Lords Sitting of 29 October 1912

ROYAL SCOTTISH MUSEUM (EXTENSION) BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.
EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
MARRIAGES IN JAPAN (VALIDITY) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment.
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment, agreed to.
REGISTRATION OF STALLIONS BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to provide for the Registration of certain Stallions—Was presented by the Lord Saltoun; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday the 19 th of November. (No. 153)
FORGERY BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to consolidate and simplify the Las relating to Forgery and kindred offences—Was presented by the Lord Chancellor; red 1a, and to be printed. (No. 154.)
INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893—Was presented by the Lord Ashby St. Ledgers; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 155.)
EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 156.)

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
1. Provisional Regulations made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners as to meeting places of Approved Societies and Branches thereof;

2. Provisional Regulations made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners as to the application of the Transfer Value of a Married Woman electing not to become a Voluntary Contributor:

Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 157.)

KENT AND BELA FISHERIES PRO- VISIONAL ORDER BILL.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, who is attending an agricultural meeting in the country, I beg to move the suspension of the Standing Order in regard to this Bill. I think I ought to explain to your Lordships the reason why it is necessary to ask for this indulgence on your part. It is due to the fact that there was certain opposition in the other House to some of the provisions, which have since been modified. The Bill was introduced, in accordance with the Standing Orders, on May 22, but it was not until July 17 that the negotiations resulted in a compromise which enabled the Bill to proceed as an unopposed measure; and the Board,

841
although they did everything in their power to expedite matters, have been unable to ask your Lordships to agree to the Second Reading until to-day.
Moved, That the Order made on the 24th day of April last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 4th day of July next" be dispensed with.
—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed.

LAND DRAINAGE (BRAITHWAITE MOSS) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).
ROYAL SCOTTISH MUSEUM (EXTENSION) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a on Wednesday the 6th of November next.

FOREIGN ENLISTMENT BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, I rise to explain very briefly the character of this Bill. It originates with the Foreign Office, and its purpose is to bring the enlistment law of this country, as contained in the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1870, into harmony with the provisions which were agreed upon in The Hague Convention. A Committee has sat for the purpose of working out the details, and they are embodied in this Bill. I should state that the Bill imposes no restriction, but gets rid of a certain undue severity with which the law presses upon British shipbuilders. The Hague Convention agreed that the law should be that when a ship was being fitted out for merely commercial purposes as distinguished from purposes of war it was quite legitimate that it should be
842
bought and sold in the ordinary way, but the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1870 was drawn with such stringency that it goes beyond that; and the Foreign Office have prepared this Bill in order to make our law accord with the provisions of the Convention come to at The Hague Conference upon the point. The Bill is in every respect, I think, beneficial to the interests of British shipowners and shipbuilders, and it brings the law, as I have said, into conformity with the law recognised by other nations and by ourselves at The Hague Convention. The point is a very small one, but I think the Bill will prove useful. There is another provision in it to the effect that if a ship has been contracted to be built in time of peace but has warlike equipment connected with it, then the contractor may give notice to the British Government, and the British Government will decide what is to be done. The contractor is not allowed to let the ship leave these shores unless the consent of the British Government has been obtained. I move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Haldane.)
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I should like to ask the Lord Chancellor a question, with his answer to which I shall be content. I need not remind him that there has been some alteration of late years in The Hague Conventions. I want to know whether this Bill in any respect will bring into operation that to which this House has refused up to the present to assent. I conceive that the object of this Bill is to bring our law into accord with what is vaguely described as The Hague Conventions. If the Lord Chancellor will tell me that the Bill makes no difference with respect to the operation of the one to which this House has refused assent, I offer no objection to the Second Reading.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As I understand the question which arose when this House refused its assent, there is no connection between the two, and there is nothing in this Bill which impinges on anything which this House has been unwilling to recognise.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Wednesday the 6th of November next.

