Sitting of 25 October 1912

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill [Lords],
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.

TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copy presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 5013 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (JOINT COMMITTEE).
Copy presented of Index to the Health Insurance Provisions [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Mr. Fenwick reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee A: Mr. Ernest Craig.
Mr. Fenwick further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Mr. John Lyttelton; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Shirley Benn.
Mr. Fenwick further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C (in respect of the Trade Unions (No. 2) Bill): Mr. Amery; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): Mr. Ernest Jardine.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

ACCESSION TO PEERAGE (WRITTEN QUESTIONS).
Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: I wish to direct your attention to what is, I think, an irregularity in to-day's Votes and Proceedings—a small point, no doubt, but it raises a question of principle. I must apologise for not giving you the ordinary notice of such a thing, because I had only seen it a few moments ago. What has occurred is this. Yesterday in the questions put down for oral answer and in the limit of questions which were asked, there appeared two questions in the name of Mr. William Peel, who now, owing to the death of his distinguished father, is no longer with us. These two questions you passed over, not even mentioning Mr. Peel's name, as was in distinct accordance with practice. In ordinary cases if a Gentleman were absent his name would be called out and then some Gentleman would have asked the question for him. That was your ruling, and I understand it is distinctly in accordance with Parliamentary practice, because if there is one thing certain it is that the instant a man becomes a Peer by inheritance, he ceases absolutely to be a Member of this House. I see in the Votes and Proceedings to-day the two questions that you passed over have been put down and answered. It will be a very invidious thing that nobody would dream of doing to ask for these questions to be deleted, but what I want to establish, and I should be glad to have an expression of your view, is that once a Gentleman becomes a Peer, as established in the case of Lord Selborne in 1895, who contested it, he ceases to have anything whatever to do with the House of Commons. I should be very sorry that these questions should be deleted, but at the same time I think such an instance as this, however trivial, having regard to the relations between the House of Lords and the House of Commons, should not by any ingenuity be drawn into a precedent. I thank you for allowing me to put the point.
Mr. SPEAKER: It is quite true that when I saw the name of Mr. William Peel on the questions yesterday I passed it over, as he had ceased to be a Member of the House. These answers were evidently handed in by the Postmaster-General or his private secretary by inadvertence.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  HIGH COUET OF JUSTICE (KING'S BENCH DIVISION).
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): I beg to move,
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty representing that the number of the Puisne Judges of the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice now amounts to 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."
  In matters relating to the administration of justice this House takes no account of the party divisions or political lines with which we are familiar, but is united in a common desire to give the best consideration, and an impartial consideration, to the proposals which the Government may make with the object of expediting justice, and it is in that spirit that I propose to address myself to the Motion which stands in my name upon the Paper. The House will remember that in 1910 a Statute was passed for the appointment of two additional judges, increasing the number from fifteen, at which it stood, that is fifteen Puisne Judges of the King's Bench Division, by two, with this condition attached, that when the number of Puisne Judges was fifteen or upwards and it was desired to appoint one of these two additional judges again, an Address should be moved in both Houses to His Majesty. It was only upon that condition that the re-appointment could be made. It is important to bear that in mind, because assuming for the moment that the House assented to the Motion which I am proposing, and that an additional judge was appointed, and that on the next day another vacancy occurred, it would be necessary to come to this House again to move an Address in order to fill it up. It is well known to the House that the reasons which led to the passing of this Statute was the number of arrears which had occurred in the King's Bench Division, the large list of actions which stood for trial and the consequent injustice which? was done to suitors who were not able to get their cases heard. The arrears in the
  2560
  King's Bench Division at that moment, it is worth noting, were 1,120 cases, which were in the list for hearing at Michaelmas, 1910. Without going back to past history, which could be supplied if any hon. Member desired it, the House was quite convinced that that was an abnormal state of things and one which certainly reflected no credit upon the state of things in this country, that there should be such a large number of cases awaiting trial and that consequently it was necessary to appoint two more judges.
  The remedy proved very effective, because during the year from Michaelmas, 1910, to Michaelmas, 1911, the number of arrears decreased from 1,120 to 740, so that by the addition of two judges, instead of an increase in the number of cases standing for trial at the end of the year, there was a decrease to the extent of 380, and no doubt if that state of things had continued during the year 1911–12, if nothing abnormal had occurred, after the remedy which the House adopted and which proved effective, there would probably be no arrears at the present moment. But during the year 1911–12 there were various reasons which have produced arrears, increasing during the greater part of that year and increasing at the present moment. These causes were first of all the death of Mr. Justice Grantham, which occurred early in the year 1911–12, and which consequently reduced the number of Puisne Judges from seventeen to sixteen. At that time the state of business was such that the Lord Chief Justice did not think it necessary that the vacancy should be filled. Great inroads were being made on the lists, and it was thought that the number of King's Bench Judges was then sufficient to cope with the arrears at that time. But almost simultaneously, in fact a few days before the death of Mr. Justice Grantham, Mr. Justice Lawrance, who had sat on the bench for many years, was taken ill on 2nd November, and he was never able to sit again. He retired at Easter, 1912, so that the House will see that, substantially, during the whole of the year 1911–12, except for perhaps one month at the beginning of that year, the King's Bench Division has only had fifteen Puisne Judges, and not seventeen, which it had in 1910–11. Further than that, during 1911–12 there had been some abnormal reasons. The illness among the judges has been greater during 1911–12 than is usual. The Lord Chief Justice, who has

  2561
  never learned to spare himself in the strenuous efforts he has always made to cope with arrears in the King's Bench Division and to keep the administration of justice there at the highest level, was taken ill and was absent for quite a considerable number of days during the year. Other judges have also been absent owing to illness, and there has been the telephone case, which certainly has taken the time of one learned judge for over forty-days, and I am afraid must still take a little time before he arrives at the conclusion of his labours. In consequence of that, of course the King's Bench Division has been depleted to an extraordinary extent of its proper number of judges. The result has been that the year 1911–12 has produced this result: Instead of, as in the previous year, overtaking arrears to the number of 380, we have not overtaken any arrears, but are, in fact, 226 cases to the bad. What has happened is that the number of cases for trial has increased largely and no arrears have been overtaken, and therefore the state of things is approaching what it was in 1910–11, when this House passed the Act of Parliament to which I have referred.
  Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: What is the number now?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I cannot give the figure at the present moment, but at Michaelmas, 1912, there were 966 cases. In 1910 they were 1,120, in 1911 they had been reduced to 740, and in 1912 they had increased to the number I have stated. I can say that the number of arrears has increased since the beginning of the year. I am giving the King's Bench cases. That includes, of course, the Divisional Courts. I could give, if necessary, the nisi prius cases, but I do not think it would be very much use to give the House these statistics. What we have to look at is the state of the King's Bench Division, not in regard to one particular list, but taking all the lists together. I do not propose at the present moment, unless it becomes necessary, to dwell at any length upon that state of things. I do submit to the House that that statement of fact is plain and convincing. It shows that in consequence of the loss of the two judges and the other causes to which I have referred the state of affairs at the present moment is very much what it was in 1910, when the House was good enough to pass the Act which gave us the additional judges. [An HON. MEMBER: "There might be other
  2562
  causes."] I am not going to omit to take note of what is in the mind of some of my hon. Friends, and it is quite right that I should deal with that. It has been said, and I do not hesitate to say, it has been said with some force, that at that time administrative reforms were talked about. It was said, if the judges were appointed, that would not be an answer to the agitation which undoubtedly existed for administrative reform. The House will remember that it was stated in this House, and I think it was stated in the Report of the Joint Committee, that certainly it was not intended by the appointment of these two judges that there should be an end of the agitation which had been going on before. In the first instance the causes to which most of the delay is attributed, and which is generally said to be the cause of the loss of judicial time, is the circuit system. Well, the circuit system has been discussed, it has been commended, and it has been abused—I think through many generations of lawyers. I think it is a very difficult question, and certainly I cannot pretend to pass any judgment upon the matter. What I will say with reference to this is that from the inquiry I have been making into these matters all the judges can do without legislation has been done. I will ask the House to bear that in mind. It has been said, and I think thought, by those who may perhaps not be able to make themselves quite as familiar with what has been done as I have had to do in my official capacity, that much time is lost by judges in travelling and in various ways when on circuit. Whatever ground there may have been for that in the past, it certainly does not exist at the present time. I do not mean by that to say that it may not be possible to have some administrative reform with regard to the circuit system which will cause some saving of judicial time.
  What I mean is that it is useless looking to these judges to do it because they have exhausted the powers that lie in them. For instance, when one hears suggestions of grouping towns in different counties difficulties exist. There is no power in the judges to change the venue for the trial of a prisoner from one county to another. The prisoner must be tried in his own county. That means he must be tried in the town in that county. However useful it might be to join towns in two counties the judges are not able to do that, unless this House

  2563
  comes to the conclusion as a result of inquiry that it is desirable to do it and passes legislation. Many considerations must and no doubt will be borne in mind when this matter comes to be determined. It is not quite so easy as many hon. Members may think. Since I was appointed to my present office, when Lord Lore-burn was Lord Chancellor, I will not say that he proposed such an arrangement but at any rate it was being discussed, and day by day questions were put to me by hon. Members on both sides of the House protesting, on behalf of their constituents, against any idea of taking away the assizes from the particular towns which they represented. In those matters of course hon. Members are only putting forward the views of their constituents. There is a very great desire on the part of towns to have His Majesty's judges come there to try cases. In this respect many matters must be considered before coming to a conclusion.
  Sometimes it has been said that no reforms have been made since the joint Committee sat and since the Judicature Act of 1910 was passed. That is not correct, because in May, 1912, there was an Order in Council which had the effect of giving power to the Lord Chief Justice with the sanction of the Lord Chancellor to direct civil as well as criminal business to be taken at autumn assizes, and effect has been given to that Order by a number of the great towns, such as Liverpool, Manchester, Cardiff, Swansea, Bristol, and in other towns there is an order now that civil business shall be taken at the autumn assizes as well as criminal. That is done with the object of saving judicial time, so that when a judge goes to try prisoners, as he must do, he shall also try civil cases, and in this way save the time that would be expended in travelling. So it is not right to say that nothing has been done by the judges since 1910. It has also to be borne in mind that there is a great and constantly growing demand from the big cities, such as Liverpool, Manchester and Bristol for judicial powers to try cases there. When we discussed this matter in 1910 there was some criticism about Saturday sittings. Anyone who has made inquiry and examined the facts, as it has been my duty, will, I am perfectly certain, be satisfied, as I am, that there is no manner of criticism to be directed to the judges in that respect. The judges have done their utmost to
  2564
  cope with the long arrears which have been increasing. They have spared no effort to try the cases. They have sat late over and over again. If you examine the hours of judicial time expended on circuit, where it is said there is much loss of time, you will find, if you take from 1905–6 to the present time, that on circuit, which represents about half the judicial time of the year, more hours are expended by the judges in trying cases than when they sit in London. The exact figures which I have got are very striking. In 1905–6 they sat 395 hours on circuit more than they would have sat if they had been sitting during the same period in London. In 1908 they sat 231 hours more, and in 1911–12 they sat 477½ hours more. But I should add that the period covered by these figures is a little more than the year, so that it is not quite right to compare that figure with the figure for 1905–6. But it shows definitely that more time is spent. And in the figures given no allowance whatever is made for travelling or for days on which no work is done. I am giving the actual extra hours when the judges were sitting trying eases.
  Sometimes I cannot help thinking when we are discussing these questions that we lose sight of some of the work done by judges of the King's Bench Division. If you take those sittings into account at Assizes you will find there is more work done, that is to say the judges of the King's Bench Division sit a greater number of hours in the year than the judges either of any other division or of any of the Courts of Appeal. In the figures which I have given I am not for one-moment taking into account the hours which have to be necessarily occupied by judges in reading depositions. I only give the actual time occupied sitting on the bench trying cases. I happen to have a note received from one of the judges now on circuit giving a record of his work during the week. We are accustomed to long hours here. We are accustomed to them in my work, but when one comes to realise what this means I do not think that anyone would suggest that a judge does not have to work very hard when he is away on Assizes. On the average the learned judge, apart from work outside the Court, reading depositions, notes of evidence, considering what he should say in summing up, considering points of law, and the directions which he is to give to the jury, weighing over the case which, of course, a conscientious judge does when the case is continued

  2565
  from one day to another, and charging the grand jury, the result is, you may say, that he was strenuously at work trying cases from 10.30 to 6.30 every day. I ask the House to bear in mind how important this is, because judges at first instance deal with cases most of which do not go to appeal. They try prisoners, or it may be some civil cause, which may involve a man's fortune, or, which is more important, his character. The judge has to be keen of perception, his mind must be open to receive every impression, he has to take a note of the evidence, he has to observe the demeanour of the witnesses, to listen to the arguments of counsel, and to be alert in the strictest and strongest sense of the words throughout. To my mind it would be a grave danger to justice if we were to ask judges to sit so many hours that during a portion of the time their faculties could no longer be relied upon.
  I heard it suggested that on last Monday week, I think it was, there were only three judges sitting in the King's Bench Division of the High Court, and I think what was said by two of my hon. Friends was that they only sat for something like an hour and a half. There never was a greater misconception of the facts. I was very struck by what was said, and I made inquiry. I found, in point of fact, that every single judge was accounted for. Five judges were on circuit, and nine judges were actually at work in the Court of King's Bench. One judge was sitting at the Central Criminal Court, and the only judge who was not sitting was Mr. Justice Lawrance, who presides? over the Railway Commission. He did not sit at my expressed wish in order that he might go through the evidence of a case which was to come before the Commission; and he was most usefully occupied on that day in reading over voluminous notes of a case which had lasted forty days, in order to prepare himself for next day. That disposes of all the King's Bench Judges, and I only mention these facts because I do not want my hon. Friends, who, of course, could know nothing of them, to think that the judges on that particular day were not attending to their duties. There is no foundation whatever for the idea that judicial time was being wasted. During May of this year I ought to tell the House—having stated what was done by the Lord Chief Justice in reference to Circuit—it became apparent that the King's Bench Division was getting seriously into arrear,
  2566
  and the judges, in answer to inquiries I made, stated their view that the list of arrears would increase very materially and immediately if the present number only of judges was maintained in the King's Bench Division. In consequence, a Cabinet Committee was appointed consisting of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the President of the Board of Agriculture, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Postmaster-General. The three first were ex-Financial Secretaries to the Treasury, and therefore from their training not disposed to give way in matters which involved some increased expenditure. Having made a very careful inquiry, they came unanimously to the conclusion that one additional judge at least was indispensable in order to cope with the arrears. It is in consequence of that recommendation on the facts laid before them that the Motion in my name now comes before the House for consideration.
  I wish to refer to one or two other matters which have been suggested— general reforms which might be made. I see present my hon. Friend the Member for one of the Divisions of St. Pancras, who has at heart the County Court Bill, which certainly has been before the House for some time, but which unfortunately, owing to the exigencies of Parliamentary business, we have not been able to proceed with. Let me say now that I am ready to deal with that Bill as a non-controversial measure. I know there are one or two controversial points, certainly one which is highly controversial, that hon. Members opposite can raise, but I am perfectly prepared, in order to get the Bill through, to cut out the controversial part, and keep what I believe the House will unanimously agree is a benefit to be given. I hope we may be able to come to some agreement with my hon. Friends opposite, who have Amendments down in opposition to this measure, so that we may get one of these reforms at once into operation, and see whether it will be as effective as some enthusiasts think, or at any rate what effect it will have. Another matter which has been referred to is the Long Vacation, in regard to which there has always been a considerable division of opinion. I am not prepared to pronounce judgment upon it, but I have always been and am now of opinion that the Long Vacation could be curtailed. Of course, it cannot be done without the assent of the judges, and it

