 p.m.

§ Major Milner
The hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) has worked himself into a state of indignation for which I can see no reason whatever, and from what he has said to the House 1068 it is obvious that he has very little knowledge indeed of the system of appointing judges to the county courts or of what has happened in the past and recently. It is not true that the Lord Chancellor has appointed persons who by private practice have earned £4,000 or £5,000 a year, or anything like it. There have been odd cases—I know of two or three in the county of Yorkshire—of men at the Bar who, it may be, have earned that income, or rather more, who have been appointed county court judges, but generally speaking that has not been so.

§ Sir W. Davison
My point was that the Lord Chancellor has not had the scope—that we want men who have been earning £4,000 or £5,000, but that he had to take men who had been earning very much less and were not the best men for the job.

§ Major Milner
I am sure that an increase of £500 or £350 a year will not make all the difference between getting bad men and the best men for these appointments, and it is absurd for the hon. Member to put such an argument before the Committee. Having said that, I am bound to admit that I find myself in some little difficulty in this Debate. Having sat on a number of committees which had to do with county court judges, and having myself proposed Amendments, which were carried, which have imposed greater duties on them, and having urged on many occasions that their status should be improved, I find myself in some difficulty in opposing in any sense the proposal which the Government have brought before the Committee. I agree entirely with many of the arguments which my hon. Friends have put forward. The difficulty in all these cases is that when dealing with one particular class you have, of necessity, to draw a comparison between that class and other classes among whom there is greater need, such as those of whom my hon. Friends have spoken. At the same time there is surely force in the argument that unless those on this side of the Committee say they will agree to no proposal from the Government Benches until certain admitted hardships of those on the means test have been dealt with, there is no more justification for opposing this particular proposal—or picking it out—than for opposing others.
1069 I regard it as essential that those administering justice should be adequately remunerated for their work, and that such a salary should be paid as will enable the choice to be made from really competent men, irrespective of other conditions. In one thing I agree with the hon. Member for South Kensington. The county courts deal with something like 90 per cent. of the civil litigation in this country, and I regard it as essential, and not least in the interest of the working classes, that those who are judges in the county courts should be fully qualified in every respect. I doubt whether the salary that is even now proposed will get quite the type of men that I should like to see on the county court bench. There ought to be no distinction between the High Court and the county court in this matter. The degree of competency required in a county court judge is in every respect at least as great as that required in a High Court judge.
There are a number of considerations which have to be borne in mind, and there are points on which I think it right that questions should be asked of the Government. As a practising member of the lower branch of the profession, though why it should be termed the lower branch I have never been able to understand, I am not at all satisfied about the appointments to the county court bench. There have been some splendid appointments; many of those which I know of, particularly in my own neighbourhood, have been, splendid appointments—young men, competent and in the prime of life, who had built up excellent practices. But that has not always been the case, I regret to say. One cannot particularise, but there have been what I regard as bad appointments, the selection even of those who have probably never practised in the county courts in their lives. In my comparatively short experience I have known judges who, in my submission, have been incompetent, have been biased and have been rude. Notice should be taken of these matters by those who have the power of making these appointments.
I think I am right in saying that many of the appointments have been, and still are, rather of a political nature or are the result of real or imaginary political services. I do not suggest for a moment that all the appointments have been made on purely political grounds, nor do I think that because a man is of a certain political persuasion, or even takes an 1070 active part in politics, he should be debarred from appointment either as county court judge or High Court judge. Politics should not be of the slightest importance in comparison with knowledge of the law and competence to carry out the duties of the office. One result of the effect of politics upon these appointments is—I can say so quite freely, not being a member of the Bar, to which all these appointments go—that very few of them go to members of this party. I can recollect only one. It is scandalous that competent men should be deprived of the opportunity of sitting on the bench because they do not happen to belong to the party in power.
Another result of the present system which, I think, applies to county court judges, police and stipendiary magistrates, is that men of no party who have been devoted solely to their profession, have rarely been appointed. I know, and so I dare say do hon. Members in all parts of the House, men who are at the Bar to-day, competent in the highest degree, but who have not been able, maybe from choice or compulsion, to make those social and political contacts which seem necessary under the present system. The result is that the country, and litigants, lose the services of these men. The Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary, who have the appointments, are in an unsatisfactory and invidious position. They cannot possibly know all those who are qualified for these offices, and they have—and in practice I know that they do so—to make inquiries and make up their minds as well as they can from information which they obtain from a hundred and one sources. I do not think there is any doubt that a member of the Bar who has a friend in a position of authority who can give him a push, has a much greater chance of appointment than one who has been devoted solely to his profession and has had no opportunity of making the contacts which seem necessary.
There is one other very peculiar anomaly. None of these appointments is open to members of the lower branch of the profession. They cannot become county court judges, police magistrates, or recorders. I notice, curiously enough, that a solicitor is rarely appointed as solicitor to a Government Department. Why that should be I have not the remotest idea. If hon. Members will look 1071 at those who are either Treasury solicitors or solicitors to the Ministry of Labour or the Ministry of Health, they will find that they are always from the Bar and are never solicitors. The examinations that solicitors have to pass are far more arduous and their experience is at least as great, and is certainly more varied, than in the other branch of the profession but they are never appointed to these offices. However that may be, we ought to have some assurance that this matter of appointments will have the attention of the Government. I should like to see appointments being made, not by one man, however much one may like to rely upon his judgment, but, as in the case of the Civil Service generally, by some sort of board of selection which would have public confidence and the confidence of the profession, and which would make the best choice possible on the merits of those who are best fitted to fill these positions.
I am bound to say, on the Resolution which is before the Committee, that I do not regard the salary proposed to be paid to county court judges as in the least excessive, in view of the duties which have been heaped upon them in recent years. We require better standards than are possessed by some of those who occupy the positions. I am not prepared to vote against this proposal. There are differences in the work done by county court judges. Some of them are extremely hard worked, as in London, Liverpool, Leeds, and in industrial areas. On the other hand, many county court judges work only half their time, and some of them have told me so. They would be very happy to have more work thrust upon them. The Lord Chancellor, or whoever is responsible, might now give consideration to the revision of county court areas in the country, in order better to distribute the work that has to be done.
I heartily support the proposal, which I have made on many occasions from these benches, that county court judges should be considered for appointment to the High Court. Under the common practice at present, a county court judge can aspire to nothing higher than his present position. There is no question that the result has been, in some instances, that judges have taken it easy. They are not particularly concerned to push ahead and polish off the work, and to give satisfaction to litigants. They are 1072 inclined to show impatience. An advocate, like the labourer, is worthy of his hire, particularly if he is a young man who ought to have a full opportunity of putting his client's case, which he is paid to do. We ought to press the Government for an assurance, but I do not suppose that the hon. and learned Gentleman can give any assurance now. We ought to press the Government to see that the evident wishes of this Committee in this respect are conveyed to the proper quarter.
When I come to the matter of police magistrates in London, I am not at all happy about the Financial Resolution. I understand that those who sit on Metropolitan police court benches do so nowadays for something like an average of three days a week. If that be so they are certainly not hard worked. I cannot agree with what some speakers have said, that these magistrates have the responsibility, the knowledge or the competence—general competence I ought to say, because they have a particular com petence, no doubt—which county court judges are obliged to have. I am not prepared to stand for the principle that the merits of police magistrates are in the least equivalent to those of county court judges. In any case how is it that stipendiary magistrates in the country are not brought within the terms of this Resolution? There may be some technical reason. It may be that Metropolitan magistrates come under the Home Secretary and that the stipendiary magistrates do not, but I should value some explanation why stipendiary magistrates in the country, who frequently work every day in the week, and have at least equal responsibility with those in London, should not have at least equal remuneration.
It is obvious from what I have said that the whole of this matter is honeycombed with anomalies. I have made a proposal that there should be an appointments board or a board of selection. The Government should also take into consideration the question of appointing a commission, or other appropriate body, to consider the whole question of appointments with a view to putting them on a better basis and doing away altogether with even a suspicion that the majority of them are tinged in any way with either personal or political patronage. If assurances are given on this 1073 point, I could not bring myself to vote against the Financial Resolution.