KING'S BENCH DIVISION—ADDITIONAL JUDGE.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I now rise to move au Address, in the terms which appear on the Notice Paper, for the appointment of an additional Puisne Judge of the King's Bench Division. I do not propose to take up much of your Lordships' time in making this Motion. The matter was fully discussed in another place last Friday, and the Address which I move is in the same terms as the Address which was there agreed to. There are a good many points about which difference of opinion exists in connection with the general subject of the sufficiency of Judges, and whether the arrangements in regard to the Long Vacation, the County Courts, and other matters are the best possible, but I will not enter upon them to-day; because, as your Lordships are aware, the Government propose to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into these things. Consequently, at the present time our attention is directed simply to the much more narrow question whether at this moment another Judge ought to be appointed.
Your Lordships may recollect that a Joint Committee of the two Houses sat in the year 1910 and made a recommendation for the appointment of two additional Judges, but that was coupled with a recommendation that when the number of Judges in the ordinary course shrunk to the normal number of sixteen the vacancies should not be filled without an Address presented by both Houses. That recommendation is embodied in Section 1 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1910, and this Address is moved in pursuance of that section. I hope it will be found that this provision gives the control which Parliament desired to have over the appointment of the Judges, and at the same time proves to be not an embarrassing provision. The Royal Commission will throw considerable light on the whole question as to whether one additional Judge is enough, or whether in the future it may be that more Judges are wanted, or whether with certain changes the sixteen Judges of the King's Bench Division can get through the work which is normally assigned to them.
In the last few years various Acts have been passed which have increased the work of the Judges, notably the Act setting up the Court of Criminal Appeal, and your Lordships may recollect that
844
Lord Coleridge was appointed an additional Judge on the occasion of the passing of that Act. I will, however, not go into that matter now. I will only say that we are at this moment satisfied that, whatever arrangements may be made in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission to enable the Judges to get through their work more easily, the case has arisen for the appointment of at any rate this additional Judge. We do not wish to prejudice the question whether there ought to be more than one additional Judge. We are simply face to face with the fact that there is a congestion of business, and that the public interests seem to us to demand the appointment of an extra Judge; and if your Lordships assent to this Address the consequence will be that au extra Judge will be appointed at once. We have the great advantage to-day of the presence of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice, who is more familiar than any one with the conditions of business in the King's Bench Division, and I do not propose to occupy your Lordships further than simply to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty representing that the number of the Puisne Judges of the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice now amounts to fifteen, and that the state of business in the said Division requires that one additional Judge should be appointed to the said Division under the first section of The Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1910, and praying that His Majesty will be graciously pleased to appoint a new Judge of the said Division of the High Court of Justice accordingly.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD ALVERSTONE: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has appealed to me. I do not intend to occupy your Lordships' time at any length, but as I know the facts it is, I think, desirable that I should put your Lordships in possession of the present state of business in the King's Bench Division. I am most anxious to avoid entering upon any controversial question or saving anything of an argumentative character. The Joint Committee to which reference has been made unanimously agreed that there was congestion of business in the King's Bench Division at the end of the legal year 1910. Accordingly they recommended the