  2567
  could only be done by legislation if it had to be done without the assent of all those concerned. There again, although that is my view, I admit that there are many counter considerations which can be put forward. It has been argued that the sittings might be longer. [An HON. MEMBER: "Per day?"] I suppose that is the idea.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I do not think that has ever been suggested.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am very glad to learn that it has not. There is no one who has sat as a judge, recorder, or arbitrator, or Members of this House who have had that experience who will fail to come to the conclusion that, speaking generally, five hours constant attention to what is happening during that time is the utmost that we can demand, if the case is to be well weighed and judged. The judge sits all alone on the bench, and I confess I have frequently considerable sympathy for him. Unlike counsel, who, while giving the greatest care to their case, can none the less find relief among each other by some little joke or reference, it may be, to what has taken place in this House, the judge has no one on either side of him, and there he has to sit giving constant attention to the case hour after hour without any opportunity to share the relief which he sees counsel sometimes enjoy among themselves. I refer to this solely with the view to impressing upon the House how concentrated must be the attention of the judge to the case which is being heard. It is for that reason I think the number of hours which they sit are quite long enough.
  There are other matters to which reference has been made, but the result of all this and the view we have taken is that all these questions, and they are all vexed questions, and there are two sides to them, should be very carefully considered, and that we cannot get a proper and careful consideration upon them, or, at any rate, upon which we ought to put forward proposals for legislation, until we have a careful and exhaustive inquiry. For that reason the Government propose without delay to appoint a Royal Commission which shall inquire into the various reforms which have been suggested—a Royal Commission to which the terms of reference shall not be too widely drawn, because, if they were, I am afraid it might mean that the inquiry would be too long, and that we should not have what
  2568
  we really desire, an answer upon these various matters, to which reference has been made by many of my hon. Friends below the Gangway and also sitting behind me, and suggestions which have been made in the Press and by hon. Members-opposite. All those are questions which can be settled by the kind of inquiry we propose to institute. I am quite certain with reference to it that no one will more readily welcome the appointment of such a Commission than the Lord Chief Justice and the judges themselves. I do hope that, as a consequence of that, if the Report is in favour of making those reforms, and if legislation is necessary to carry them out, that the Government will without doubt give effect to that view and introduce such legislation as they may think necessary in order to meet it. I think I have said, or at least I hope I have said, sufficient to impress upon the House how important it is that this Motion should be adopted. I would say this, and I am sure this will commend itself to all sides of the House, that it is most undesirable that in your judiciary in the King's Bench Division that there should not be a margin of reserve. You cannot help judges falling ill, and you cannot help business getting into arrears for various causes; and one in particular and that is whenever a judge has to be supplied for some extraneous reason or to some other Department or Division of the High Court, you will always find that it is from the King's Bench Division he is drawn.
  Therefore it is, I should have thought, in the interests of the country it was far better that you should have a judge, when the arrears have been disposed of, for an occasional day idle than that you should have persons waiting to have their cases tried because there is not a sufficient number of judges to try them. I do not intend for one moment to dilate upon the importance of suitors having their cases-dealt with. It is quite unnecessary to do so in this House; but I would only venture to remind the House that there are questions which are constantly occurring which cause men to have recourse to the Law Courts which it is essential should be tried speedily. There are questions affecting a man's character, which I put in the foreground, which have to be tried in order to relieve a man from certain suspicion, which I am afraid is always aroused the moment there are foul tongues let loose, and a man cannot get any Court to

  2569
  try his case, sometimes for months, and during that time he may have suffered, and suffered very seriously and severely. Equally a man has some claim to which there is really no defence. I have known such cases in my experience, and I am quite sure every one of my hon. and learned Friends, and that there is not a solicitor but has had the same experience, and there are hon. Members who are not lawyers but who have perhaps been forced to litigation, who will realise the truth of that. Men who have perfectly good and valid claims sometimes have settled, because they could not afford to be out of the money during the time it would take before the case could be tried. That, to my mind, is really a scandal. Delay in these matters is very often the same thing as a denial of justice. That applies more particularly to the poorer litigant. To the wealthier and powerful litigant it makes little difference that there should be some delay; to the poor and weaker litigant it often means his whole commercial life. My submission to the House is in the interests of the country and of the administration of justice, which must rank very high when we consider what are the interests of the country when Parliament has to deal with vital questions of this character, that it is in the highest degree essential that the litigant who desires redress, the suitor who has a grievance should find the door open the moment he presents himself in order to have his grievance tried and disposed of, and that he should not have to wait knocking at the door during a long period during which he has to suffer. If the House takes that view which I have submitted to them, and if the course which I have endeavoured to put on behalf of the Government receives the approval of the House, which I trust it will, the result will be, I hope, that this House will pass this Motion.
  Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: I hope the House will allow me to address a few words, certainly in support of the Motion which has been advocated by the Attorney-General in a speech of admirable lucidity and force. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into any statistics after those which he has given to the House, and which have established beyond all question I think, that there is substantial delay and obstruction in the Courts of Justice at the present moment in the King's Bench Division. I may, perhaps claim that I speak from a dis-
  2570
  interested point of view in this matter, because for the last ten years or so I have ceased to practice in the Courts, but I have from time to time sat as arbitrator, and I need hardly tell the House the more congestion of business there is in the King's Bench Division the more opportunity there is for the services of those who assist the judges as arbitrators. I should like to mention to the House a consideration which is, I think, often omitted, and that is that the litigant is not a man who is deserving of the hostility of this House. He is eminently deserving of their sympathy. If A and B go to law, manifestly one must be right and one must be wrong. The one who is right has suffered a grievance at the hands of some subject of the State. The State does not permit him to redress his own grievance. The State does not permit the assertion of his right by the high hand, and private war, as we know, is abolished by the Courts. Therefore the aggrieved man is compelled to go to the Courts, and is not allowed to take any other remedy for the assertion of his rights. More than that, for this elementary right he has to pay, and on the question of expense, though it is a difficult matter to speak of with absolute precision, there is no doubt that a very large part of the expenses of the judge are paid by the fees of litigants in the Courts. You have this position, that a man is not permitted by the State to redress his own grievance, he is brought by the State before the Court, he is compelled to apply for the redress of his grievance, and yet, according to the Attorney-General's clear statement, he is put to great inconvenience and delay in the course of obtaining that redress. I would urge this point most particularly upon those hon. Members below the Gangway, who consider, no doubt with perfect genuineness, that in opposing this Motion they are representing the case of the poor. The whole tendency of delay and obstruction in the course of justice is to the disadvantage of the poorer litigant. To be left in ignorance of his rights and liabilities paralyses the business of a poor man. To stand out of his money for six or eight months, worse still for twelve or eighteen months, often means absolute ruin, or compels him to go to the person who owes him money or by whom he has been wronged and to take a composition for his just claim. The Attorney-General is perfectly right in saying that the delay is a denial of justice which is comparatively innocuous to the

  2571
  wealthy litigant, but a deadly grievance to the poor one. The Attorney-General put very clearly the consequence of long delay in connection with vital questions of character and credit.
  With regard to the long hours of sitting on circuit, from my experience of some years ago, I could corroborate the statement which has been made. I remember going the Northern Circuit, when the late Master of the Rolls, Lord Esher, sat for ten days at Liverpool from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. It was a splendid tribute to the industry and public spirit of the judge; but I maintain that judges ought not to be forced to sit these long hours in the tremendous work of adjudging matters of right and wrong. Everybody suffers by it, but the poor more than the rich. What does it mean? It used to be called "Smashing the list," What does that mean? It means that sometimes a judge—a man of brilliant intellect can sometimes do it— will isolate a single point, say that that is the true test of the right or wrong of the case, jettison every other point, and tell the counsel to fight that point for he will listen to none other.
  1.0 P.M.
  The effect on the accomplished counsel of the rich man is not distressing. He has the authority and power of mind to be able to turn his case completely round and fight it upon the point which the judge thinks crucial. But what is the effect upon the young advocate of the humble suitor? How many men in this House are able to jettison the larger part of a carefully prepared speech? We know to our sorrow that, after arguments have been adduced ad nauseam, the inevitable manuscript appears, and points are duplicated and reduplicated after they have been rendered quite unnecessary. How rare it is, even in this House where Members are not under the jurisdiction of a judge, that men are able to discard that which in the course of debate has become tedious and irrelevant, and concentrate on the vital issues of the moment. A young advocate in Court is compelled to jettison points which his client thinks important, and the result is confusion, bewilderment, and distress, only too patent to the beholders. The consequence is that in such a case the poorer man considers that his case has not been heard; that important points have not been submitted, and that his counsel has been placed at an obvious disadvantage; and he goes out of Court, not as a litigant ought to go, even if the
  2572
  case has been decided against him, feeling that he has had a fair hearing, but with a sense of not having received that attention and consideration which every subject of the King has a right to expect. If this is notorious and pressing in the case of civil litigation, it is even more important in the case of criminal proceedings. There again, a man goes to the Criminal Court at the compulsion of the State for redress for an outrage committed upon him, and the State is bound to assist him; not to delay, deter, and inconvenience him.
  A judge has to hear undefended cases most carefully. There are many in which a poor miserable man goes into the witness box and tells his story in a stumbling, confused way. The judge ought not to be working against time or sitting until eight or nine o'clock at night. He ought to be able to give a perfectly calm, patient, dispassionate, and even tender hearing to these men, who have not the education to place the matter clearly before the judge, and whose story requires to be analysed with infinite pains, patience, and discrimination. If this is so, is it not really monstrous that anyone should consider that he is acting in the interests of the poor and miserable when he condemns judges to sit for hours of which we should certainly complain ourselves, and which tend to produce the impression that justice, the highest business of the State, is being hurried through with negligence and without care— the very opposite of what ought to be the case? The criminal courts of this country have for generations been considered a school of compassion as well as a school of justice— compassion for misery, even if it be the misery of crime. Nothing could be more lamentable for the State than that its poorer subjects should consider that the judges have not the time, leisure, or patience to preside over the courts with tenderness, and with equal calm minds to adjudicate upon the matters brought before them. Much is demanded of judges. Infinite patience is required. They are expected to speak with courtesy, not merely to those who are practising before them, but also to the humblest witness who appears in their courts. They are not expected to use language of sarcasm, asperity, or irritation. A judge speaks with impunity and always with effect. His words ought to be carefully weighed, as, although they entail no evil on himself, they may entail much evil on others.

  2573
  If you press a judge with the consideration that he has got a list before him which it is compulsory upon him to finish; if you make him sit for long hours; if you try his nerves highly—of course, they must be tried highly in the arduous business which he has to perform—you greatly impair his efficiency, still more you will impair that gracious bearing which he ought to have towards the counsel and suitors in the court over which he presides. I might mention names; I will not do it, but it is amazing to me, considering the work that falls upon many judges, the patience they display. No one who has not actually sat as a judge knows the difficulty of sitting still and listening to arguments which he knows to be fallacious, and which are very often repeated. I have had some experience when sitting as an arbitrator; but a judge is all powerful in his court. I could mention many who do perform the difficult task of sending away men, against whom they have decided, contented, at any rate, with the institutions of his country, and believing that they have had a fair trial. One word as to the proposal of the Attorney-General for the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into various matters and grievances which have been alleged. I support that inquiry, though I should deceive the House if I said that I anticipated much result from it. If you abolish the circuits and the grouping of the counties— both of which I think would be lamentable— you would get a very trifling saving of public time, and you would encounter opposition here from the representatives of the county boroughs, which I am perfectly certain no Government, neither this nor any succeeding one, would like to encounter. Still, I raise no objection, and have a perfectly open mind upon the subject. Let us thank the Attorney-General for having relieved public anxiety by the promise of the appointment of such a Commission. Let us heartily applaud him— and ourselves!— for recognising, as I am certain the House will unanimously recognise, the necessity that justice should not be denied to any.
  Sir ARTHUR MARKHAM: I beg to move, as an Amendment, to leave out the words "one additional judge," and to insert instead thereof the words "two additional judges."
  The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down referred to the fallacious arguments reiterated by many counsel. I wondered, Sir, what you, sitting here in
  2574
  the Chair of the House of Commons, think of the dissertation poured out by the right hon. Gentleman. May I on this question put the view of the layman? Let me say, first, in regard to any opposition that I personally have taken— as I have for many years— in this matter of the administration of justice, I have done so— and I am sure my Friends have done so— in no fractious spirit whatever, or with any desire to bring the administration of justice into ridicule in any shape or way. What we desire to see are necessary reforms in what, after all, is the highest form of administration, namely, that of the legal profession. This is not a question that affects primarily the legal profession. The first interests in this matter are those of the public. The interests of the legal profession must be secondary to the interests of the public. And if we can only keep that one point in mind in dealing with this subject, I am sure the House will approach and deal with the problem in a very different manner to that in which it has been dealt with in the past. It is not desirable on every occasion that a judge may retire or die that we should have on the floor of this House Debates dealing with the age of judges, the hours that they sit, the long vacations, and all the many reforms that some of us on this side think are essential in the interests of justice. It cannot be desirable to have recriminations time after time; further, it is also disadvantageous to the House of Commons, which is always more or less congested with business, and it may be weeks before the Government are able to find time for the discussion of a Motion of this character. As the House well knows, it is not obligatory under the Act of 1910 to make this Motion. That being so, the matter appears to me to be a clear and simple one.
  We want reforms. We do not want to raise this question time after time in any fractious spirit. The question is what is the best way to arrive at the particular reform required. I claim, on behalf of my Friends who have urged this question in the past that we have already accomplished something substantial' in having obtained from the Prime Minister a declaration of high policy, that in the opinion of His Majesty's Government the judges ought to sit on Saturdays, or an equivalent number of hours. I understand, having taken all the means within my power to obtain the information, that