§ 6.57 p.m.

§ Mr. Croom-Johnson
I thank the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) for a very interesting and very shrewd speech, with a very great deal of which I agree most heartily. A good many of the points which he made I have remained here for some time desiring to make for myself. I do not know, but I rather suspect, that the salaries of stipendiary magistrates in the country are paid by the local authorities or by local funds, and that the salaries are fixed locally. With regard to police magistrates, little has been said about their salaries in the course of this Debate. Police magistrates in London fulfil a very onerous function, and deal with matters of personal liberty. They also deal with the preliminary investigation of all indictable offences committed within the London police district. In addition to that, they carry an enormous burden of very small cases of a semi-criminal or semi-civil character. If any hon. Members have had much experience of treating a very large number of very small cases in a very little time, presented by people who have no professional assistance, they will realise what a tiring and onerous job it is.
A tremendous number of people, of all classes, come into collision with the police in the course of the year, either because they are supposed to have obstructed non-existing traffic by leaving a motor car in a cul-de-sac, or they have let their chimneys get on fire; or it may be because of an offence in one of the more serious branches. It is essential that people who are appointed to the jobs should, by and large, merit and receive the confidence of the people who come before them. It is not easy in the case of a man, who is perhaps not accustomed to presenting a case, and is often there alone—a costermonger, a workman, or even people of much higher position on the outside of things—to search for the truth, as against the policeman or the trained advocate who very often presents cases.
From this point of view I am not criticising the proposal made here that the remuneration of police magistrates in London should be increased. The task of finding suitable people, who must not be so much learned lawyers as people 1074 who know humanity and understand the springs of human actions—men of the world as they are sometimes called, although I do not like the expression—has given great anxiety in recent years. A case has been made for increasing the remuneration of police court magistrates in London. Once appointed in London they cannot be shifted. If you happen to get a man who is not suitable for London, you cannot send him to Somers-et or Northumberland. Hon. Members opposite will realise that it is a difficult task to get hold of people who are ready to fulfil this difficult and sometimes awkward and anxious jurisdiction.
Regarding the county court judges, I agree with what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds. Their task is extremely difficult. For six or seven years before the War I spent practically every day of my professional life in county courts, often not doing the job myself but waiting for the time to do it, so that I had the opportunity of watching the job being done. I wonder how many hon. Members have spent the days that I spent years ago in Whitechapel County Court watching the cases being presented by people of poor education, often with little or no English, who were trying to explain to the judge what their case was or what their defence was. It is far from being an easy job. The county court judge has to know the facts, has to elicit the facts, often has to examine the witnesses himself, and then he has to apply the right law, with the knowledge that if the case involves more than £20 someone will probably criticise him in a higher court and seek to upset him. The sums of money with which the county court judges deal are small, but they bulk large in the minds of the people who seek recourse to these courts. The difficulty of finding people who combine the right qualities has given great anxiety to those who are responsible for their appointment. It is not a new problem.
In the public service and in the public interest this proposal is long overdue. The criticism I should make of it is that it is half-hearted and does not go anything like far enough. I should add one other criticism. Some county court judges sit in large centres of population where they are extremely hard worked, and often overworked. Those of us who have practised in these courts know that in some districts the county court judge, 1075 especially if he happens to be a good man, is overworked. People resort to his court, and in some of the larger areas of population outside London even the people who could go to the higher courts not infrequently abandon a small part of their claim to bring it within the county court jurisdiction, or agree with each other that it shall be dealt with at that court; County Court judges cover all cases while High Court judges are, to some extent, working as specialists in that branch of the law with which they have been chiefly associated in their practice at the Bar.
So far from saying this is a case where we should criticise this advance of £2,000, I say that we should be making the county courts truly effective and eliminating the weak judges, that we ought to advance their salaries not by the few pounds we are doing, but in a manner which will make their jobs really worth while. We shall not meet the difficulty of overworked judges by altering the districts. The whole object of the county court is to bring justice nearer to the homes of the people, and if you increase the districts you only give the county court judge more travelling. There is no allowance for travelling as far as I know, and the judge has to meet the expenses incurred out of his salary. To increase the districts would merely increase the difficulties. In 1856 the salaries of county court judges were fixed on a flat-rate basis for the first time. It was then £1,200, and it was increased a few years later by £300.
It seems to me that the time has come when certain county court judges should be marked out, because of the amount of work they have to do, for a larger salary than the flat rate. In this Resolution that principle is recognised, because the Chief Magistrate in London, whose work is- greater than that of his brethren by reason of certain particular functions he has to discharge, is to get £300 a year more than any other of the police court magistrates in London. With regard to many of the county court judges, the difference between the work they do and the work that some of their colleagues in the lighter areas have to do, is worth a good deal more than that discrimination of £300. I hope it is not the last we are going to hear about this. 1076 The justice shop which is conducted by this country in the county courts appears from available statistics to be run at a profit. The amount of fees collected is very large. I will not repeat the observations made earlier by the senior Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers), but we all know that in the average county court the fees received more than pay expenses and leave a profit to the Treasury. It was not unknown years ago for the county court judge to receive less in salary than that which was received by the registrar in his own court.
That anomaly has been swept away, but in commending this Resolution to the Committee I do so in the hope that we shall have an opportunity at some time in the not too distant future of considering this matter further, and of having regard to the question of a flat-rate salary. By and large, the judges in the High Court are supposed to have more or less the same amount of work to do, and to sit about the same number of days. In the county courts it frequently happens that the busy man has to sit 11 months in the year and on almost every available day in the month, whereas in the quieter districts the county court judge does not sit on half the days in the week, and sometimes does not sit after the middle of the day because there is not the work for him to do. Why should he be paid at the flat rate of £2,000, while his brother some distance away is doing twice the amount of work? On some of the other matters with which this Resolution deals I have neither the knowledge nor the desire to speak, and while I heartily support the Resolution I regret that with regard to county court judges it will not do a great deal of good.