845
appointment of two additional Judges, subject in the future to a revision when a vacancy occurred. They accompanied that Report with a further recommendation to which I will refer in a moment.
I wish, in the first place, to tell your Lordships why the urgency now exists. My task has been rendered very easy on account of the, if I may say so, singularly fair and able speech made by the Attorney-General in the House of Commons last Friday. He had obtained the information, and he used it in a way for which His Majesty's Judges are grateful, because his speech led at any rate to the nonappearance of some of the things that were said—unjustly said—on previous occasions. At that time—I am speaking of Michaelmas, 1910—the total number of cases in the King's Bench Division was 1,120, included in which were 867 actions. We enjoyed the privilege of the two extra Judges for little more than a year. The result was most satisfactory; and may I here say how glad I am to see my noble and learned friend Lord Lore burn back in your Lordships' House. Mr. Justice Grantham died at the end of November, 1911. At the commencement of the next Term the total had gone down from 1,120 to 599, and the causes from 867 to 348. It is said by people who do not know the facts that immediately a vacancy arises the Judges press for it to be filled. I am glad to say that that did not apply in this case, for on the death of Mr. Justice Grantham I communicated at once with Lord Loreburn and said that in my opinion we might be able to get on without the vacancy being filled, and with my entire approval he did not take any steps to fill that vacancy. I might incidentally mention that Mr. Justice Grantham was one of the hardest workers in the King's Bench Division, and did as much work as any Judge I could name. Practically contemporaneously with the death of Mr. Justice Grantham Mr. Justice Lawrance was taken ill. The result was that from November, 1911, down to the present time we have only had fifteen Puisne Judges in the King's Bench Division. At once I began to see that I had probably made a mistake in thinking that we need not fill the vacancy caused by the death of Mr. Justice Grantham. The work began to get into arrear, and by Easter, 1912, the number of cases was 694, included in which were 412 causes, and at the beginning of the Michael-
846
mas Sittings the cases standing for hearing amounted to 966, in which there were 659 actions for trial. I had meanwhile given to a Committee of the Cabinet all the information in my power. I will not say anything about their judgment. They have put down a certain Motion on the Paper. I can well understand that they may not have been able to go further. It is admitted by the Attorney-General and agreed to by the Lord Chancellor that there is now again very nearly the same congestion, and that the state of business in the King's Bench Division necessitates the appointment of an additional Judge.
People who do not understand the facts do not hesitate to say that it is the fault of the King's Bench Judges that there is this congestion. In regard to that I wish to say a word. I desire, first, to refer to the recommendation which was made when the two additional Judges were appointed. The Committee asked that the reforms and improvements they suggested should be taken into consideration. What these Reforms were has never been stated, but as far as it is possible I believe His Majesty's Government have carried them out. The first point is the question of the Circuit system. Lord Loreburn and myself were in constant communication, and almost one of the last acts that he did as Lord Chancellor to improve the condition of matters was to pass a new Order under which fresh facilities were given to Liverpool, Manchester, Cardiff, Swansea, Exeter, Ipswich, Newcastle, Chester, and Lewes; and, in addition, the Order provided that Civil business might be taken at any town on the Autumn Circuit on the suggestion of the Lord Chief Justice with the approval of the Lord Chancellor. Except under an Act of Parliament nothing more can be done to improve the business upon the Circuits, because, as your Lordships are aware, criminal business must be taken in the county in which the crime has been committed. Therefore if you are going to do more with the Circuit system you must be prepared with an Act of Parliament for forcing people to try their cases or prisoners in counties other than that in which the matter arose. I therefore wish to point out—and the Attorney-General said the same thing in the House of Commons on Friday night—that except under Statute we cannot do more to get work out of the Circuit system.

847
The next point raised was that there was loss of Judicial time by the Circuit system. There is not the slightest foundation for that suggestion. It is astonishing how long an erroneous idea remains, and people quote it over and over again. In the year 1904 the late Lord Wolverhampton, then Sir Henry Fowler, who took a great interest in this matter, came to me and asked whether I could show him that there was no waste of time. I had a Return prepared and presented to Parliament for the years 1905 and 1906, from which it appeared that during those two years 395 hours more were occupied by sittings of the King's Bench Judges on Circuit than would have been the case had they been in London sitting full time. I continued that Return, and in 1908 the King's Bench Judges sat 231 hours more. I have kept up the Return since, and for the period from May 31, 1911, to August 1, 1912, the Judges sat on Circuit 477 hours more than if they had been sitting in London. This is due to the late hours to which they sit when on Circuit. It is a mistake to suggest that the Judges gain anything by going on Circuit. On the contrary, they work harder than if they remained in London. I may say that in the figures no allowance whatever is made for days occupied in travelling. The figures are the net result of the sittings of the Judges on Circuit. That Return, made up to the present time, will again be presented to Parliament and will be available for the investigations of the Royal Commission. If these sittings are taken into account, the King's Bench Judges sit more hours than any other High Court Judges. I am not saying anything against the other Judges, but am endeavouring to show that there is not the slightest ground for suggesting that the Judges of the King's Bench Division sit fewer hours by going on Circuit than would be the case if they remained in London.
I will refer only for a moment to the suggestion that the Judges were slack in London. We never knew from whom that statement originated, but the Judges felt it very keenly. I determined that there should be no doubt on the matter, and I placed before the Committee of the Cabinet the record of the daily sittings ever since the Joint Committee reported. With the exception of myself and unless prevented by illness the Judges sit on every available working day. I do not say
848
that there may not be a rearrangement of business that might make the Saturday-sitting more effective, but there is no shirking of work in the way of sittings on the part of any Puisne Judge of the King's Bench Division. For myself I will not speak. All I will say is that I have a great deal of work to do, and I have designedly said that I will not sit on Saturdays, although very often a great part of Saturday is occupied in getting up papers for the Court of Criminal Appeal. I shall be content to put before anybody the actual figures for every working day of the year. I hope I have satisfied your Lordships that there is a state of matters requiring the appointment of an additional Judge.
I will, in passing, call attention to the reforms which were suggested as possible. I do not refer to the County Courts, because there, again, there is necessity for a Statute. My noble and learned friend Lord Loreburn was anxious to pass a County Courts Bill which would have had far-reaching effect. But we cannot say we will not do the work because an Act of Parliament is going to be passed. We are obliged to ask to be sufficiently manned to be able to do the work. Then, again, the King's Bench Division is the one which is always drawn upon. If the Court of Appeal wants a Judge application is made to me to go, and I do at times go to the Court of Appeal. If the Court of Admiralty wants a Judge the King's Bench Division has to supply one. I put in a Paper before the Committee in which I stated that I estimated that the work additional to the ordinary King's Bench work—such as work at the Central Criminal Court, Admiralty cases, Election Petitions, and so on—would require 407 extra days, which represent the time of a Judge and a-half. As a matter of fact I was wrong in that figure, for we had to give 545 extra days of Judicial time from the King's Bench Division during the twelve months ended May, 1912. Nothing that we can do can get more work out of the King's Bench Division as matters stand at present.
I should, of course, have been glad to see a Motion for the appointment of two Judges—and there was a very strong body of opinion in the House of Commons in favour of that—but I recognise the difficulty which the Government have had to face and I do not wish to press them unduly. I hope and believe that I satisfied the