  2575
  the judges, on the whole, have loyally carried out that view, and though it is true they have not sat upon Saturdays they have sat an equivalent number of hours during the week.
  Mr. DUKE: They have sat on Saturdays.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: That being so, we, who have led the Opposition in favour of reform, may take some pleasurable pride in the fact that we have accomplished something substantial. My Friends and I have not objected to the regular Court hours being observed; what we did object to was the early risings of judges, and that the Court hours were not adhered to. The Government have now the promised appointment of a Royal Commission to report on the whole question, and I ask my hon. and learned Friend to give us an undertaking that on the presentation of the Report there will be no undue delay in the Government proceeding forth-worth to give effect to its representations.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: As soon as practicable.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: "As soon as practicable"— rather a loose way of putting it.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Forthwith.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: "Forthwith" is therefore "as reasonably practicable," having regard to the business before the House.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That is what I mean by "as soon as practicable."
  Sir A. MARKHAM: The right hon. Gentleman has not given the House any indication whatever of the composition of this Commission. It is essential that the public who are interested should be primarily represented upon this Commission and that judges and lawyers should not be the predominating factor. The interests of the public are first and should be predominant and I gather that my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General shares that opinion. T put it to the House that if a learned judge had all the facts of an important case before him and was then told he did not know anything about it he would feel greatly aggravated. But when a layman has all the facts of this case before him he is often told by the legal profession although he may have gone to
  2576
  great trouble to acquaint himself with the facts, and may have read up all the proceedings that have taken place, that he knows nothing at all about the question and that it is a matter necessary to be dealt with by the legal profession alone. If hon. Gentlemen will take the trouble to read the Reports of the Select Committees they will see the contention of the judges was that the public knew nothing whatever about the question. Even the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was told he did not know anything about it, and therefore I should be somewhat sceptical of a Commission if the predominating power on it was vested in lawyers. I take it that the Commission will have a distinct reference on the question of age.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: In the terms of reference it would not be necessary or desirable to enumerate the particular proposals put forward, but I agree the terms of reference should be drawn sufficiently wide to cover that question.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: It would be very desirable if we could have the terms of reference now.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I did consider that, but I did not find it very easy to have them ready. I have not had sufficient time. On the whole the terms of reference shall not be too wide— if you made them too wide it would be very long before your Commission reported— but they shall be sufficiently wide to cover every proposal made in these Debates.
  Mr. DUKE: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman lay them on the Table before the Commission actually sits so that there should be an opportunity of making suggestions?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: If it is desirable.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Will the terms of reference include the method of appointing judges?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not propose to include that.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Under the present system, if the Executive appoint very old men to the position of judges, and they have to sit for fifteen years before earning their pension, the result is that they remain upon the bench for perhaps much longer periods than the state of their health warrants. If the Lord Chancellor would always take care to see that young men under the age of fifty-five were

  2577
  appointed, we would get rid of the anomaly of having judges of eighty years and over sitting upon the bench. I believe there is one judge sitting to-day in the Court who is over eighty, but who, I am told, is one of the most brilliant lawyers of the day and whose intellect is as clear as any man alive, but the exception proves the rule, and when a man has reached the age of seventy, in accordance with the general practice of the public service, he ought to make room for somebody else. I presume the hours the Courts sit will also form a subject for the Commission. Now, that being so, what is the position the House finds itself in? I am sure we all share the opinion of the Attorney-General that anybody who knocks at the door of justice ought to be able to get speedy justice. I do not care if you appointed twenty judges, provided they are necessary for the speedy carrying out of justice for His Majesty's subjects. The House is to be asked now to give another million and a half to the doctors. Are we to grudge the expenditure of £10,000 for the appointment of two additional judges if we get this reform? The only reason why we were opposed to these appointments was because we wanted reform, and now that we have got this undertaking from the Government, of the Royal Commission, I say that the Attorney-General ought to accept this Amendment.
  The arrears before the Courts amount to a denial of justice to those who are concerned—in fact, I believe I am one myself of those who are waiting. The point I want to make is this: that having got an undertaking for the appointment of this Commission I do not think that the House should look at the matter from any petty point of view. I ask the House to say that if additional judges are necessary then two additional judges shall be appointed. There are many men in prison to-day waiting their trials who cannot get speedy justice, and in a country like ours in which the judicature is above all things in the State there ought not to be this delay. I believe the reason the people of this country are in favour of arbitration is because they believe they are able to get justice, therefore I do ask the Government to seriously consider the matter in view of the existing arrears in the Courts, and to accept the Amendment. I was a strong opponent of this Bill previous to the decision of the Government to appoint a Commission. I have been preparing a
  2578
  speech for a fortnight to see how long I could talk on this measure without being called to order. Now that we are promised the reform that is necessary, I say to the Attorney-General, do not make two bites of the cherry, and let people who are waiting for justice get justice.
  Mr. HERBERT CRAIG: On a point of Order. I beg to submit that this Amendment means an additional public charge.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is not a public charge; it is a charge upon the Consolidated Fund.
  Mr. MORTON: May I ask, on a point of Order, whether this Amendment will cut out all other Amendments?
  Mr. SPEAKER: If I took the hon. Member's own Amendment, it would cut out all others. I had to choose between the two, and I chose the Amendment of the hon. Member's colleague. Whether this Amendment be accepted or rejected, hon. Members will still have the opportunity of debating the main Question and voting upon it; but, if I took one of the earlier Amendments on the Paper, there would be no opportunity of discussing this Amendment.
  Mr. MORTON: Might I move my Amendment sometime?
  Mr. SPEAKER: No.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: I presume we cannot discuss the general question until this Amendment is disposed of?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think the arguments in favour of two additional judges will be much the same as for one.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I fully appreciate the way in which the Attorney-General has moved this Motion, and I think it is clear to hon. Members that this Amendment is moved in a non-party spirit, I wish to make no party capital out of it and I sincerely hope the Attorney-General will accept this Amendment, and then we can all go home feeling that we have done a good action not merely on behalf of the law, but also on behalf of the public. I speak as a lawyer who is professionally brought in close contact with the public, and I know the inconvenience and the hardships which result from this denial of justice. I do not think that those opposed to this Motion realise how the work of the judges has been increased during the last few years. At the present moment we have fifteen judges instead of eighteen in

  2579
  1876. Since that time the work has considerably increased. In 1883 the Bankruptcy jurisdiction was transferred to the King's Bench, and the work of the Railway and Canal Commission has almost permanently taken one of the King's Bench judges. Since then the Court of Criminal Appeal has been instituted, and a large number of those cases take up the judge's time. Some time ago I asked the Attorney-General a question, and in reply he gave me some remarkable figures which show how largely the Court of Criminal Appeal has been taken advantage of. Those figures showed that from October, 1911 to October, 1912, five judges sat for two days, and three for thirty-eight days, making a total of 124 judicial days taken up by the Court of Criminal Appeal. Practically the time of one additional judge is now taken up by the Court of Criminal Appeal, and as that work becomes more known an increasing number will take place, and in all probability before another year passes that Court will take at least the time of one judge.
  Since the report of the judges in 1876, there has been an enormous increase in the people coming under the jurisdiction of the King's Bench Division. At that time 22,000,000 people had the right to appeal to the Court of King's Bench, but to-day the total is over 35,000,000. During that time, not merely has our trade and commerce increased, but cases of high importance, involving technicalities, have arisen in regard to commerce, shipping, and patents, and all these are crying for justice at the hands of His Majesty's judges. My right hon. and learned Friend spoke of arbitration. I have had a good deal of experience of arbitration, and solicitors have to prepare arbitration clauses, in highly technical commercial agreements outside the jurisdiction of His Majesty's Court. I can say that if the commercial men of this country knew they could get speedy and prompt justice there would be far less arbitration clauses required, because, although they are forced to arbitrate, they do not like it because frequently it is tedious and expensive, and they have to pay for their own judges, and if there is one thing which a taxpayer has a right to demand, it is free access to justice, instead of which a great many commercial cases are being forced into arbitration merely because they know they can get their arbitrator sitting in a room from day to day and he
  2580
  will keep at work until the case is over. We never know when these cases are coming on. Sometimes they come on before a common jury, and sometimes it is a special jury, and all this delay means dissatisfaction, inconvenience and expense to the ordinary everyday litigant. The Bill of 1910 which created these two additional judges was founded upon the Report of a Committee that the congestion in the King's Bench Division was serious. The point I want to make is, if I can prove to the House that the congestion in our Law Courts is as serious now as it was in 1910, there is no option but to accept this Amendment. The late Attorney-General, the present Lord Robson— whose illness we all deplore, and we hope he will be restored to his place very soon in the Court of Appeal— said:—
  "Not only is the congestion serious, but I think it may be very fairly said to have become chronic, and it causes "delay in the administration of justice, especially in the cases of poorer litigants, in which case perhaps the money sought to be recovered is vital to their business or sustenance, and amounts very often to an absolute denial of justice."
  I know hundreds of cases have been compelled to accept less than their legal rights because of this delay. Frequently towards the end of July those acting in litigation for the defence are frequently enabled to effect settlements a good deal cheaper because the unfortunate plaintiff is often not able to face the delay of the Long Vacation. I have had a good deal to do with cases in connection with the traffic in London in regard to accidents which we all deplore. I know not one but hundreds of cases of poor people seriously injured, of widows of men who have been killed owing to accidents in the London traffic, where they are unable to spend the time involved in getting up their cases ready to be brought into Court, more especially when we are approaching the Long Vacation, and in these cases they are bound to take less than they are justly entitled to. That is one clear reason why the Government should accept this Amendment. I want to call the Attorney-General's attention to a speech made by his own colleague in the Cabinet, Lord Morley, at the opening of a new Session House at Blackburn, who said:—
  "I am often surprised at the failure of the public to realise that there is nothing in the whole organised life of a great community half so important as the administration of justice."
  I suggest that those words are absolutely true. All that we do here, all our social reforms and everything this House does, is

  2581
  not as important as a pure and prompt administration of justice. We have proved that justice is not now prompt, and, as my right hon. Friend has said, when justice is delayed, it amounts in the case of poor people to a denial of justice altogether. In 1910 there was an expectancy that the arrears would diminish. The Attorney-General omitted to mention one fact which had a great deal to do with the reduction of arrears. There were, in 1910, 1,120 cases in arrear in the King's Bench Division; in 1911 there were only 740, but they have now gone up to 966. He forgot to mention that a large factor in the reduction of those arrears was the fact that two Chancery Judges were brought over from the Chancery Division in order to sit in the King's Bench. They did their Avork most manfully and assisted largely in reducing the arrears. The Attorney General, however, will bear me out when I say it is not now possible to do that. There has been an increase in the work of the Chancery Judges since then and arrears are steadily piling up there instead of the lists being clear. There is no possibility of help being obtained from the Chancery Division. The arrears have increased also in the Divisional Court, another branch of the King's Bench Division. There were, in 1910, 189 cases waiting for trial. They were cleared off to 109 in 1911, but they have now gone up again to 260 odd. Those cases are quite as important. They are cases of appeal from minor Courts, and when a case is subject to appeal it is even more detrimental to the interest of litigants to have delay and more essential that it should be quickly heard.
  The Attorney-General did not give us all the figures. He mentioned the King's Bench Division. I want to give the House three figures which I think are rather startling and which show that to-day the total arrears in all our Law Courts in London are worse than they were in 1910. There were, in 1910, 1,619 cases waiting to be heard; in 1911 those were reduced to 1,272, but at the Trinity Sittings of this year they had risen to 1,620, and to-day there are over 2,000 cases— more than there were in the worst period of 1910, when this House thought that 1,600 cases in arrear were sufficient to insist upon two new judges being appointed. Now there are over 2,000 cases waiting to be heard, and we are only asked to appoint one extra judge. I submit that is amply sufficient cause for asking the House to appoint at least two new judges. I do not know
  2582
  whether the House realises how long it takes to get a case tried after the action is commenced. I brought down the speech which the Attorney-General made on the last occasion, in 1910, intending to read it because it was so eloquent, but he has been equally eloquent to-day, and I think he has proved the need of two judges instead of one. There are to-day nearly 100 cases waiting for trial in the King's Bench Division which have been ready for trial over six months. That is really a lamentable state of affairs. What are the witnesses to do? Some of them desire to go abroad, and they have to be either persuaded or cajoled, or in some way induced to stay in England, or their evidence has to be taken on commission and read to the jury, which is a most unsatisfactory proceeding.
  I want to mention the state of affairs in our Law Courts in July this year. July is the month immediately before the Long Vacation, when everybody is trying to get their ease disposed of, knowing there are eight or ten weeks to wait before the Courts sit again. July, therefore, is the month in which, as a rule, the Courts are in full swing. In July this year the state of the Courts was nothing less than a grave scandal, so far as the administration of justice was concerned. One Court sat for special jury cases seventeen days, and the number of cases disposed of was thirteen. Common jury cases in the whole month of July were taken only on thirteen days, and eleven cases were disposed of. Non-jury cases were taken only on ten days, and the number of cases disposed of was twenty-two. In all, forty-seven jury and non-jury cases were disposed of by our Courts of Justice in the month of July, and 161 fresh cases were entered for trial. That really does not seem as if the arrears were in any way being wiped off. Reference has been made to the hours judges sit at Assizes. I admit they sit long hours, long after the ordinary hours of judges, and I say there is nothing worse for the administration of justice than those long hours judges sit at Assizes scrambling to get their work through, with juries half asleep, and witnesses detained to all hours of the evening. Many cases are referred by judges to London or to arbitrators or referees in order to get rid of them, so that they can get on to the next Assize Court.
  Perhaps the House will excuse me if I give an instance from my own personal experience. I think, perhaps, personal