§ 7.12 p.m.

§ Mr. Kelly
The hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) asked that we should not pick on particular proposals. I want to assure him that it is not this particular Resolution that has been picked on, but the many proposals which have been brought forward by the Government to help people of this type while at the same time they have every objection to, and put up a fight against, anything being done for people who are lower-paid. It is for that reason that we say that the people who are lower-paid and have worse conditions 1077 should be dealt with before the people mentioned in this Resolution. It deals not only with county court judges and Metropolitan police magistrates, but with a great many of the clerical staffs. I wish that something more had been said to give us an indication of what the increase is that it is intended to give these people. The hon. Member who last s poke has not followed closely what happens to police magistrates in London. He said that they remain police magistrates, but if he will glance at what has happened in the past he will find that some of them have been promoted. I can point to one who has been appointed to another position.

§ Mr. Ede
If they are good enough teetotallers they send them to the British Broadcasting Corporation.

§ Mr. Kelly
I was not thinking of that particular magistrate, but of others.
I would ask the Solicitor-General, when he replies, what difference this will make as compared with the salary of the chairman of quarter sessions here in London. It looks to me as though the man who is appointed to the superior position of chairman of quarter sessions, and certainly his vice-chairman, will be on a lower scale of pay than the police magistrates against whose decisions he may have to decide appeals. Again, there are the chairmen of quarter sessions in Northern Ireland. Why are they mentioned in this Motion, when chairmen of quarter sessions in other parts of the country are not mentioned at all? The Government seem ready at all times to assist people who are in positions such as those mentioned in this Resolution. Whether in the matter of pensions or in the matter of increased salaries, they seem ever ready to help, but when it is suggested to them that those in their service, either as artisans or as labourers, should have a more adequate income, the Government seem to find every reason—sometimes no reason at all—why these people should not receive it.
The hon. Member for South Kensington {Sir W. Davison), who delivered an impassioned speech and who took strong exception to these men being considered from the point of view of need, is certainly ever ready to help people into £2,000 a year, while he would resent anyone at £2 a week being raised to a 1078 standard such as £3 would represent. There was no necessity for him to take the line that he did in answer to the hon. Member for Spennymoor {Mr. Batey), who throughout these discussions, not only on the present Motion but on others, has made it quite clear that his position is that, until those people who really need a wage that would enable them to live are able to have such a wage, we have no right to be considering in the way that we are this evening those who have a wage that is adequate for a reasonable standard of life. I hope that, despite what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for South East Leeds (Major Milner), we are going to divide against this Motion, and I should like to think that we could defeat the Motion and prevent it from going forward.

§ 7.18 p.m.

§ Captain Harold Balfour
I do not want to detain the Committee for more than a few moments, but the speech of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) seemed to me to be rather inconsistent with the policy of his own party in the past. While the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) was speaking, there were cries from the Opposition about the monstrousness of paying any man £40 a week, and the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) and others spoke of the necessity of looking after the poorest in the land before we take such measures as this Resolution proposes. Some of us in the House have, however, memories of the time when the Labour Government was in office. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) is not here at the moment, but perhaps he saw the trend of the Debate, and considered it rather wiser to stay away. When it comes to the principle contained in this Resolution, as to whether people should or should not be paid high salaries for particular services, the hon. Member for Seaham, as a Minister of the Crown, was a very strong advocate in the House for paying, to a gentleman of very high reputation and great knowledge, a salary of no less than £7,000 a year. When the Coal Mines Re-organisation Commission was formed, the hon. Member for Seaham said this: The remuneration of the chairman is £7,000 per annum, and three commissioners are remunerated at the rate of seven guineas a day with a minimum of 100 days per annum. 1079 Some hon. Gentlemen took up the principle which is contained in this Resolution, and opposed it with consistency, including the hon. Member for Spennymoor, but the speaker on behalf of the Labour Government—and, after all, if a party is supposed to have any political hope or future, it must rally behind its accredited leaders—the hon. Member for Seaham said: I cannot imagine that anyone would cavil at a market price being paid for his services."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1931; cols. 2398–2404, Vol. 248.] It seems to me to be very inconsistent that the Opposition should come down here and divide; but perhaps the Front Bench of the Opposition, who were responsible leaders in the Labour Government, are not going to divide; perhaps the back benchers are going to divide and leave their own Front Bench in the cart. Whether that is so or not we shall see in the very interesting Division that is shortly going to take place.

§ Mr. Westwood
The hon. and gallant Gentleman may rest assured that the leaders on the Front Bench at the moment have already indicated that they are going to divide, and that the Labour party are a united party.

§ Captain Balfour
This gets most interesting, because we have now reached the position that the Opposition is going to vote as a united party on this principle. The trouble is, however, that when one looks at the list of those who took part in the Division on this great principle, one finds that those who supported the payment of £7,000 a year included the present Leader of the Opposition. I have here the Division list. The question was put: That a sum, not exceeding £13,100, be granted for the said Service. which included £7,000 a year, or £140 a week, for the chairman and seven guineas a day for a minimum of 100 days for the members. It is true that the hon. Member for Spennymoor was consistent, but the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), whom I see here to-day, spoke against it and voted for it. I see also the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) who no doubt will be in the Lobby with us to-night consistently supporting the principle of paying someone a high salary for services rendered, 1080 because he supported it at that time. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) was not in the list, but his colleague the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), was a strong supporter, in that he gave his vote on that occasion for £7,000 a year, or £140 a week. Led by the hon. Member for Seaham and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who were so strong in 1931, when they were enjoying the fruits of office, in supporting the proposal that someone should be paid £7,000 a year and that no one should cavil at someone being paid a high salary for high services, the Labour party are now going to trail behind in the Lobby, showing once more to the House and to the country that their practice differs greatly in different circumstances, and that their policy is not according to principle, but according to opportunity.

§ 7.25 p.m.