849
four distinguished members of the Cabinet that two were really necessary. It may be that Parliamentary difficulties arose, and that we could not have a Motion for the appointment of two Judges. I recognise that the Government have felt that they could submit a Motion for one Judge only, and I thank them for going so far. They have coupled it with a determination—which I, and which His Majesty's Judges of all Divisions, certainly of the King's Bench Division, welcome from every point of view—to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into these matters. I do not know what the terms of the reference may be, and I shall not speculate in anything more than mere generalities to show the difficulties. If you are going to inquire into the Circuit system—and by all means do so—do not think that you are going to touch an easy subject. It is a system which has existed for 600 or 700 years, and it is the outcome of our Judicial system as it has been for centuries. It is not a mere question of the number of Judges or the manner in which the Judges do their work; it involves a fundamental principle. I express no opinion upon it. But remember that if you abolish the Circuit system you are going then to deprive people in the counties of having the Judges cone down to them. You will find it a most difficult question. I doubt whether a day of Judicial time could be saved. But, whatever is done, you must devise a system which will give as great facilities as exist now to people to have their cases tried and crimes inquired into. It is not right to tell a man who lives in Cornwall, for instance, that he must come up to Exeter to have his case tried. All I say is, Do not enter into this Inquiry thinking that it is a mere question of a. few Judges going here or there. It is not. It involves fundamental questions of principle.
Again with regard to the Long Vacation, all I say is this. You have not got the King's Bench Division only. You have the House of Lords, you have the Court of Appeal, you have the Chancery Division and the Probate and Admiralty Division, and you have the solicitors and the Bar to deal with. I express no opinion whatever myself. I think the Judges work enough. All I say is, Do not imagine that this is a thing that can be determined with a few meetings. It raises questions of very great importance which will have to be looked at from
850
a national point of view in order to see what is the best way of doing the work. As I have said, I am grateful to His Majesty's Government for moving this Address. I am sure that at the impartial Inquiry which is to take place everything that I have said will be justified. It was a mistake—quite a pardonable mistake—for the Lord Chancellor to think that Lord Coleridge was appointed in consequence of the Court of Criminal Appeal Act. He was appointed on the recommendation of the Judges owing to the state of business in the King's Bench Division quite independent of the Court of Criminal Appeal Act and if the Lord Chancellor will study the speeches of Lord Loreburn and the then Attorney-General, Sir John Lawson Walton, he will see that I am correct.
I thank His Majesty's Government for having given us this concession, which will be an immense relief to those who have day by day to arrange for the conduct of work in the King's Bench Division. We cannot help illness—at present a most efficient Judge is away through illness—and we cannot help Judges being engaged in long cases. It is quite impossible for those who have not the responsibility of arranging the work to know what the anxieties of it are. I must say I fear that this extra Judge will not enable us to keep down the arrears, but no doubt sooner or later an opportunity will occur for again raising the question. I support this Motion, and I can assure your Lordships that the state of business in the King's Bench Division is such that additional assistance is urgently needed.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly: The said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I understand that there is no business on the Paper until Wednesday, November 6. Therefore with your Lordships' permission I move that the House do adjourn, except for Judicial business, until that day.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at Five o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.