  2583
  instances may bring the matter home to Members. Only last week I was acting in a case between two local authorities miles from London, and both plaintiff and defendant asked us to get the case tried in London rather than at the ensuing Assizes, simply because they knew if it was tried at the Assizes it would be rushed, and they would not get that real, patient, lengthy hearing which, whatever we may say, litigants really desire. What the litigant desires is to have the last word said that can be said in favour of his case, whatever the decision may be. The one thing a litigant hates more than anything else is to feel his case has been rushed by the judge. He does not mind losing.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Not so much.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The right hon. Gentleman says, "Not so much." That is, to an extent, true. There are many cases where he is quite content to lose if he has had a patient hearing and if he realises that everything has been said that could be said in his favour; and he is entitled to demand that. Every litigant is entitled to have the most patient attention of judge and jury, and what the public really needs are Courts continually sitting in London for the trial of jury, special jury, and non-jury actions. I have had very little personal experience of criminal actions, but I cannot help thinking more cases might be referred to Quarter Sessions. Chairmen of Quarter Sessions are becoming increasingly experienced in the administration of the criminal law, and I think a great deal might be done in that way to relieve the Assizes. With regard to the County Courts Bill, which is hardly germane to this Address, I should be quite glad to consult with the Attorney-General as to removal of controversial points in that Bill. I really put my notice of rejection down as a protest against cramming legislation through this House without adequate attention. So long as it can be adequately discussed, I shall be glad to facilitate matters in every way. I can only welcome the Royal Commission, and any assistance that I can give in making suggestions for improving the condition of affairs, at least in our Law Courts in London, will be cheerfully given. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment and to give us that which is in the interests of the
  2584
  general public and is really necessary, so that we may have quick and speedy justice.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I need hardly say that I feel very pleased at the way the House has received the announcement which I have made, and I am particularly gratified to think that the hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham), who has been a very strenuous opponent, is not only satisfied, but, as he says, anxious that I should only make one bite at two cherries instead of two bites at one. I find myself, however, in some difficulty in accepting the Amendment, and I will tell the House quite frankly why. I need hardly tell them I should be very pleased if it had been possible to appoint two judges under this Address, but there has been a Cabinet Committee which sat to inquire into this matter. It went into the facts very carefully and very fully, and, as a result, the recommendation they made was that there should be the appointment of one judge. Upon that the Government Motion has been made, and on that Motion I have made my submission to the House to-day. I do feel some difficulty in accepting the Amendment to appoint two judges, because I cannot help thinking a number of Members who either may have seen in the Press or have heard last night, when it was publicly stated in the Lobby, that the course I proposed to take on behalf of the Government was to announce that a Royal Commission would be instituted have been led to absent themselves from this discussion, and it does seem to me I should not be acting quite it does seem to me I should not be acting quite fairly to them if, on behalf of the Government, I took that view. The result of this Debate and of the hon. Baronet's proposal will still be very valuable.
  The right course, I would venture respectfully to submit to my hon. Friend and to hon. Gentlemen opposite, is that the Amendment should be withdrawn. The effect will be the same, because, if it becomes necessary to appoint another judge, an Address can then be moved, and I have no doubt that in view of the Debate we have had to-day it would go through as a matter of form. If another vacancy occurred, or if it was found after the Royal Commission had sat it was necessary to have an additional judge, or additional judges, then, of course, the matter ought to come before the House and be considered. I am dealing with this matter, as everybody will understand, not in any

  2585
  sense on political or party lines at all, but looking at it in the best interests of the country and also with a desire that we should act fairly to hon. Members who may not have come here under the impression that the Government course would be only to get the appointment of one judge. I would suggest, therefore, that the Amendment should be withdrawn, so that we can if necessary get another judge at a later stage. I submit, in view of the inquiry we are about to make and the view we have taken, that one judge is sufficient for the present to enable us to proceed, and we ought to leave the matter at that. The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke) asked me if I would lay the terms of reference on the Table. I think the better course would be for a question to be asked and for me to give an answer. I think that would be better in form.
  DUKE: That entirely meets my view.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I quite thought it would. I am anxious anyone who has any suggestion to make should make it to me, and that before anything is done the terms of reference should be known. I shall be ready to listen to any criticisms on those terms, though I do not think there will be any necessity for a debate. I hope the matter may end in this way and that the Amendment may be withdrawn.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Mover of the Amendment is not here, but I am going to make a counter proposition, which I think may meet his wishes. The right hon. Gentleman has told us a Cabinet Committee has sat to consider this question, and that he came here armed only with the right to assent to the appointment of one judge. The Royal Commission must take some considerable time, and I think we have convinced him and almost everybody in the House that two judges are necessary. I quite admit the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept the Amendment at the moment, but I venture to suggest that the Debate should be adjourned in order that he may consult the Cabinet again. I think that is not an unreasonable proposition. The Address can be put down again any time after Eleven o'clock at night. I think the right hon. Gentleman would then find himself in a position to be able to grant two judges for which so many of us have asked, and which I think he himself is convinced is really necessary.
  Mr.MARTIN: I am very sorry this question has got into the position in which we find ourselves at the present moment. When it was announced the Government intended to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the reforms which many Members have been urging for some time it met with general satisfaction, and I think the Attorney-General was quite right in saying that many of those who have taken an interest in this matter and who intended to be here to-day to oppose this Motion strenuously stayed away when they learned that the Government intended to appoint a Royal Commission. I think it is most unfortunate that we should be brought into a position of antagonism with those who ask for two judges. None of us who are opposing this Amendment, and who opposed the Bill in 1910, have any desire whatever to see the business of the Courts in arrear. We did not even require the statistics given by the Attorney-General to satisfy us on that point. What the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) said in regard to the inconvenience of such great arrears in the Courts, appeals just as strongly to us as it can to any Member of this House. What we say is that this question has not been approached in the right way in the past. There is an easy way of getting over the difficulty, and that is to do the very thing we are being asked to do to-day, namely, appoint one judge, or if one is not enough, appoint two, or if two are not enough, then appoint three, and keep on appointing judges until you get rid of the arrears. Our contention is not that the arrears should not be caught up, but that there are other ways of accomplishing that end rather than by appointing judges ad infinitum in order to get enough of them to get the work done. The right hon. Gentleman has dealt with many of the points which we think would bring about the clearing up of arrears in the King's Bench Division. The County Courts Bill is one of them. The two judges were appointed in 1910 under a, general understanding in the House, not only that the judges should sit more often upon Saturdays, but also that those matters-that we have been contending for, and the suggested changes in the law, should be gone into by the Government, and dealt with as soon as Parliamentary time would allow. Nothing has been done in that direction since. It is true that by Order in Council a very valuable provision, has been made by which the judges on

  2587
  circuit trying criminal cases can also dispose of civil cases. We congratulate ourselves on those two reforms.
  2.0 P.M.
  I should like to refer to another aspect of the case. The Attorney-General's speech was to a certain extent a defence of the judges. I wish, so far as I am concerned, to entirely dissociate myself from any idea that in the course I have taken in the past, or may take in the future with regard to the reform of the Law Courts, I have been making any attack upon the judges. We are not concerned with them. We do not wish to attack the judges. It may have been that, to a certain extent in connection with the Saturday sittings, there was some criticism of the manner in which the business was conducted, but it was not intended as an attack upon any individual judge, or upon the judges as a whole. What we want to bring about is a change in the law, and that can only be brought about by Parliament. We are responsible for that, and the judges are not responsible in any way for it. In pressing for two judges I think I can safely say that the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham) does not represent any of those who have taken an active part along with him in this matter. So far as I know he did not communicate with them, and it was a great surprise of many of us to see his name attached to any such suggestion. I do not think any case whatever has been made out at the present time for two judges. I quite agree with what the Attorney-General has said, that if it becomes necessary to have two judges instead of one, so long as the reforms in the law are being attended to, and so long as the Commission is sitting and dealing with the matters we are concerned with, Members on this side of the House who have taken the stand I have referred to will be only too glad to give their assent to an appeal made by the Attorney-General for an additional judge, if an additional judge is necessary in the meantime, in order to get the arrears made up.
  We suggest that no case has been made out for more than one judge at present. There were 1,120 cases in arrear in 1910, when we last had this matter before us. A year later those arrears have been reduced to 740, but they have now increased to 966, an increase of 226. I do not see anything in those figures which would justify the Government in putting the country to the expense of appointing two extra judges,
  2588
  although there is a justification for the appointment of one more judge. We must remember that during a large part of this year, in which the arrears were increased by 220, that for nearly the whole of the year two judges were off the bench. In addition to that, unfortunately, during the year from Michaelmas, 1911, to Michaelmas, 1912, there was an extraordinary amount of sickness among the judges, which, we have no reason to anticipate, will occur again for some time to come. If with two judges off the bench and a large number of them sick, including the Lord Chief Justice, and with a long case, such as the Telephone case— a very unusual experience— the arrears have only increased by 220 cases, surely the Government were right in saying they would only ask for one judge. If that course had been accepted by hon. Gentlemen opposite we should really have had no occasion to delay the House by discussing these matters at all to-day, because there would have been a general assent among those who desire these reforms, that although the Government were not perhaps approaching the matter so rapidly as we should like to see them do, we do not expect to get everything in a day, but we should have been very satisfied with the appointment of one judge. I was very satisfied when I read in the papers this morning that a Royal Commission was going to be appointed. We may have to differ on these matters, probably we shall have to differ when the Commission has reported as to how far the reforms should go, but why should we have unnecessary differences? Why should we have a feeling of discontent aroused by members of the legal profession by their trying to force upon the House the adoption of two judges. These are matters I am prepared to go into when we discuss the reforms after the Commission has reported, but in the meantime I think it is most unfortunate that this difference should have arisen. While I was satisfied with what the Government did in suggesting a Commission, I should have been much more pleased if they had taken the matter up themselves. I think it has been made so abundantly clear with regard to many of these points that it does not require, after all, a Commission to satisfy this House that there should be some change in the law.
  I should like to express my agreement with the hon. Baronet (Sir A. Markham) in one remark that he made with regard to this Commission. I entirely agree

  2589
  with him that it would be very unsatisfactory indeed if the Commission were to be largely composed of the legal profession. In fact I should be glad, for one, to see a Commission to inquire into these questions as to reforms in the law on which no lawyer would have a place at all. I believe such a Commission would be more likely to bring in a Report which would give a foundation for reforms in this House, and we need not be afraid that any great harm would be done. Supposing there was not a lawyer at all upon that Commission, Supposing the Commission made a Report which would not change the law. There would have to be a Bill introduced into this House and we can always depend upon having a large number of lawyers in the House who will see that their interests, at any rate, are protected in any question of reform. We were all glad when the Attorney-General said he could not accept this proposal for two judges, and I think it would be a great mistake to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) to adjourn the Debate in order that the Attorney-General might have an opportunity of again consulting the Cabinet with regard to the question whether there should be one judge or two. Surely that is a reflection upon the Cabinet. They have taken great pains in the matter; they have appointed a Special Committee who have made the most thorough and exhaustive inquiries into the whole subject and they have come to the conclusion, I think from these figures very properly, that at any rate only one judge is required at present. Then, if that were accepted, we should have the question harmonious up to this point and all further hostility would be postponed until we got actually before us a Bill founded upon the Report of the Royal Commission. I do not feel inclined to discuss these various reforms that we want— the question of County Court jurisdiction, the question of shortening the holidays in the High Court, the question of the age of the compulsory retirement of judges, the circuit system, the question of whether Divisional Courts should be continued or not— but I admit that if the Amendment is persisted in it will lead to very bad feeling amongst those who have been pressing these reforms upon the Government.
  Sir JOHN RANDLES: As a layman, I have some hesitation in intruding on a Debate which is so largely confined to legal gentlemen. I understand the hon.
  2590
  Member who has just spoken represents both branches of the legal profession. I must, however, demur to a remark of the hon. Member (Mr. Joynson-Hicks)— and the Attorney-General rather agreed with him in a qualified way— that litigants enjoy being before the Courts for the purpose of having their cases discussed at considerable length and exhaustively, so that they might know that they had their cases fully and fairly considered. My experience as a layman is that the less time I spend in the Courts the better for me, and if I can keep outside I am very well content. As regards the question of the two or the one judge, I do not propose to argue, because I am not qualified so to do, but what I desire, like other Members, is that there should be no obstruction in the course of justice, and that when litigants do come to Court they should have a reasonable opportunity of getting their cases tried speedily. The question that I wanted to ask was as to whether the large population in Lancashire could have the question brought within the purview of the Royal Commission as to the desirability or otherwise of continual sittings in Manchester and Liverpool. There is a large business community there.
  It has been mooted at different times as to whether in Lancashire— where the population is greater than in any other centre, London alone excepted, and where there are many arbitration cases— it might possibly be to the advantage of all concerned that the judge should have, if not continuous, practically continuous sittings. It might be found that this request was unreasonable if the Royal Commission considered it, and that it was not a practicable one. In that case those who make the demand would feel more satisfied, and perhaps the question might be allowed to subside. I understand that it is possible to affect considerable economies of time by arrangements in the Courts by which a judge is not kept waiting to try one case perhaps, or very few cases, for a considerable number of days. If this point, with special reference to Lancashire could be brought within the purview of the Royal Commission, that would be a very satisfactory result for large numbers of people who discuss this question in Lancashire, and I should like to know if the learned Attorney would see to it, that this is one of the questions brought within the purview of the Royal Commission.
  Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I should like, first of all, to join in support of what has