§ Mr. Stephen
There are some words with which I used to be familiar when I was a minister, and to which I would like to refer the hon. and gallant Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour): While the light goes on to burn, The greatest sinner may return. The Labour party are to be congratulated on taking a sound and working-class viewpoint with regard to this Resolution in deciding to vote against it. I would like to ask the hon. and gallant Member for Thanet what leads him to suppose that the Labour party, on the occasion to which he referred, were led by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) and the present Leader of the Opposition. On that occasion they were led by the present Lord President of the Council; they were very largely influenced by him and by his philosophy; but in these days the Labour party are beginning to realise where that policy leads—the policy of the betrayal of the working-class. My hon. Friend who is sitting on this bench says I cannot get away with that, but I can get away with it very easily, because I was just as opposed to the Vote on that occasion as I am to the present Vote. I have no need of any repentance on this matter. The hon. and gallant Member will agree that I and my immediate colleagues were whole-hearted in trying to get the Labour party to realise how wrong was the point of view of the 1081 present Lord President of the Council and of Lord Snowden, who was his chief assistant in keeping the working-class movement on the wrong lines.
I am glad that there is this change. The Labour party have no reason to be ashamed of the line they are taking in this connection. I think that the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) put very well the issue that is involved in this Resolution when he said that it was a question whether we should support an increase to £40 a week for one man, while we refuse to give decent treatment to the man who is getting only £40 a year or less. The issue really boils down to whether the House of Commons should be more concerned about justice for the £40 a week man or for the £40 a year man. The Labour party have decided in favour of the £40 a year man, and, in taking such a decision, they are acting as a real Labour party.
The suggestion which I rose to make to the Committee, and which I think the Solicitor-General might consider, is whether he should not withdraw the Resolution altogether. I think that, after the course the Debate has taken, and the fact that Members on both sides of the Committee have shown that there are so many anomalies in the whole position that it is practically defenceless, the Resolution should be withdrawn and the Government should set themselves to try to produce a scheme that will be intelligent and intelligible and just to all the interests concerned.
When I see hon. Members so worried about getting the best men for these appointments as county court judges—and one knows what competition there is for these jobs at the present figure—I wonder what they are trying to put across the House of Commons. Apart from some half-dozen to 20 members of the Bar, they could get practically any member of the Bar ready and anxious to take one of these jobs. They are ready to use any amount of intrigue. It is not a secret that many of the appointments are practically political appointments, perhaps even worse. High Court judges and county court judges belong very largely to one political party and one social set. I am told that it is almost impossible for anyone to become a High Court judge unless he has an Oxford accent. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, 1082 but I have in mind particularly a very eminent King's counsel, who again and again has been passed over with regard to appointment to the High Court because he did not happen to be fortunate enough to waste years at Oxford. He was working all the time.

§ Major Procter
Are there no Scottish judges with Scottish accents?

§ Mr. Stephen
I fail to see the relevance of that interruption. There may be a few good Scottish judges, but I do not know them. I am making no defence for them, because, like the English judges, they are drawn from one particular section of the community—the privileged section. However, that is apart from this Resolution and I do not intend to pursue it. I want to draw attention to the fact that a solicitor cannot be appointed as a county court judge. While there are many members of the higher branch of the legal profession, to which I belong, who have had a very good experience, I believe that you could get members of the lower branch of the profession who have greater experience and would be every bit as well qualified to fill the position of county court judge as a member of the Bar, but they are excluded. Therefore, I come back to the suggestion that this question could be dealt with in a thorough-going way. There should be a complete reconstruction of the whole position in regard to the judiciary and the practice of law. The division between the two branches of the legal profession should be swept away, because it is quite undemocratic.

§ Mr. Fleming
On a point of Order. Does this really matter to us on this Debate?

§ The Chairman
I think the hon. Member had just ended what he was saying about that.

§ Mr. Stephen
I am sorry if my hon. and learned Friend, an eminent King's Counsel is a little bit afraid that members of the lower branches of the profession might be appointed as county court judges. I do not want to say anything nasty to him in regard to his interruption but I hope he was not getting anxious about a future appointment. In regard to this whole matter I say that it is absolutely shameful that there should be this tremendous enthusiasm on the part of hon. Members who are responsible for 1083 the bad treatment of the £40 a year man and that they should come here with this plaintive appeal for the £40 a week man. I should like a little information from the Lord Advocate. I am sorry that he is not here. He keeps bobbing out and in. There is a part of the Resolution which deals with Scottish appointments and I should like him to give us some information in regard to the Land Court in Scotland. How much is paid to the chairman and what number of cases have they heard last year and in the preceding year? I am interested in view of the fact that we have been told of the great increase in the work of county court judges. I should like to know whether there has been a corresponding increase in the amount of work in the Scottish Land Court.
There is also a question about Lyon King of Arms. How much is this gentleman getting? This point shows that this Resolution is out of date. A suitable Resolution would be one making provision for doing away with Lyon King of Arms and everything associated with that office. After the Division has taken place I hope that the country will realise, in the words of the hon. Member for West Kensington, that the question before us is a question of decent treatment for the £40 a year man supported by the Opposition, against the overwhelming desire on the part of His Majesty's Government and their supporters to add to the emoluments of the £40 a week men who have no need of any such additions to their salaries.

§ 7.37 p.m.

§ Mr. Macquisten
I do not find any Amendment that bears out the last words of the hon. Member who has just spoken. I do not see any opportunity of voting for the £40 a year man. Therefore, I think his remarks are wholly irrelevant. I entirely differ from hon. Members opposite who maintain that the working men would object to this proposal. I do not think that there is any member of the legal profession in this House who has had more to do professionally with working men than myself. For many years if there was a not in Scotland I defended the working men, and I am glad to say I defended them successfully. Time and again I got them off. I could enumerate a number of cases.

1084

§ Mr. Logan
Was it your usual practice?