  2591
  just been said in regard to the desires of Lancashire on this part of the question. My main purpose in rising, however, is to support both the proposal of the Government that there should be an additional judge appointed, and to thank the Government for the appointment of the Royal Commission. On one question only would I detain the House, and that is especially with regard to the ordinary circuits in most parts of this country other than the very large cities. At present I doubt whether it is fully realised how very much delay there is of necessity, and how very much unnecessary expense is in many cases laid upon poor suitors. In most parts of England to-day, supposing there is a dispute affecting the honour or character of some person which arises and is ready for trial in July, the persons interested have to wait until February before they can have their judgment given to them anywhere near the locality where it arose, or else they have to take the matter to London at far greater expense to all the persons concerned, without even then having the certainty that it will be tried within six months. I quite agree that there are many reforms of the circuit system which are desirable, and I am quite sure the Royal Commission will give very careful attention to all aspects of that problem. But it certainly is not in the public interest that the persons who have disputes, and have to go to the Law Courts for important matters which are wholly local in character, should have to face the alternative of very long delays or very unnecessary expenditure in removing the matter to London. I know that the Lord Chief Justice and the judges have met this to some extent by the new arrangement for grouping, but that goes nothing like far enough, and we are quite certain it will not go far enough until the Royal Commission has investigated it, and, I hope, come to a favourable conclusion. There is in addition the fact which I think must be universally admitted that criminal trials in this country since the passing of the Criminal Appeal Act do take longer than before. The criminal trials in this country, necessitating as they now do, the taking of shorthand notes of every piece of evidence— a most proper preliminary to the work of the Court of Criminal Appeal— must of necessity take longer time. The result is that the judges on circuit take longer time than they did formerly. I realise, considering the state of business in London, that we shall never get these
  2592
  circuit reforms effected as long as the number of the Judiciary is lower than it should be. I support the Motion of the Government rather from the public point of view than merely from the point of view of one who recognises that an additional judge is required if the Courts are not to go on accumulating arrears. I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham) and the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) that two judges will be found necessary. I hope we may be given credit for thinking, not of any professional aspects of the matter, which certainly do not concern me, but of what is best for poor suitors, because it is said you should have justice swiftly, and certainly administered without extravagant expenditure. That can only be brought about by a great many local trials of local issues, and yet trials of matters quite important enough to demand the time and attention of the very best of His Majesty's judges. I am confident that the work of the judges of the High Court and the influence which their administration of justice has when they are on circuit, both in criminal and civil matters, are not only valuable in the cases brought before them, but have beneficial effect in all parts of the country. I hope when this Royal Commission is appointed there will, at any rate, be someone on it who is familiar with the problems ranged round the circuit system of this country— someone who is familiar with the fact that you cannot solve these problems merely by cutting down the circuit system; that you must have in mind not only the saving of time and expense, but also the just demands of people in a locality to have justice brought as nearly as possible to their own doors, and that a man should be placed at no disadvantage if he lives in the most rural part of the country as compared with a man who lives in the City of London.
  Mr. MORTON Mr. MORTON rose—
  Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present—
  Mr. MORTON: I am sorry, on account of the way business is being conducted, we have no opportunity of taking the opinion of the House on the question of delaying the appointment of a

  2593
  judge until the Royal Commission has reported on the matter. What we are going to do is to put the cart before the horse by appointing a judge and then considering whether he should be appointed. We know what lawyers sometimes do in the cases in which they are engaged. They take the oyster and leave the shell to others. We who are opposed to this Motion desire to criticise the judges in no offensive sense whatever. We do not wish to say hard things about them. All we wish to say is that it is contrary to human nature to expect, and we do not expect, the judges to abridge their holidays. Therefore, there is no use in going to them for a reform of that sort. I have never heard that judges are less human than other people. Another point raised with regard to the Royal Commission is that there ought to be no lawyers upon it. I agree with that. It would be a mistake if this Royal Commission were dominated by those very judges whose holidays are to be the subject of investigation. We should, no doubt, have the opinion of the judges and other lawyers, but that should be taken from them as witnesses, and not as members of the Royal Commission. To make them members of the Royal Commission would be to give them an unfair position. The Attorney-General admitted the whole case for reform in what he said about the Long Vacation. The judges now get about four months' holidays—that is to say, a third of the year, if you count Saturdays. You cannot expect to get business done so long as that condition of affairs continues. More judges might be required, but I think the Law Courts ought to be open all the year round, except, perhaps, for a month in the summer, as is the case with County Courts and the Central Criminal Court. Then there would be no difficulty in getting business done.
  I am sorry the hon. Member for Mansfield has accepted this proposal of the Government, because it was only the other day he was objecting to the appointment of another judge. I am glad the Government have recognised the opposition to this proposal within the last few days, and that they have decided to appoint a Royal Commission to consider the very question we have been speaking about for a long time. They will find, no doubt, what all business men in the City of London will tell you, that what is wanted is that the Long Vacation should be shortened to about a month, and that the judges should sit on Saturday. We have been told to-day
  2594
  that they have partly made up for not sitting on Saturday by sitting longer some other day. That is a curious way of doing business. I have not heard that on other days they sit too long. Most of them are claiming a five hours' day. That is about the time they sit, when something is taken out of the day for the luncheon interval. They all object to the policy of the party who advocate an eight hours' day for working men, but they want a five hours' day for themselves, doing practically no work. I hope that hon. Members will vote against the appointment of two judges, because even the Government have not asked for that, and they say that, judging from the evidence they have got, one judge will be enough.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: They have not said that.
  Mr. MORTON: My hon. Friend, of course, knows more than the Cabinet Council. I do not know so much, but I. do know that we have been told they have considered the question, and, in view of the fact that the matter is one that should be inquired into, they think that one would be enough. I quite agree that my hon. Friend knows the intentions of the Government, and I am sure that he misled me on this question. I also object, unless the Government agree to give us another day, to the adjournment of this case and the bringing of it up again after eleven o'clock at night, when we could have no reasonable debate upon it. I trust that the Government will see that some redress is given to business people on the subject. We need not trouble about the lawyers in this matter. They make money out of the delays, which mean extra law. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I never knew of any reasonable lawyer objecting to lawyers' costs, and I do not know why he should. I trust now that the Government have recognised we are right and they have been wrong by agreeing to appoint a Royal Commission that we shall get some redress. Of course, I cannot expect my hon. Friend the Member for the Mansfield Division to be with us, but I hope that on another occasion he may go in another direction.
  Mr. DUKE: The Government are placed in a somewhat difficult position by the state of the law in this matter. The Act of 1910 was passed to deal with a difficulty which was not recognised as necessarily permanent. The state of things is that, after the passing of that Act, as long as the strength of the judicial bench is not

  2595
  left below fifteen Puisne Judges, no additional strength could be given to the judicial bench without an Address from both Houses of Parliament. In that state of the case the Government got advice from the judges, the effect of which we have not been told, and the decision of the Cabinet Committee has been to come to the House, and on its responsibility ask urgently for the appointment of one additional judge. I do not think that anybody who knows the state of things in the Courts in London can doubt that this proposal for the appointment of one additional judge, subject to the safeguards of the Act of 1910, was not the proposal which was made by His Majesty's judges. The Attorney-General did not tell us what the proposal was, but I do not think that anyone who knows the state of things in the Courts quite irrespective of the causes of it can believe that His Majesty's judges represented to the Government that the appointment of one judge would be sufficient to deal with the obstruction which exists. That it does exist and is most serious is a fact known to everybody who knows the Courts. In the month of July, on the eve of the Long Vacation, there was almost an absence of judicial force in the King's Bench side of the High Court in London. Forty-seven causes were disposed of and hundreds of causes are waiting to be disposed of, and anybody who was there from day to day witnessed almost the agonised efforts of suitors who were in difficulties to get their causes disposed of. I know that hon. Members opposite may say that something ought to be done with regard to the Long Vacation. I quite recognise that. But; the position now is that the difficulty exists and is increasing. The arrears have increased substantially since the end of July. I believe that they have increased even during the last two weeks and will go on increasing. My personal opinion is that His Majesty's Government will not be able to stem this increasing tide by the appointment of one judge, but, on the other hand, I cannot see how a Government which has stated to the House of Commons that its proposal is that one judge should be appointed can on a Friday afternoon, without any practical assent of the body of the House of Commons, accept a Motion for the appointment of two judges.
  To do so though would not have probably a very far reaching effect because even judges do not live for ever. There have been
  2596
  two vacancies since 1910, and it may well be that before long these proceedings of to-day must be repeated, unless the business of the country can be done with fifteen Puisne Judges, But I agree with the Attorney-General that however desirable it might be to appoint two additional judges the Government is not in a position to do so to-day. It has not the practical assent of the House of Commons, which has had a proposal for one judge, to come here and create two judges. This is a subject, I agree, upon which public feeling has been greatly excited. It is supposed that the legal profession, and in particular the Members of it in this House, have a strong and selfish interest in this question, of the number of judges. I leave that to be dealt with by people who have no personal concern in the matter. I think this is not a case in which the Government, speaking as their political opponent would be rightly advised to assent to this Amendment merely of their own motion. I say that more particularly for this reason, that two years ago and three years ago, there was a strong tendency to attack the administration of justice upon the ground that the public were not having fair play. If ever the impression got abroad in this country that the public were not getting fair play in the output of judicial work from the position and salaries of the judges, it would be fatal to the credit of the judicial bench and destroy the authority of the judges.
  I heard with great satisfaction the tone of moderation and deliberation which has been shown on the other side in pressing what hon. Members believe to be the necessity of reform, but with an absolute absence of anything like personal imputation upon those who conduct the judicial business of the country. Everybody who knows His Majesty's judges, knows that, as far as honour and sense of duty are concerned, they stand as high as any of their predecessors. But that is not the question. It has got to be recognised that their standard is as high as the standard of their predecessors, and any man who is concerned with the administration of justice, any practitioner in the courts, any man who values our judicial system, and who has heard the kind of criticism which sometimes covertly, and sometimes openly, has been addressed to some of the judges a year or two ago, must have lamented the causes which have existed to induce hon. Members in this House to take an attitude of the kind

  2597
  That attitude has been absent to-day. That brings me to the question of the Royal Commission, its scope and constitution. With regard to its constitution there is a very great deal in what has been said on the other side, that it ought not to be overweighted by the authority of judges or what may be supposed to be the personal interests of lawyers. What is wanted is that every branch of the system should be inquired into for the satisfaction of the community, and, if it be possible, the Government should appoint a Commission which would tend to deal with the kind of feeling which was apparent, and I dare say is still latent, with regard to the question whether the judicial bench was doing all it might do for the country. It would be a deplorable situation for the Government themselves if such a feeling existed; and it would be most lamentable as to its effect on the standard of judicial life in this country and the position of the judiciary. That being so, I cannot think but that it must be a well-founded hope that His Majesty's Government will take care that the Commission which is appointed will satisfy the feelings which have been expressed, whether expressed with moderation or with an absence of moderation. In connection with any inquiry which ought to satisfy the country, two things have to be considered. One is the possibility of the great advantage to be gained by a complete overhaul of our judicial arrangements. Speaking with the experience of a lifetime, most of which has been devoted to work in connection with the administration of the law, I think myself that no harm would be done by a complete examination of our system of administration of justice, which, as to some parts of it, dates from some 600 or 700 years ago, and as to all parts of it, in its essence and fundamentals, from very remote times.
  The world moves, and it moves with regard to the administration of justice as in reference to everything else; but if you are going to wait to deal with the congestion of business in the High Court in London until you have investigated the judicial system of this country, then you are setting yourselves a task which would postpone remedy of the evil which is now to be dealt with for a period which, for my part, I cannot foresee. The King's Bench, with its arrears, provides a reserve of judicial power for every kind of purpose. If the Attorney-General had thought fit to refer to another Division, it
  2598
  would have been seen that there were matters even more urgent than those of the King's Bench. He would have dealt with the Probate and Divorce Division, where the state of things is such as to shock the mind of anyone who knows how close to the home life of this country is the work of that Division. The business of the Probate and Divorce Division goes steadily into arrear, and five years ago the difficulty was dealt with by taking from the King's Bench Division, which could not afford it, one or two judges to assist in the Admiralty, Divorce and Probate Division. I only refer to that matter in order to urge that the remedy of the congestion of business in the Court, which obstructs the administration of justice, should not be hindered by a question which is larger in area and importance but not so immediately urgent. In regard to the complete overhauling of our judicial system, I do not know whether it is to be done by amateurs in the way suggested; if it is, I am afraid it would be a waste of their time; but if you are going to deal with arrears of business, I would say, Do not make your reference to this Commission, which is to direct its endeavours to removing the causes of obstruction of business in the Courts, so wide that it might lead to an indefinite postponement of any measure of relief of the congestion.
  Reference has been made to the circuit system, and something was said about the insistence of the Assize towns on retaining their privileges. I have watched this agitation for many years. I am not quite sure that it could be brushed aside. The Assize system has a strong foundation in the honest, sincere, and tenacious attachment of the people of this country to their ancient right to be judged by their fellows in those parts of the country in which they live, and in which their difficulties arise. That is the real cause of the difficulty of dealing with the circuit system. If you are going to take the whole judicial machinery of the country and subject it to examination by a Royal Commission, let it be done, and let it be thoroughly done, and I hope that good results may follow, and I believe some results, and beneficial results, will follow. But do not postpone this urgent matter of removing the congestion of business in the High Court. If you have to deal with the whole arrangements of our judicial system, His Majesty's Government, if they cared to face the reproach, might have two Committees, one to deal with the congestion of business in His Majesty's Courts in

  2599
  London—and that necessarily would include incidentally the circuit system and other subjects of that kind—in order to get a prompt Report, and the other to deal with the question of larger area and importance. I hope myself that, with moderate reference, an early Report will be obtained on the question of the congestion of business, and so tide over the present difficulty.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Owing to my having to attend a Committee at the Colonial Office, I was not able to be here when the Attorney-General spoke, but I gather that he has promised that there shall be a Royal Commission to inquire into the congestion of business at the Courts and the administration of justice in this country. I only rise for the purpose of urging that there shall be given to that Commission a reference in the very widest terms. We do not want narrow terms of reference merely to inquire into the circumstances of arrears, the length of the vacation, or similar subjects.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: When I made the announcement I indicated that the terms of reference must not be too wide, as we are anxious to get a Report so that we may deal with the congestion of business in the High Court. If, as my hon. Friend suggests, there were a wide reference as to the administration of justice in this country, the consequence would be that the Royal Commission would have to sit for a very long time, and we should not be able to obtain the relief which is required in connection with the arrears. The evidence must be confined to the various reforms which have been suggested so that we may be able to deal with the particular matter which has come before us during the last two or three years.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I quite appreciate the force of the Attorney-General's remarks. I think it is important that the Commission should report early. It is possible for a Royal Commission to issue interim reports. I hope we shall not have on that account the omission of some grave complaints to which we have directed attention, and of which I will indicate two or throe. The hon. and learned Member for Exeter spoke of congestion in the Courts, but really to deal with congestion in the Courts is merely a sum in mathematics. At the present time you have the judges who work thirty-four weeks in the year. Exactly the same results would be
  2600
  arrived at if you had fifteen judges working thirty-eight weeks in the year. We think fourteen weeks is sufficient vacation for the judges, and we believe that their work would be as efficiently done after fourteen weeks' vacation as after seventeen and a-half weeks, as at present. In that way you could, with the same expense, arrive at exactly the same result which the hon. and learned Member wishes to arrive at, at the same time doing away with that inordinately long gap in the legal business of the country which occurs at present during the Long Vacation.
  Mr. DUKE: May I state, in answer to the hon. Member, that I did not desire to exclude any of those subjects from the inquiry. With regard to the Long Vacation, I do not think it is conceivable that you could deal with the question of congestion in the Courts without giving serious consideration to whether the Long Vacation ought to be shortened.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I am very glad to hear the hon. and learned Member say that. I am quite sure it is the length of the Long Vacation which is the most important thing. There is also the question of the retiring age of judges and the age at which they are appointed.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I said the Long Vacation and those matters are all included.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I must apologise for raising these points. Then there is the question as to the possibility of excluding political appointments from the bench; that is to say, that no man who has been five or ten years a Member of this House should be eligible for the bench. Although the hon. and learned Member for Exeter speaks of the universal appreciation of appointments it is not possible that we should have exactly the same view on that question so long as appointments are made of Members of this House. I hope that will be included in the terms of reference of this Committee to see whether Members of Parliament shall not be excluded from the Judicial Bench. I think those are important points so far as we are concerned which should be considered.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I ask who are "we"?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: The people who are opposing the appointment of new judges without the holding of this Royal Commission. I do hope that the personnel of the

  2601
  Royal Commission will be as largely as possible people with business experience, and not too largely lawyers—either barristers or solicitors. This is really a question for the business community to consider, and not purely for the convenience of those who are at the Bar or in solicitors' offices. There is always the question with lawyers of whether the administration of the country is to be carried on in London or in the assize towns. We ought not to consider vested interests in those matters, but solely the interests of those people whose business forces them sometimes to be litigants and who know what it is to have justice administered. For that you want to get a large representation of the business element. I think too, that there should be upon that Commission a certain number of Members of this House, because after all we are always under the goad of our constituents, and we do hear complaints perhaps more readily from smaller people than even the big business men do. At the same time we go upon a Royal Commission in rather more of a representative capacity than the ordinary business man can be expected to go. I need hardly say I could not possibly serve on a Royal Commission, so that I am not speaking from any personal point of view. I think it is advisable to have Members of this House as well as business men on the Commission, and in that way you will get representation of all the most important elements in the country. I desire to thank the Attorney-General for his very handsome method of meeting us on this question. I hope he will stick to his guns and not allow us to have two new judges added to the bench pending the result of this Royal Commission. After all, the Commission may make such reforms as shall render a further new judge unnecessary, and in that case it would be a pity to have permanently on the Judicial Bench an extra judge costing a great deal of money.
  Mr. DUKE: You do not have them permanently, because the Act of 1910 provides that upon each vacancy, when there are more than fifteen, a new judge cannot be appointed without coming to Parliament.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: The hon. and learned Member is perfectly right that the Government must come to Parliament, but he has no conception of the difficulty we have in arousing sufficient opposition. It is extremely easy to get an Address presented by both Houses and extremely difficult to
  2602
  prevent it, and, in fact, we could not possibly have prevented it unless we had been met in the way in which we have been met by the Attorney-General and the Government.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I differ from both of the preceding speakers. This is a long-delayed measure of justice. Let me recall the facts to the House, and I am going to press strongly on the House that they should accept the Amendment. For the last forty years there has been no increase in the judicial bench except a temporary one of a few judges a couple of years ago. We had before this House a Criminal Appeal Bill. I, possibly to my shame be it said, opposed that Bill, and time after time I pointed out to the House that it would entail a very large expenditure of judicial time. Time after time the Government gave an assurance that if extra time was thrown on the judicial bench that it should be made up by the appointment of extra judges. That pledge has never been fulfilled. The arrears became so serious two or three years ago that the Government asked for the temporary appointment of two extra judges, and now there is this proposal to-day. We know from the figures of last year that 128 days of judicial time were spent upon the Court of Criminal Appeal in Court, while judges who carry out the Criminal Appeal Court read over cases out of Court. Therefore there is, upon that ground alone, a debt due to the judges that ought to be remedied, and the question of sufficient judges to meet the demands of the country should be dealt with at once. I have not the slightest shame in saying here that I speak as a lawyer. The hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. J. Martin) was very harsh on ns. I looked up his name in "Dod," and I found that he was a barrister and solicitor.
  Mr. J. MARTIN: That is the reason I know so well.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Take the arrears at the present time. They are admitted to be a disgrace to the administration of justice. At the beginning of this term there were 900 cases ready to be tried; the suitors wished them to be tried; the lawyers were willing to do the work. There the interest of the legal profession is the same as the interest of the public. If a sufficient number of judges were sitting, the public would get their cases tried, and some of us who take part in these Debates would be withdrawn temporarily, at any rate, during the course

  2603
  of the sittings. If you have large arrears, you must have a crying need for the appointment of more judges, and it would be good alike for the profession and for the public that more judges should be appointed. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division (Sir A. Markham) that we are simply tinkering with the matter by putting on one extra judge. When there were two extra judges sitting two years ago they only just began to get up with their work, and if the happy time comes when two judges are appointed and the arrears are wiped off there will be plenty of work waiting at every turn for the judges of the King's Bench Division.
  The Court of Appeal is greatly in arrear. There has been an earnest desire to appoint a third Court to sit temporarily, but that would draw away the Lord Chief Justice from the King's Bench Division, where he is doing much needed work. In the same way assistance may be needed in the House of Lords from time to time. Therefore, directly they get up with their work, there is far more than enough for the two extra judges at the present time. The appeals from County Courts are not in an absolutely satisfactory state, and any reform that might be instituted would probably make appeals from County Courts much easier than at present. The only reason that it is not done is that there are not enough judges. I press the Government very strongly to appoint two extra judges, which really is a very small matter. They would be justified merely by the increase of population in the last thirty or forty years, without mentioning the Court of Criminal Appeal and the great additional work given to judges by the Criminal Evidence Act, which gives every prisoner the right to give evidence in his own behalf. As to the question of reform, the reform of the circuit, system used to be talked about by my father and grandfather. You might possibly save ten days in the year, at the cost of great inconvenience. What ever is done in the way of reform, the first thing is to have sufficient men in the King's Bench Division, and for that two extra judges are necessary.
  3.0 P.M.
  Mr. HERBERT CRAIG: I hope the Attorney-General will adhere to the course he has indicated and not accept the Amendment. I think it has been made abundantly clear that we on these benches have
  2604
  not opposed the Motion for the appointment of extra judges with any idea either of delaying or denying justice or of reducing the staff of the bench beyond what is necessary. We say that the system is at fault. So long as you have a system under which you take judges from the High Courts in London, where many urgent cases are waiting to be heard, in order to send them to remote country towns, when you know beforehand that there are few, if any, cases waiting to be heard, you are not entitled to say that you have not enough judges to do the serious work of the King's Bench Division. None of us care how many judges are appointed so long as the best use is made of their time. But so long as this system continues, so long as the Attorney-General has only to come to the House and say that there are arrears of work in the King's Bench Division, and that therefore more judges must be appointed, so long as we accept arrears as a valid reason for appointing more judges, so long there will always be arrears in the King's Bench Division. There always have been, always wall be, and always must be, so long as you accept the existence of arrears as a valid reason in itself for appointing more judges. We want to get rid of the system that causes the arrears. We do not care how many judges have to be appointed in order to do that. The Attorney-General referred to the denial of justice to people who are waiting to clear their character, but are unable to find judges to hear their case. My position is that they cannot find judges to hear their case in London, not because there are not enough judges, but because you send the judges away from London to some other place where they are not wanted and where nobody is waiting to have his case tried.
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: Where is that?
  Mr. HERBERT CRAIG: I am answering that. I am not pushing any nostrum of my own. I hold in my hand the last Annual Report of the Council of Judges of the Supreme Court. This Report has under the Judicature Act of 1873 to be made every year by the Council of the Judges to the Secretary of State. In the course of forty years the judges of the High Court had fulfilled their statutory duties three times! This present Report is for 1892, and is the last Annual Report made by the Council of Judges to the Secretary of State. If I may illustrate by an old Latin tag, which I believe has con-

  2605
  siderable authority behind it, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?—who is to make the judges carry out their statutory duties? In this Report in 1892 the judges made certain recommendations for the better carrying on of the business of the King's Bench Division. They drew attention to the fact that out of fifty-six circuit towns which the judges have to be sent to in forty the average number of civil cases was so small that the sending of the judge, or the keeping of a judge there trying cases, was a waste of judicial time. They said:—
  "It is injurious to the due administration of the law, for the judges are thus employed unnecessarily in the country when their presence is imperatively required in London."
  That is my case. This was in 1892.
  Mr. HILLS: That is twenty years ago.
  Mr. HERBERT CRAIG: That is the last time they reported.
  Mr. HILLS: All sorts of things have happened since then. The circuits have been reorganised.
  Mr. HERBERT CRAIG: This is the last available material that exists to look to.
  Sir J. D. REES: Why not give us a bit of Justinian?
  Mr. HERBERT CRAIG: The judges gave figures showing how they proposed to group the civil work—I am speaking of the civil and not the criminal work of these forty towns which did not justify the presence of a judge. They proposed to distribute the work amongst eighteen provincial centres, and they gave the names of the towns where there is not enough work to justify the judges attending. In Oldham the average number of cases at each Assizes during the four years 1888–1891 had not varied much. I do not know whether the average work of the small circuits has varied very much since the years I am quoting. I shall be considerably surprised to learn that it was so.
  Mr. HILLS: The whole system has been changed since then.
  Mr. HERBERT CRAIG: But I will not pursue this part of the subject further, as it seems to be so very disagreeable to hon. Members. I would only remind hon. Members that this circuit system, of which we complain, and of which the judges complained in the last report which they made, and as to which they made recommendations which have never been carried out—that this circuit system is a very old
  2606
  system. It dates back before the era of railways, before even the time of stage coaches. It goes back to the time when in order that justice should be within the reach of everybody in this country the judges had to go solemnly round with great pomp and much paraphernalia accompanied by a large retinue. Roughly speaking, the custom continues to be carried out on the old lines. No heed is taken of the difference that railways and the development of commerce have made; and the fact that the existence and multiplication of great joint stock companies has necessarily now caused the bulk of the heavy work to come to London. Remember what has happened. The right hon. Gentleman who last spoke may remember what used to happen in Cambridge when the Assizes were on. The judge stayed at Trinity College. I remember very well how Trinity College used to be aroused by two gorgeous creatures with enormous trumpets, because His Majesty's judge was about to enter his gorgeous coach provided by the noble Sheriff, proceed to the dingy courthouse, where, to use the last available report from the judges, "they might be expected to find two small cases waiting to be heard," and I suppose a few trembling misdemeanants waiting to be punished. That kind of thing continues to this day. We want to get rid of this waste of judicial time. We want to get rid of the system that causes arrears, and then to give you as many judges as are necessary to deal with serious business. If I may refer for one moment to something more recent than the Report of the judges in 1892, I may say there was a Joint Select Committee appointed in 1908 at which the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Loreburn, gave evidence. He was asked his remedy for the arrears in the King's Bench Division. The same old remedy had been proposed—the usual remedy of appointing more judges. In one of his answers he said:—
  "If that remedy is suggested to me, I can tell you I do not consider the appointment of two additional judges to be the proper remedy."
  In his evidence Lord Loreburn indicates many ways in which the judicial time is at present wasted. He suggests that the cause lists in London could be differently arranged.
  One matter to which I want to refer is what the Attorney-General has mentioned. I do not deny for one moment the amount of extra work which the judges put in at many circuit towns, but it is not at all circuit towns or in all circuits