§ Mr. Macquisten
It was quite a sufficient practice. There were as many nots as there were in the Scotland division of Liverpool. I have never been more generously paid for my work than by working men. They paid me on a most liberal scale. I often felt that they gave me too much. They are not mean. They know that brains are worth paying for. For many years I was a member of what is called the lower branch of the legal profession, and I thought then that I knew a great deal more than those of the other branch, but when I became a member of the other branch I thought differently. I have the qualification of being one of His Majesty's Counsel in England, also in Scotland, and also a Scottish Writer, that is, solicitor. Very few members of the legal profession have had the same opportunities of seeing both sides of the profession.
A great deal has been said about the county court judges. The county court judge is far more important to the mass of the community than the High Court judge. It is mostly reserved for the well-to-do to get to the High Court or the House of Lords. The mass of the people must go to the county court. There is nothing that attracts litigation more than the presence of a good judge. People flock round them like flies round a honey-pot. On the other hand if the county court judge is not an able man, people say, "What is the use of going before him?" Reference has been made to the court dues that have to be paid. It is a scandal that there should be dues. The court should be open to His Majesty's subjects, free. Court dues are a survival of the old monarchical dues, when the King was the judge as well as the fountain of justice, and some courtier had to be bribed in order that there might be approach to him.
It is monstrous and a denial of justice to many poor people that they have to pay costly dues into court before they can go before the court. That is the sort of thing to which the Labour party ought to direct their attention; to get the court dues abolished, so that poor men can go to the courts. That is much more important than a petty expenditure of this kind which deals really with small sums. The amounts involved here are really small. Is there any solicitor or barrister of any 1085 standing who would dream of accepting some of these posts at the salary? It may be said that there are very many who would gladly accept them. It is true that, in proportion, the numbers of unemployed members of the legal community are as numerous as or more numerous than the unemployed in any other occupation. But in these matters a wise choice is everything. Judges are born, not made. I can speak from experience of three of the finest judges that ever sat on a bench. One of them, in particular, had a very little practice before he went to the bench. To their finger-tips they were nature's gentlemen, but not in the social sense. They had the instinct to be gentlemen. They could not think of doing the wrong thing. They had the instinct to do what was right. They made splendid judges. The task of selection is very difficult.
The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) said that solicitors are not appointed as judges. They are appointed in Scotland. When I was a solicitor we did not like the appointment of solicitors to these posts. They did well enough in a way, but there was something wanting that could be got only from members of the Bar.

§ Major Milner
The hon. and learned Member is speaking of Scottish solicitors.

§ Mr. Macquisten
Yes. I do not know the English solicitors well enough. I had however, the control and management of the longest case ever heard in the English courts. It lasted 178 days. We paid our counsel over £30,000, and he was worth it, because of the enormous sum that was involved. It is extraordinary what people will pay for a really good man. I can remember a certain eminent counsel, recently appointed a High Court judge, who was paid a big fee by a Member of this House, himself an eminent lawyer in the East. This eminent counsel differed with an expert who was the authority in this branch of law, but the expert finally agreed with him. The Member of this House said to me: "His fee was a large one, but it saved us £150,000." The payment of large fees to eminent counsel is exactly on the same footing as the payment of a movie star, or an eminent singer, or actor. There are not a great many of them and they are worth their fee.

1086

§ Mr. Cassells
Does the hon. and learned Member say the same about the sheriff in his own constituency, in Oban?

§ Mr. Macquisten
That is not a proper question to ask. I have not appeared before him. I have been talking of those I came across in Glasgow, and those I have been talking about are long dead. I have no doubt that those who are at present in the job are doing it splendidly. It must not be thought that counsel have any objection to appearing before such county court judges or police magistrates. Barristers have extraordinary privileges. Solicitors are responsible for their mistakes, but we are not. A solicitor is responsible to the last penny of his estate if he makes a blunder but nobody can come after us, because we subsist on tips. We have no right to sue for our fees.

§ The Chairman
I must remind the hon. and learned Member that that is not the point which we are discussing now.

§ Mr. Macquisten
There is another point on which I would like to comment. An hon. Member said that active young men should be appointed to these positions. I disagree. A judge's job is an old man's job, and not a young man's job. If you go before a young man full of life, mentally active, with the fighting instinct still strong in his blood, you find that it is not long before he himself is entering into the fray.

§ Mr. Logan
Some of the old ones do so too.

§ Mr. Macquisten
Some of them may be garrulous, but nevertheless I think that to get the best judges you must get men whose fighting instincts have died down. I would make a rule that no man should be appointed as a judge until he was 60. It is only then that he is divorced from worldly cares and preoccupations. It is certainly no objection to a judge that he should be old, and I have seen some wonderful judges who were very old men. With regard to the point about political appointments. I know men who have been appointed as judges and who have never stood upon the hustings in their lives but I do not think they are as satisfactory as men who have been through the mill of democracy. People who have never taken any part in politics and who rise to the bench are apt to plume themselves upon the fact, 1087 and to say, "What wonderful fellows we are to have reached this eminence without the degrading experience of fighting elections like some of our brethren." As a rule, they are more difficult to deal with than the man who has himself been dealt with by the multitude at election meetings. Nothing takes the conceit out of a man like going through an election. It is the gallery and the pit which ultimately judge the fate of a play and the stalls and the circle have comparatively little to say in it; and the man who has been through political controversies and has had to face the crowd is improved in moral by the experience. When he is on the bench he has no difficulty in sloughing off his old political ideas, because in the case of a great many of them the politics are only skin-deep, and do not get into their souls for a lawyer always sees both sides. But in political experience they develop that instinct of humanity which is essential in a good judge. Some of the men who have been best on the bench have been the keenest politicians, and in their political experiences they have acquired a consciousness and a knowledge of the people, and of the human spirit which stand them in good stead when they are judging between one man and another.

§ 7.49 p.m.

§ Mr. Logan
I noted that the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) said that 60 was just about the right age for a judge, and on looking into a reference book I see that the hon. and learned Member himself has just turned 60. I trust he will soon be a judge.

§ Mr. Macquisten
I wish I had just turned 60. I am more than a lustrum ahead of it, and I never could have afforded to be a judge.