  2607
  where this extra time is so graciously given by the judges. If hon. Members will refer to the Report of the Parliamentary Debate on 12th July, 1907, they will find an interesting diary of Lord Russell of Killowen, the last time he went on circuit in North Wales. This was in 1900. Here are some of the entries:—
  "July 5th. Russell leaves town and arrives in Wales.
  "July 6th. He opens the Commission, and receives white gloves, there being no prisoners for trial. …"
  Of course, Lord Russell knew that before he went. Still he was sent there from London—and that is my point—where poor suitors were waiting to clear their characters and so on.
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: How long ago is that?
  Mr. HERBERT CRAIG: The year 1900.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Since Justinian!
  Mr. HERBERT CRAIG: He is still put there although there is no work.
  "The next day was Sunday. The following day he goes to Dolgelly, and the following day to Carnarvon Assizes. The work finishes next day. On 13th July the Lord Chief Justice visits Penrhyn quarries. On 14th July there is no work for him to do: he sails in a steam yacht to Beaumaris, where he spends the following Sunday. The following day he opens the Commission at Beaumaris, and receives a present of move white gloves. On the 17th he goes to Llanfair, and then to Ruthin, where the next day he opens the Commission. On the 19th he sits at Ruthin Courts from 10 to 3. On the 20th no work is done. On the 21st the Mold Court sits and finishes its work by 1 p.m. He spends Sunday 22nd at Chester. On the 23rd he drives to Eaton Hall to see the stud; on the following day lie opens the Commission at Chester, and at 1 p.m. on the 25th the criminal work finishes, He returns to London after an absence of twenty-one days, and dining that time the sittings of the Courts over which he presided lasted precisely thirty hours."
  I only quote that as showing that there is another side to the case presented by the Attorney-General of judges sitting overtime on circuit. I emphasise that point as showing that the time has come when the whole circuit system should be revised. There are towns where there is heavy work and there are towns where there is no work. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] When I quoted the last official information I was told I might as well quote from Justinian. There are many instances where the average of cases tried vary from half to nothing and from one and a half to two cases. It may be well asked why, in view of the recommendations made for the readjustment of the circuit system and the business of the King's Bench Division, both by the judges in their Report of 1892 and by the Report of the late Joint Select Committee, nothing
  2608
  was done. I am anxious to draw the attention of the House to one of the clauses in that Report:—
  "The Committee earnestly recommend in the meantime, and without delay, that certain reforms suggested, both for the better organisation of business in London and on circuit, be considered with a view of such rearrangements being carried into effect."
  These are cases where we want the reform so frequently put forward, so much considered, so consistently promised, and so consistently ignored. We want to begin to improve, and for that reason we welcome the promise given by the Attorney-General, for which we are all very grateful to him, to set up a Royal Commission. I trust he will persevere in his intention of opposing this Amendment, and then I am sure that none of us will pursue our opposition to the appointment of the one additional judge the Attorney-General asks for.
  Mr. SANDERSON: I am afraid I really cannot agree with the hon. Member for Tynemouth in the speech which he has just delivered. He told us of a state of things which existed in 1892, which is twenty years ago now, and anybody who is at all connected with the profession and goes on circuit knows that the circuit system has been revised, not once, but twice or thrice since then. The hon. Gentleman complained that the Report of the judges of 1892 was the latest information he could get. That is a mistake. If the hon. Member who was here this morning when the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General made his speech, he would have heard some valuable information upon the circuit system.
  Mr. HERBERT CRAIG: The date of the information about the circuit system in North Wales from the diary of Lord Russell of Killowen is 1900.
  Mr. SANDERSON: I ant quite aware, but I was dealing with the Report of the judges which was made in 1892. But the circuit system has been entirely altered since then. With regard to the hon. Member's statement from Lord Russell of Killowen in 1900, he may net be aware that at that time a judge of Assize was bound to go circuit whether he wanted to or not He could not help himself. But that was felt to be a great waste of time, and in 1908 there was an Act passed whereby the judge has power, if he knows there is to be no work in the particular Assize town, to send word to the sheriff telling him not to summon the grand jury, and he need not go there himself, so the position is entirely changed since 1900.
  Mr. HERBERT CRAIG: If single prisoner he must go.
  Mr. SANDERSON: I agree. If there is a single prisoner he must go, except in certain cases where there is a winter Assize, and where, if there are only one or two prisoners, as say at Westmorland, he need not go, but can have the prisoner sent on to Cumberland or Carlisle. So the hon. Member is not strictly accurate in what he says. We were all very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General for the speech he made. I sympathise very much with the position he finds himself in now as to whether there should be one judge or two judges. The Attorney-General came down and moved the Motion on the Paper that one additional judge should be appointed, and he founded that Motion upon the Report of the Committee of the Cabinet. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman, from his own point of view, would be very glad to see two judges appointed. I think he said so in so many words. The position I wish to make plain to the House is this. I am not bound by the Report of the Committee of the Cabinet in any shape or form. I may think I am in just as good a position to judge whether two judges are necessary as the Committee of the Cabinet.
  Personally I am in a better position, because I am in the profession and I am constantly in touch with what is going on in the Courts and the Members of the Committee of the Cabinet are not. I am convinced it is absurd at the present moment to appoint only one additional judge. It is absolutely necessary to have two additional judges, and now, when I find upon the Paper an Amendment which has been just as long upon the Paper as the Resolution moved by the Attorney-General, and of which Members of this House have had just as much notice, I am bound to vote for it. I am absolutely convinced from my own practical experience two judges are necessary, and I should be acting contrary to my duties as a Member of this House, having a special knowledge of the state of circumstances in the Law Courts, if I did not vote for the Amendment. I cannot help feeling that when the Committee of the Cabinet came to the conclusion that they should only recommend the appointment, of one judge and not two, they must have been to a certain extent influenced to the opposition which they thought at that
  2610
  time was going to be offered. Everybody knew that the hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield and his hon. Friends were going to oppose to the utmost of their strength any addition to the number of judges until some inquiries had been made as to whether the time of the judges could not be saved by improved methods of administration. If they had known that the hon. Baronet was going to be satisfied with the proposition that a Royal Commission was going to be held, and that he was going to withdraw his opposition and move that two judges should be appointed, do you think the Cabinet would only have proposed the appointment of one judge? I do not think I am doing an injustice to the Attorney-General's speech when I say that he has admitted that the state of affairs now is just as bad as it was when the Act was passed appointing two additional judges.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Not quite.
  Mr. SANDERSON: Very nearly. In this matter I am in real earnest, and I deprecate what the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) said with regard to barristers—in fact I repudiate it altogether. I have sat on the Bar Council for a considerable number of years, and we have always gone on one principle, and that was that what is for the benefit of the public is for the benefit, of the profession, and you may put it the other way about if you like. That is the only point of view at which I have looked at this question. I think it is a crying scandal that there is such delay. It does not affect so much the rich litigants and people engaged in big business disputes. You have at the present-time the Commercial Court, and if there is a big dispute business people can have their cases tried in that Court without any undue delay. They can readily get a day fixed and arrange for their witnesses, and there is no real hardship there; but the person who is hit the hardest is the poor litigant. My hon. and learned Friend gave instances, and I can confirm what he said. Take a man in a small way of business who is run down in one of the streets of London and injured. He is not in a position to get other people to carry on his business, and probably loses his business while he is in the hospital. When he gets better he has no capital, and he wants capital to set himself on his legs again, and if he can get it there and then he is all right, but if he has to wait eight or nine months before he can bring an action he is absolutely ruined.

  2611
  That is the sort of thing which is constantly going on. I do not know why the Attorney-General should object, because the cost is a mere nothing. I think I am right in saying that the suitors by the money they pay are defraying the cost.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: They certainly pay for the judges' salaries.
  Mr. SANDERSON: I believe the money paid is sufficient to provide the cost of the civil administration in the Courts. I think litigants have the right, not only to have their disputes decided by the tribunals when they have to pay for them, but they should also have those tribunals fully equipped, and why there should be any objection to this I am at a loss to understand. I hope hon. Members on this occasion will listen to one who really does know what he is talking about, and will rote in favour of this Amendment.
  Mr. GEORGE GREENWOOD: I wish to say a very few words on this subject. I am sorry I was not able to be present when the Attorney-General made his speech. I am told that there is to be a Royal Commission on this matter, and I welcome that announcement. I presume that Commission will consider the whole of the circuit system. As an old circuiter, I should be very sorry if it were found necessary to sweep away or very seriously interfere with the old circuit system. Nevertheless I am not at all convinced that that system is not becoming an anachronism, and I will not say that it will have to be swept away, but, at any rate, I think it will have to be rather drastically dealt with. A good deal has been said about civic cases tried on circuit and criminal trials. I want to make a suggestion which has been for many years in my mind. I do not like to say, like the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, that I am speaking about what I understand, but I may say that I have had a good deal of experience on circuit in a great many criminal trials. I believe it will come to this, that we shall have to appoint strong men, with special qualities, as criminal judges—members of the High Court, paid the salaries of the High Courts, who should be always trying prisoners throughout, the country, so that no man may be kept in gaol for any length of time untried. To these judges should be transferred all the criminal jurisdiction of Quarter Sessions.
  2612
  We know that a man may be a most eminent judge as an equity judge, and he may be an absolute failure as a criminal judge. I remember when the equity judges were sent on circuit as an experiment, it turned out to be a most lamentable failure. I remember that we had one of the most eminent equity judges sent on circuit and when he came to try these cases he was astounded to hear that such offences were committed, and he sent people to penal servitude for long periods who only ought to have had short sentences. You want men of special capacity for criminal judges, men of the world, possessed of common sense. I hope that in future strong men will be appointed for their special qualities as criminal judges. I am aware that that might be the death blow to the circuit system, but all I am looking at is the interest of the community and that should be the basic principle of all legislation. I welcome the announcement that has been made by the Attorney-General with regard to the appointment of this Commission, and I hope he will be of opinion that my suggestion is one which will merit consideration in the future.
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I should not have intervened in this Debate, after the admirable speech of the Attorney-General, if it had not been for the fact that I hope we shall be able to persuade him to accept the Amendment, and, in the words of the hon. Baronet who moved it, to do the thing thoroughly and at once. I quite appreciate the difficulties he feels, but after all the figures he gave proved the case for which we are contending. He pointed out that the arrears in the year when the two judges were appointed were 1,120 and that by the efforts of those judges they were reduced by 380.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: With some assistance.
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I agree, and now they stand at 966, practically the same. I am sure—it is almost impertinent to say so—he has an honest wish to appoint a sufficient number of judges to cope with the arrears and to put an end to the injustice he has so ably pointed out. Is he going to do it with one judge? Tf two judges could only reduce the arrears by 380, how can you hope to make any reasonable impression on 966 with one judge? Everything he said would have told even more forcibly in favour of the appointment of two judges than for the appointment of one judge. I want to put

  2613
  the matter to the House from the point of view of the taxpayer, the point of view of the man who wants to get the best return for the money. We pay a very substantial, though certainly not an extravagant, sum by way of salaries to His Majesty's judges at the present time, and unless something of this kind is done we do not get an adequate return. The reason for that lies in the system under which judges are appointed in England. It is totally different from the system that obtains in any other European country. In any other European country which I know, a man enters the judicial service very much as he enters a branch of the Civil Service in England. He enters what is called the magistracy as a young man, and he works his way up until he obtains a judicial position somewhat similar to that of an English judge. He has no experience of the troubles of advocacy and very little experience of the world, and he has never been, in the ordinary sense of the word, through the mill. He has been a judge always, and nothing else.
  In England we wait until a man has obtained a position of some distinction in a strongly competitive profession. He has learned law because his bread-and-cheese depend upon his understanding it. He has fought on, and got a standing for himself at the Bar. Very often he has had the invaluable training of service in this House, a training which has certainly taught him to appreciate his own qualities probably as no other training could. He is put upon the Bench generally a man of the world, with experience of the world, of the troubles of advocacy, and of the troubles of litigants such as those he is going to try. Undoubtedly, if you compare the two systems, the English system is certainly the better, but it has the disadvantage that of necessity the man whom you have chosen is no longer young. It is the rarest thing that a judge should be appointed before he is past, say, the age of forty-nine or fifty, and the very position he has obtained before he is appointed has exhausted some of his energies. It must be so. What is the result? If you want to get a proper return for the salary you are paying him, you must not overwork the machine. In some quarters there is a sort of impression, derived from prehistoric novelettes, that a judge is a man who can be induced occasionally to leave a game of golf in order that he may sit in the Courts and deliver a judgment generally adverse to the interests of labour,
  2614
  make a few extremely bad jokes, fine a juryman for being late, and retire to a life of gilded splendour, varied only by the frivolities of the Athenæum Club.
  I do not suppose there is any more hard-worked official than one of His Majesty's judges. There is no greater mistake than to suppose that when he leaves the Court he leaves his work behind him. He does nothing of the kind. He sits there knowing nothing of the case going to be tried. The advocates on either side have probably taken days preparing their arguments. We have to dig out our law, because according to the English system there is no adequate statement of the law, and you have to find it in the authorities, and that is the dicta of judges. An advocate is singularly wanting in experience and duty if he is not able to find a great deal of dicta in support of any case which he is fortunate enough to represent. Consequently, advocates on one side and the other come armed with dicta of judges going back twenty years or more, and the judge is convinced first on one side and then on the other, with the result that in a great number of cases he has to reserve his judgment. That means he has to look up the cases for himself, find out where the truth lies, and what is the law. He has to find that out in his room and in his own library after Court hours. On the other hand, when ho goes on circuit it is a matter of physical strain for a man at his time of life. I will give a short example to the House of what happened to me in the very humble position I occupy as a Recorder. I went down about a fortnight ago, and sat from ten o'clock in the morning till ten at night at the request of the jury, who begged that they might be relieved from attending a second day. The instance is of no importance, except for emphasising the fact that what happens to a Recorder happens much oftener to a judge. Times out of number they sit with considerable strain to themselves and no small amount of danger to the cases they have to try to a late hour at night. That brings me back to the fact with which I began. If you want to get proper value out of the judges you must, appoint a sufficient staff and have a proper margin. You must be careful that you do not overwork your machinery, and, unless you appoint judges at the proper time, you will be doing that. I feel that the Attorney-General has met the matter with great fairness and has made the

  2615
  speech of a statesman. I hope he will carry his convictions to their logical conclusion and give us an adequate number of judges to deal with admitted arrears.
  Sir J. D. REES: I wish to dissociate myself very respectfully from the reasons given by hon. Gentlemen opposite for opposing this Amendment, and it is necessary that I should do so because I am myself opposing the Amendment. Hitherto the Debate has been taken part in almost entirely by lawyers and litigants. I do not think that is against the speeches that have been made; on the contrary, it might reasonably be an argument, in favour of their case, because everyone must have been struck by the high impartiality of the line taken. I am fully sensible of it, and I take in no respect any view against the judges. I would go further than the Attorney-General, who has wavered only in one respect, and that is iii his allegiance to the Long Vacation. I consider that it is not too long. The judges need it, and it is because of it that they are enabled to prolong their well-known efficiency and energy into so late in life. But for the accident that the authorities invented examinations at the time I began to eat my dinners, I might at this moment have been a learned Member myself.
  There is another point of view upon which this question rests, and that is the point of view of the poor litigants. Their case has been put with great force, no doubt, but there should also be put forward the case of those who are too poor to be litigants at all. I represent a Constituency which contains a large number of electors who are too poor to be interested in litigation. The hon. and learned Member for Brentford said that population and commerce and things of that sort had increased in this country most rapidly, but taxes are at the present moment increasing with a fearful and appalling rapidity. One thing after another comes along, and the only point of view that is certain to escape attention, and is not referred to in this House, is the point of view of the taxpayer, who has to pay for every now thing that is done. I shall be careful not to impart party politics into this Debate. Up to the present there has been a complete absence of that, but here we have a Government which, after all, is responsible for keeping the establishments throughout the country
  2616
  up to the proper mark—wo have them coming here and saying that one additional judge will be sufficient for the present, and I submit it will have a very serious effect upon the country if it is seen that while the Government say one judge is enough the Opposition come forward and ask for more. With what force could anybody, after that, when the Government propose an increase of the establishments in this country, charge them with recklessness in doing so?
  Sir A. MARKHAM: The reason why the Cabinet only recommended one judge was because it was frightened of the House of Commons.
  Sir J. D. REES: I hope that that is a kind of fear which will develop into timidity. I should be very glad to see a wholesome movement in that direction. One hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke stated that the public did not mind losing if they got a run for their money. I dispute that. I believe a litigant hates losing. I have been a judge myself. I know they detest losing, and nothing you can do will satisfy them if they lose. There is a class of person that cannot take this sporting view of litigation. With the best intention, and believing I am representing the views of my own Constituents, I say we must look with the utmost suspicion and must refuse to allow any extra appointments when the Government come forward and say that one is sufficient. We have no right to cry out, "Let us have two more judges."
  One hon. and learned Gentleman said that the appointment of extra judges costs the country nothing, as the extra stamp fees and so on cover the outlay. That would be an exceedingly dangerous argument to put forward even if it were sound. I do not think it is sound. But how dangerous would it be to suggest we can appoint as many judges as possible as long as litigants come forward and pay their expenses? A judge of the High Court receives a salary of £5,000 a year and he thoroughly well earns it, but when he has put in many years most efficient service for a by no means excessive salary, he is retired on a pension of £3,500 a year, and he shows wonderful vitality and lives a long time afterwards. Is his pension paid for by stamps? Of course it is not. It is a permanent charge, as long as that judge lives, upon the Exchequer. I do not see how you can get away from the fact, take it how you will.