§ Mr. Logan
My point of view on this matter may not be that of the majority of my hon. Friends here. I believe that the man who gives good service should be paid for it. I believe that it is important to remove every possibility of suspicion from those in high places who have the responsibility of giving decisions and judgments involving large sums of money and other important considerations. I do not know any place from which it is more essential to remove even the possibility of a breath of suspicion than the 1088 courts of justice. It is not that I do not feel the injustices suffered by the poor of the country to which reference has been made by hon. Members, but to me it seems irrelevant on this question to introduce such questions as the means test. I would fight against the means test with any hon. Member, but I cannot see its relevance or the relevance of any other of the social evils and inequalities of the clay, to the discussion in which we are engaged.
I did not vote on a previous occasion on a question of this kind because then it was a new appointment and an advance from £3,000 to £7,000, but to-night we are told by the Solicitor-General that this is a question of making adjustments. We are told that there have been certain errors in administration, that things have been done which the actuaries have declared are not legal, and I take it that if we were to carry on as we have been doing in the past the position would be irregular, and that what we are doing to-night is to regularise anomalies which have arisen. I do not think that that is a right state of things, and in other affairs a responsible department in such a position would be surcharged. We are told, however, that the difficulty can only be regularised by the vote of this Committee, and in the circumstances it is only fair and reasonable that that regularisation should take place. I am asked to vote here on a question affecting men of knowledge and integrity who hold responsible positions and are called upon to adjudicate, not occasionally but during the whole of their lives, while they are compos mentis. They are supposed to be ornaments to the Bar and credits to the administration of English justice. When one goes into an English court one expects to get English justice, without any feeling as regards the person on the bench that he is not getting sufficient for discharging the duties of his responsible position. It is no use, in the year 1937, to say that a man, whether a poor man or a rich man, is not influenced by the fact that he has to carry on his home and meet other responsibilities, and it is most important that our English judiciary should be kept apart from any exigencies which might affect those holding such responsible positions.
Any man of average ability practising in the courts is able to earn a substantial income. One knows, of course, that there are "duds" in the legal profession 1089 as in every other profession, but what I am anxious to see is that on the bench we get only the best men, and that preferment does not arise from political associations. I want to see on our benches men of ability and knowledge, with power to administer the law, and the least we can do then is to ensure them security of tenure, and place them in such a position that they can carry on their duties. That is not a strange policy to hear advocated from the Labour Benches, and I do not believe it is necessary to bring in all the evils of the day when we are considering a matter of this kind. If this were the proper occasion to do so, I would deal with anomalies like the means test, but you may have anomalies in high places as well, and what I am concerned about is the removal of anomalies. Later on we are to have a discussion on anomalies in regard to other high positions, and that question will have to be faced and dealt with honestly and sincerely by the House of Commons.
I do not know what authority there is or whether there is any authority for saying how we should vote to-night on this question, but I imagine that on this particular issue no standard has been laid down, or that it has been said that the question of making proper payment for services rendered is not to be met by us to-night. If men are incompetent and unqualified for these positions, they ought to be removed, but when you get men who are competent there must be a standard rate of pay for them. I find many appointments in other departments of life filled by men of great ability with large salaries attached to them. It is not exceptional to find salaries of £3,000 and £4,000 a year—though they have never come my way, I suppose because I have not any exceptional abilities. But in other walks of life a good many people have salaries of that description, and I put it to my hon. Friends on this side, speaking on my own behalf alone, that we ought to consider that aspect of the question.
I have no interest in the matter. I have no barrister "pals" and no friends among the judges, except that I have to appear before one occasionally, though I hope I shall never have to appear before him on any charge. But if I had a case, I would rather go before an English judge or an English county court to plead 1090 my case than before many laymen. There are many in the Labour movement who have acquired good posts and are getting good salaries—[HON. MEMBERS: Why not?"]—and on the Tory Benches, too. As regards the crumbs of office and the pickings, both parties try to get them. I have seen the tussle for them. [Interruption.] There are so many leaders that one does not know who are the leaders in the wilderness. I am prepared in regard to the vote that I shall give on this important occasion to face my people, because whether I vote for less or more will not make a penny of difference to the people whom I represent. From the point of view of an election cry it is not worth a toss of a button. Every man who has the ability required for his office ought to be paid, but we should be wise to make what arrangements we can in regard to the standard of the men who occupy the position, so that only those with ability are given the job, and there is no political preferment. I do not think that old men or too young men ought to be placed there, but I believe men of experience ought to be placed there and, when there, they ought to get good pay. I feel that any deserving man who is prepared to carry out the work fearing no foe deserves to get a post. I suppose they have to pay their way, they have to have an establishment and they have to be free from suspicion. I shall support the Resolution.

§ 8.2 p.m.

§ Mr. Ellis Smith
I associate myself with the attitude taken up by Members on this side. It is evident that there is a good deal of misunderstanding regarding that attitude. The speeches that have been made during the last hour have not dealt with the question on the lines of my hon. Friend who opened the Debate. The Debate is not an attack upon the persons who are involved in this Resolution. Our position is to contrast on every possible occasion the treatment meted out to people who are relatively well-placed in life compared with those for whom we speak. Your predecessor in the Chair, Captain Bourne, allowed the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour) to make a very wide attack upon the attitude taken up by our party in 1931, and I claim the right to an opportunity, which I welcome, of dealing with that aspect 1091 of the question. We are dealing with men who will have £40 a week. They are to be given an increase of £350 a year, or approximately £6 a week. That is equivalent to twice the amount that a skilled engineer receives.
An hon. Member talked about the way that the men who fill these positions have to qualify. He told us of his experience when he went to Whitechapel and spent year after year in order to qualify himself. But miners and engineers have to do the same thing. The difference is that, when these men retire, they will be eligible for relatively good pensions, whereas miners and engineers are lucky if they get a pension of 10s. a week. We are not making an attack upon individuals. We are just criticising the treatment meted out by the Government, and by our own Government if need be, who carried out a policy of this kind in 1931. I was not in the House at that time but I have been a member of the party for many years and, big critics as there were in the House, there were bigger critics outside of the policy that this party was pursuing. It was under the mantle of the man who is now Lord President of the Council. He has been more responsible for misleading and breaking the hearts of the men and women of the country than any individual.

§ The Deputy-Chairman (Captain Bourne)
I hardly think that that arises on this Resolution.

§ Mr. Smith
I was only answering the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet, who was very provocative. I was pointing out that some of us who were not members of the House at that time were as critical as we could possibly be of the policy of right hon. Gentlemen like the Lord President of the Council. We have seen one or two honourable men pass out of the House who were associated with him at that time. It reminded some of us that we were suspicious that he had been doing the same thing in our movement in the past 25 years. What the hon. and gallant Gentleman said may be true. We are now going to take every possible opportunity to repudiate the policy that was pursued during the time that this party was being misled in 1931. We do not want to go out of our way to attack individuals. We realise that many of these men, relatively speaking, are not 1092 being as well paid as many town clerks or civil servants are. At the same time we shall seize upon every available opportunity to contrast the treatment meted out to poor people with that meted out to people of this description. As the Committee are going to vote this increase, we are entitled to answers to three reasonable questions. On how many days a week do county court judges work, how many weeks a year do they work and how many days a year do the Metropolitan magistrates sit?

§ 8.10 p.m.

§ The Solicitor-General
It may assist the Committee if I confine myself rigidly to answering a few questions that have been raised in this very interesting discussion. The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) asked a question about superannuation. The position is that the bonus for which provision is made each year ranks for pension purposes. I think the hon. Gentleman, therefore, was not quite right in saying this is a substantive increase of £500 a year. It is more correct to say, as I did, that it is an increase which is effectively £350 a year, both because the bonus increases present emoluments and ranks for pension. The hon. Member made another point, which was good from one point of view but bad from another, that the bonus paid came under annual review and therefore by the provision that we were making we were removing it from annual consideration in the House. From my point of view I look on that as a very great advantage. The salaries of the judges are in that position in order that they may be removed from annual review, and the method by which a portion of their salaries comes under discussion, because it is contained in the Appropriation Bill, is not an appropriate one and not one that is common in regard to any other judicial appointment.

§ Mr. Ammon
What I meant was that the bonus by itself did not come up for annual review, and therefore, as I thought, did not rank for pension. Now, of course, as the hon. and learned Gentleman says, the position is altered altogether.

§ The Solicitor-General
I am glad that the point is now cleared up. The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) wanted to know what the total cost was. I gave it in opening. It 1093 is £35,000 a year. There are 56 county court judges and there are 27 police court magistrates in London, including the chief magistrate. I was also asked as to the salary of the Lyon King of Arms. His salary is £600, together with £138 12S., which is a non-statutory bonus. His duties are many and varied. They are of very great antiquity. He performs in Scotland, I understand, all the functions that the College of Heralds performs in this country. In this connection, as indeed in several others, we are dealing to-night with the Financial Resolution. It will, of course, be open to hon. Members to make deeper research into these matters on the Bill.

§ Mr. Westwood
Am I to understand that when the Bill comes in, it will be possible to remove that carbuncle from the administrative foot of Scotland?

§ The Solicitor-General
The hon. Gentleman will have to wait and see. I cannot forecast what will be contained in the Bill. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), who is not in his place at the moment, asked whether I could give him an assurance that county court judges would be raised to the High Court bench. I am afraid that in my present office, at any rate, I am not able to give him an assurance of that kind, but I can assure him that the holding of a county court office is certainly no bar to appointment to the High Court bench, and that, in considering what appointments shall be made to the High Court bench, I have not any doubt that my Noble Friend reviews all the legal talent that is available. I will not pursue the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson nad Colne (Mr. Silverman), who wondered why the Government did not, in these proposals, reduce the incomes of the Bar. That was rather a daring line of criticism in view of the fact that the hon. Member was sitting at that moment next to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). However, he managed to survive the ordeal without very noticeable embarrassment through that close association.
I need hardly add that all the points raised by the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner), in his very interesting and constructive speech, will be given very careful con- 1094 sideration. As to what he said about the necessity for a revision of the county court areas, I may tell him that, as a matter of fact, revision is constantly going on. There was a very considerable revision not very long ago, and constant attention is being given to the county court areas. The situation is very difficult geographically in certain parts of the country, and there is a certain amount of wastage, which is quite unavoidable, especially in parts of the North of England, where, owing to the nature of the circuits and the time taken in travelling, it is a little difficult to dovetail the work in and ensure that full work is performed continuously throughout the year. That aspect of the question is under the constant review of those who have the construction of the circuits in hand.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman also asked a question regarding country stipendiaries—why they were not included in the Bill. The answer is, that, of course, they are not statutory salaries. They are posts which are remunerated by the local authorities, and so do not come within the purview of the Bill. I would join with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) in asking him to take a kindlier view of the conditions concerning appointments, and I agree very much with what has been said that a politician ought not to be disqualified because he has been a politician from appointment to the bench, whether it is the county court bench or the High Court bench. It does rub off the corners. I thought at one moment that the criticism sprang from a kind of tacit assumption, which I do not make at all, that one ought to be ashamed of being a politician. I am proud to be a politician, and I should never look upon services in politics as making one any less capable of performing judicial duties.

§ Major Milner
That was not for a moment in my mind. On the contrary, we all ought to be proud of it, if we have the right spirit as our ideal.

§ The Solicitor-General
I thought that was in the mind of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I can assure him also that he is mistaken if he thinks that the qualifications of those who are not in the limelight of politics are overlooked. They are very carefully considered, and, 1095 though it would be invidious to do so, I could give him chapter and verse in the case of recent appointments where people who had no claims to the wider public recognition which comes from politics have been selected for, and have filled with great distinction, offices on the bench. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) asked a question as to comparative salaries and wanted to know what the comparison was with the chairman of quarter sessions. The chairman of quarter sessions for London, I am told, has a salary of £2,250, and that it is outside the range and does not compete with the metropolitan police salaries.

§ Mr. Kelly
And the vice-chairman?

§ The Solicitor-General
I have not the information as to the vice-chairman. I am in the position of being a Minister for the co-ordination of three departments to-night, and it is not easy to get all the information asked for at short notice, but information of that kind will be available when the Bill comes forward.

§ Mr. Kelly
It is fairly evident that the minor occupant, the police magistrate, is to be more highly paid than the vice-chairman of the quarter sessions.

§ The Solicitor-General
I do not express any opinion on that matter. I do not know the salary of the vice-chairman. The hon. Gentleman asked for the salary of the chairman, and I have got it for him.

§ Mr. Kelly
And the vice-chairman?

§ The Solicitor-General
I am sorry I have not the particulars of the salary of the vice-chairman. The hon. Gentleman also asked why the chairman of quarter sessions of Northern Ireland was included. The answer is that we are not proposing any increase of salary of the chairman of quarter sessions in Northern Ireland. His is one of those old offices of which we have to maintain the burden, while the present occupant holds office under the Act of 1920, and the proposal in the

1096

§ Resolution is really to regularise the position and do away with the existing state of affairs, under which he is obtaining the additional bonus which is now statutory.

§ We have had a very interesting discussion, and we on this side of the Committee do not feel the smallest complaint that hon. Members opposite have seized this opportunity to raise the wider questions which are so near to their hearts. Obviously, they are as fully entitled to do that, as many of them did on the Motion when the hon. Member for Sea-ham (Mr. Shinwell) was trying to obtain a salary of £7,000 for a gentleman who deserved it, and whose appointment he thought was necessary in the public interest. On this occasion, as on that, the argument is the same. If you are to get the duties of these high offices performed, you have to go into the market and pay the market rate. You have to treat the situation as it exists to-day, not as the predilections of any political faith would like to see it exist, and human nature being what it is, and the state of society being what it is, you have to pay an adequate rate. [An HON. MEMBER "In accordance with the law of supply and demand.] Yes. We are satisfied that it is not possible to fill these offices, important as they are, as we should like to see them filled without the alterations we are asking in the present statutory rates. For these reasons we defend the proposals on their merits. I do not mind what comparison you make, whether you compare them with medical officers of health, with sanitary inspectors, traffic managers, corporation officials or with high officials in co-operative societies, on any basis the present salaries are indefensible. I commend the Resolution to the Committee on its merits, in the confident hope that they will allow it to pass.

§ Question put.

§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 101.

1099

Division No. 81.]	AYES.	[8.27 p.m.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke	Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanel)	Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.	Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)	Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Albery, Sir Irving	Birchall, Sir J. D.	Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)	Blair, Sir R.	Bull, B. B.
Aske, Sir R. W.	Boulton, W. W.	Butler, R. A.
Assheton, R.	Bower, Comdr. R. T.	Campbell, Sir E. T.
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.	Bracken, B.	Cary, R. A.
Balfour, G. (Hampstead)	Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Channon, H.
Chorlton, A. E. L.	Hopkinson, A.	Ramsden, Sir E.
Christie, J. A.	Horsbrugh, Florence	Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)	Rayner, Major R. H.
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.	Hume, Sir G. H.	Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)	Hunter, T.	Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)	Jackson, Sir H.	Remer, J. R.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)	James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.	Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Courtauld, Major J. S.	Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)	Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Critchley, A.	Keeling, E. H.	Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Croft, Bug.-Gen. Sir H. Page	Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)	Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Crooke, J. S.	Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)	Rowlands, G.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.	Kimball, L.	Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.	Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Cross, R. H.	Lamb, Sir J. Q.	Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Crossley, A. C.	Latham, Sir P.	Salt, E. W.
Crowder, J. F. E.	Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)	Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)
Cruddas, Col. B.	Lees-Jones, J.	Soott, Lord William
Culverwell, C. T.	Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Seely, Sir H. M.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)	Levy, T.	Shakespeare, G. H.
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Little, Sir E. Graham-	Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Dodd, J. S.	Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.	Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Denner, P. W.	Lloyd, G. W.	Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Drewe, C.	Lovat-Fraser, J. A.	Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)	Lumley, Capt. L. R.	Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Dugdale, Major T. L.	Lyons, A. M.	Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Duggan, H. J.	Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)	Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Duncan, J. A. L.	M'Connell, Sir J.	Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Eastwood, J. F.	McCorquodale, M. S.	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Eckersley, P. T.	Macdonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)	Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.	Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)	Spens, W. P.
Ellis, Sir G.	McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.	Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Emery, J. F.	McKie, J. H.	Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Entwistle, Sir C. F.	Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)	Storey, S.
Errington, E.	Macquisten, F. A.	Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.	Magnay, T.	Strauss, E A. (Southwark, N.)
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)	Maitland, A.	Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)	Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.	Strickland, Captain W. F.
Everard, W. L.	Manningham-Buller, Sir M.	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Fildes, Sir H.	Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.	Sutcliffe, H.
Findlay, Sir E.	Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.	Tate, Mavis C.
Fleming, E. L.	Mailer, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)	Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Furness, S. N.	Mill, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)	Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Ganzoni, Sir J.	Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)	Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)	Mitchell, H. (Brenttord and Chiswick)	Titchfield, Marquess of
Gluckstein, L. H.	Moreing, A. C.	Touche, G. C.
Gower, Sir R. V.	Morgan, R. H.	Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
Granville, E. L.	Morris-Jones, Sir Henry	Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir M.	Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)	Turton, R. H.
Gridley, Sir A. B.	Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)	Wakefield, W. W.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)	O'Connor, Sir Terence J.	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Grimston, R. V.	O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh	Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)	Orr-Ewing, J. L.	Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)	Owen, Major G.	Warrender, Sir V.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.	Peake, O.	Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Hannon, I. C.	Peat, C. U.	Wells, S. R.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H,	Perkins, W. R. O.	Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)	Peters, Dr. S. J.	Williams, C. (Torquay)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)	Petherick, M.	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.	Pickthorn, K. W. M.	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan.	Pilkington, R.	Withers, Sir J. J.
Hepworth, J.	Porritt, R. W.	Womersley, Sir W. J.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)	Procter, Major H. A.	Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)	Radford, E. A.	Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Holdsworth, H.	Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Holmes, J. S.	Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.	Ramsbotham, H.	Sir George Penny and Captain Waterhouse.
NOES.
Adams, D. (Consett)	Cassells, T.	Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)	Charleton, H. C.	Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Adamson, W. M.	Chater, D.	Groves, T. E.
Ammon, C. G.	Cluse, W. S.	Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)	Cove, W. G.	Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.	Dalton, H.	Hardie, G. D.
Banfield, J. W.	Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)	Hayday, A.
Barr, J.	Dobbie, W.	Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Batey, J,	Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)	Hicks, E. G.
Bellenger, F. J.	Ede, J. C.	Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Bromfield, W.	Frankel, D.	Hollins, A.
Brooke, W.	Gardner, B. W.	Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Brown, C. (Mansfield)	Garro Jones, G. M.	Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)	Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.	John, W.
Burke, W. A.	Grenfell, D. R.	Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

1098

1099

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Parkinson, J. A.	Thorne, W.
Kelly, W. T.	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.	Thurtle, E.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.	Potts, J.	Tinker, J. J.
Lathan, G.	Price, M. P.	Viant, S. P.
Lawson, J. J.	Quibell, D. J. K.	Walkden, A. G.
Lee, F.	Richards, R. (Wrexham)	Walker, J.
Leonard, W.	Riley, B.	Watkins, F. C.
Leslie, J. R,	Ritson, J.	Watson, W. McL.
Lunn, W.	Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)	Welsh, J. C.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)	Rowson, G.	Westwood, J.
McGhee, H. G.	Sexton, T. M.	Wilkinson, Ellen
MacLaren, A.	Shinwell, E.	Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Maclean, H.	Short, A.	Wilson, C. H. (Atterclifle)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)	Silverman, S. S.	Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Mainwaring, W. H.	Simpson, F. B.	Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Marshall, F.	Smith, E. (Stoke)	Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Messer, F.	Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees-(K'ly)
Muff, G.	Stephen, C.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Paling, W.	Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)	Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.
Parker, J.	Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

§ Resolved, That it is expedient—

(a) to provide for increasing to the amounts hereinafter specified the annual salaries charged on and payable out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom in respect of the following offices, that is to say, the offices—

(i) of county court judges in England and Wales to two thousand pounds;
(ii) of the chief of the metropolitan police magistrates to two thousand three hundred pounds;
(iii) of other metropolitan police magistrates to two thousand pounds;
(iv) of the recorder of Londonderry, the county court judge and chairman of quarter sessions for the counties of Armagh and Fermanagh, and the county court judge and chairman of quarter sessions for the county of Down, respectively, so long (in each case) as the office is held by the existing holder, to such amount as is equal to the total annual remuneration now paid in respect of those offices;

(b) to provide for the annual salaries charged on and payable out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom in respect of the offices of the chairman and of the other members of the Scottish Land Court, and the annual salaries payable out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of the offices of the Commissioners of Crown Lands (other than the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries), of the Lyon King of Arms, of the Secretary to the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in Scotland, and of the Lyon Clerk, being of such amounts as may be determined by the Treasury, and for the annual salaries payable out of moneys provided by Parliament to the clerks attached to the judges of the Supreme Court, being of such amounts as may be determined by the Lord Chancellor with the concurrence of the Treasury, so, however, that any salary of which the amount is to be determined in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph shall, so long as it continues to be payable to the existing holder of the office or employment in respect of which it is payable, be at an annual rate not less than that of the total remuneration at present paid to him in respect of that office or employment;
(c) to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund and out of moneys provided by Parliament, respectively, of such sums as may become payable in consequence of such provision as aforesaid;
(d) to provide for such consequential amendments of the enactments relating to the salaries aforesaid as may be necessary."

§ Resolution to be reported To-morrow.