  2617
  This is a proposal to make a permanent increase of the establishment, and it is a proposal such as I have fulminated against on every public platform for a long time past. I should not be consistent with the standard of public conduct as I understand it if I did not get up and express contrary opinions to those which have been put forward by my hon. and learned Friends, whose opinions I greatly value. As to the other remedies proposed, many of the speakers have girded at the Long Vacation. But it should be remembered that public men are breaking down on all sides under the strain of public life. The Long Vacation is the only thing which enables judges to go on. I have had experience of public life in what are considered to be most trying climates, and I protest that there is no service, either in India or the Colonies, which is nearly so exacting, so wearying, and so likely to break down the victim, as is the public service in this country at the present time. I submit that the Long Vacation is not too long. Whether the other proposals, such as the extension of the County Courts jurisdiction and so on, would meet the case, I do not know. It is extremely doubtful whether it will be popular. I argue on the assumption that we shall retain, as I hope we shall, the present system, and only allow such increases as are absolutely necessary. One hon. and learned Gentleman, quoting Lord Morley, said there was nothing so important as justice. I think there is one thing more important, and that is that a few pennies should be left in the pockets of the people. For one person who has to go to the Courts to get justice, there are some hundreds who never go near them, and it is desirable that they should be taxed as little as possible. I think they are even of greater importance than the greater efficiency and rapidity of the administration of justice. The hon. Baronet (Sir A. Markham) said: "What does the cost matter? If you want one, two, or three, or twenty judges, why not have them?" [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am amazed at the extravagance of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: If they are wanted.
  Sir J. D. REES: I thoroughly disagree with that. If there is one subject which ought to be very closely scrutinised, it is the permanent addition of one person to any establishment in this country. It is easy to make increases; it is impossible to
  2618
  make reductions. One reason why two judges are being proposed now is that the temporary Act provided for a possible two, and when the first opportunity offers and the Government suggests one to the House, hon. Members see there is a possibility of getting two, and ask for them at once, as the minimum. I cannot agree with that. I believe it is true that the reasons for the temporary Act providing for two judges were special and of a temporary character. They do not now obtain, or, if they do, they may not obtain next year, but once get two judges they will continue to exist whether or not the special or temporary circumstances arise.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: The hon. Member is quite wrong, for if any single judge dies or retires, the Government will of necessity have to come to this House and sanction the appointment of another.
  4.0 P.M.
  Sir J. D. REES: I am equally aware of the fact that the moment a judge dies an application will be made to appoint another. It will become a mere matter of course, and two will be the standard in the future. I come to the constitution of the Royal Commission. I do not care about Commissions myself, and think we have too many of them. If the Government have decided the matter I have no prejudice against lawyers; on the contrary, I belong to the guild myself by adoption, if not by profession—and if there is to be a Commission it is desirable that lawyers should not preponderate upon it. The remarks of hon. Members of this House who are not lawyers, however little they are worthy of attention on the score of the personality of the speaker, have some special value in a Debate like this. I agree with the arguments put forward from the other side of the House as to the composition of the Commission. As to the argument of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Hume-Williams), I think it was very ingenious; but I think it was a piece of special pleading when he said that because judges are appointed when they are old, therefore we should appoint more of them. No better method could be desired for the appointment of judges than that which exists in this country, for it provides good judges. I know British possessions where different methods are pursued which produce far less satisfactory results. Before the hon. and learned Member gets rid of the present system I hope he will remember how exceedingly

  2619
  well it has worked, and provided the best judges in the world, a class among which I hope and believe that in no long time we shall find him. The reason I intervened in this Debate was that nobody has spoken for the class which I believe to be most interested, who never see the inside of the Courts or have any interest in lawyers, litigation, or any such subject. They are the largest number of the taxpayers. If it is the case that the addition of extra judges costs the taxpayers nothing, I shall be glad if the Attorney-General will make that clearer to the House than it is at present to myself. I shall be very much astonished if he does. Only one further observation. I wish to express my great concurrence with what the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke) said. I do not think that anyone who has heard the Debate believed that any ulterior motive has governed the hon. and learned Gentlemen who have spoken. It only remains for me to thank the House for listening to a layman on this subject.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: This Debate has produced many happy results, and among them is the satisfaction it has given the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down—a satisfaction denied to him for some time—of making a speech against hon. Gentlemen who sit on the same benches. I have risen to associate myself with the hon. Baronet (Sir A. Markham) and the hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite in the appeal to the Attorney-General to see whether he cannot reconsider his view that he cannot accept the Amendment. I think a case has been amply made out for two judges. If in 1910 two judges were required to deal with the then state of affairs, surely to-day, when the arrears are almost as great as they were then—the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) says they are larger than they were then—the case for two judges is amply made out to-day. If the Attorney-General cannot see his way to accept the Amendment, may I make this suggestion, that the sense of the House should be taken, and that no party Whips should be put on. That would relieve the Attorney-General of all responsibility in the matter, and leave the House free to express its opinion as a result of this Debate. I do not see that there is anything in the statement which has been made that certain Members of the House are not present here to-day. Of course, if they were away
  2620
  owing to misapprehension it is their own fault. The Amendment has been on the Paper for some weeks, and if anyone likes to absent himself from the House under those circumstances he cannot be said to be taken by surprise because the Attorney-General has determined to accept the Amendment.
  There are two wrong assumptions that underlie the criticism which has been addressed to this proposal by two or three hon. Members on the other side of the House. They seem to think that Members of the legal profession have a vested interest in the law's delays. The hon. Member (Mr. A. C. Morton) said it in so many words. Everyone who knows the conditions under which members of the Bar do their work knows that it is just the reverse. There is nobody in this country who objects more to arrears than members of the Bar. The other thing is this. I have heard it constantly stated here that members of the Bar wish to bolster up the antiquated circuit system. Nothing of the sort. They have no vested interest in keeping it up. The interest of every legal practitioner is to concentrate the work in as few places as possible, because then he can earn his money more easily and more plentifully. But members of the Bar who uphold the circuit system do so not in their interest at all, but in the interest of the public. With regard to the scope of the inquiry which will be conducted, I suppose, by the Royal Commission, the hon. Member (Mr. Craig) read an account which he took from a diary of Lord Russell of Killowen as to what happened in North Wales twelve or twenty years ago. That state of things—I cannot speak for North Wales, but I am perfectly certain it does not prevail in South Wales at present, though it may easily be that the Commission can usefully alter some of the rules which govern circuit practice at present. For instance, next week there will be an Assize held at Carmarthen for the trial of prisoners not only for the county of Carmarthen but for the two adjacent counties as well, and I am not at all certain that this Commission will not find it possible to enlarge that system and hold joint assizes at Carmarthen and similar places, not only for one county but for two or three. I do not know how that may be, but there is one thing I, as a Welsh Member, should like to remind the House of. We had in Wales a separate Judicature, which worked exceedingly well right up to 1830. It was

  2621
  established in 1542, in the time of Henry VIII. It was called the King's Court of Great Sessions in Wales, and, though I have been looking through the evidence taken before the Commission which sat in 1828 preparatory to the abolition of this Court, I have been utterly unable to find any reasonable argument which was then adduced in favour of the abolition of those Courts.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: The judges did not know a word of Welsh.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: Do they now?
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: I hope so.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: They do not. In my recollection not a single High Court judge has come to the North or South Wales Circuit who has known a word of Welsh. Though the majority of the judges of the Courts of Great Sessions in Wales did not know Welsh a great number of them did and you find mentioned as early as the time of Queen Elizabeth by Jarrard, who was afterwards, I believe, Irish Chancellor, a recommendation made by him to Sir William Cecil that one of the judges in each of the Courts of Great Sessions of Wales should be acquainted with the Welsh language. The Welsh system of judicature was abolished in 1830 against the wish of the Welsh people, against the protests of Welsh Members in this House and especially against the very eloquent protests made by a predecessor of mine, a Member for Carmarthen Boroughs, who was a practising barrister at the time. I have never been able to understand why the old Whigs of those days did away with the Welsh system of judicature. I hope that one of the duties of this Commission will be to inquire into the special case of Wales, where, except in one or two very small counties, there might be instituted a better system than we have at present.
  A great deal has been said about the waste of time at Assizes. I would suggest one way in which the time of the High Court judges could be saved. We all know that a great number of crimes cannot be tried at Quarter Sessions. Why on earth any distinction should be made between one crime and another, and one can be tried at Quarter Sessions and another cannot, I have never been able to ascertain. For instance, a burglar may be tried at Quarter Sessions and sentenced to penal servitude for life, but that is the only crime that can be tried at Quarter
  2622
  Sessions for which that is the penalty. Take much smaller crimes than burglary, such as wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. That is a case where, I think, a sentence of penal servitude for life can be passed, but it is not tried at Quarter Sessions. Why not? Criminal libel cannot be tried at Quarter Sessions. Why not? There are cases in connection with the Corrupt Practices Act which cannot be tried at Quarter Sessions. I have never been able to understand myself on what principle a distinction is drawn. I hope when the terms of reference to the Commission come to be drafted it will be competent to empower the Commission to inquire whether this absurd distinction between one crime and another should be done away with, so that all crimes, except perhaps the serious crime of murder, could be tried at Quarter Sessions.
  Mr. HILLS: I rise for the purpose of asking the Attorney-General once more to yield to the very general opinion of all sides of the House in favour of appointing two judges. I am sure, after what we have heard, if for reasons which we all appreciate, he cannot officially give way, he might give way to the extent of allowing the House to decide, even if the House were to come to a different conclusion from that of the private Committee whose recommendation represents the concentrated essence of the Cabinet. This question is before the House, and the House is as nearly unanimous as I have ever known it to be upon any subject during my six years' experience of Parliament. Even if we do appoint two judges, we shall not impose any charge on the pockets of the taxpayers, for whom hon. Gentlemen opposite plead so eloquently. A judge will pay his own way in Court fees, and he will pay practically his pension as well. Besides, we are surely not going to deny justice to numerous people just for the sake of £2,000 or £3,000 a year. Surely we must preserve some sense of proportion, and when we are spending a million and a, half in improving a recent Act of Parliament it is not too much to spend a few thousands on this. But the cost will not be anything at all. The House should also remember that after these two judges are appointed when the number becomes reduced by two, by retirement or death, the House cannot increase the number until the House has so agreed. I approach this matter from a different standpoint from that of all the Members who have spoken except my hon. Friend the Member

  2623
  for Brentford; that is the point of view of a solicitor. I wish to refer to the question of speedy trial and the question of holidays, which is sometimes linked with it. It is sometimes forgotten that these holidays, when judges and counsel are away recruting their energies, are the one time to which the solicitor looks for the preparation of his case. Cases often want a very large preparation, and the only time he has got is when the Courts are not sitting. From this point of view I wish again to emphasise the danger of having too small a staff of judges.
  What happens is that as soon as the arrears have grown very numerous, great pressure is put on the judges, from the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice, to clear the lists. The effect is that they are very reluctant to give time to litigants who want to postpone a trial of their case, and so the effect of a small staff of judges is that cases are often brought forward too soon. It sounds a paradox, but still it is the case to the knowledge of all solicitors, because it may well happen that a man is suddenly attacked by an action. He may have a very good defence, but it involves a very large amount of preparation. One witness may be in America or a large number of books or records have got to be searched. All that takes time, and it is in the interests of justice that time should be given. That time is not given when there is great pressure of public opinion to clear arrears. So for all reasons it is the very falsest of false economies if we are niggardly in the appointment of judges. Even when w7e appoint the two judges, as I hope we shall, we then shall have only a very small margin over the actual amount required for the sittings in Courts. The hon. Baronet referred to Saturday sittings. I do not believe, as a matter of business, that it pays in London to have Saturday sittings. I believe that you get more efficient business and just as speedy justice without them, and I think that five days a week is quite sufficient for a busy judge to sit. I do not think the holiday on Saturday, or, say, on a certain proportion of Saturday is excessive, and the three or three and a half hours' sitting that you get on Saturday means a large amount of dislocation and very little work done, and I do not believe myself that it is worth it.
  I should like to ask the Attorney-General how wide the scope of this in-
  2624
  quiry is going to be. Will there be an inquiry into procedure, because I think we could save a great deal of time by a readjustment of business? Take one instance, that of revenue actions in which the only question to be decided is whether, under a certain Statute, Estate Duty is or is not payable. For that you have all the long and complicated procedure of an action by the Crown, and an expensive trial, though the same question could be settled in the Chancery Division on the much simpler procedure of an originating summons. This is the sort of questions Chancery Judges are settling every day, and I believe that by a certain amount of reform in procedure a great deal might be saved. I am quite aware that there would be difficult and technical points, but still, I think, the reform I suggest lies very near the root of the subject and would save a great deal of time. I am sure the House quite appreciates the reason why the Attorney-General feels unable to consent to this Motion, and it is in accordance with the very high standard of personal conduct that always obtains in this House. Still, I think we are entitled to read between the lines of his speech, and I hope I am not doing him an injustice if I venture to say that he is in favour of two judges.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It is necessary that I should answer the question put to me by the hon. Member who has just spoken and by my hon. Friend below the Gangway. I have listened to the whole of this Debate, and the view that I expressed after the Amendment had been moved is the view to which I adhere. I think that this is a matter upon which I cannot change the opinion which I expressed before, and I shall oppose this Amendment and support the view which I put forward on behalf of the Government, and which is the view recommended by the Cabinet Committee. At the same time I think, on a matter of this kind, the House is entitled to express its opinion, and I do not propose to put on the Government Whips, but leave the question entirely to the House to decide in accordance with its own views. I have expressed my view as clearly as I can, and explained the way in which I intend to vote in this matter. I would now make an appeal to the House to arrive at a conclusion, the subject having been discussed in all its details.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: One matter has not been spoken of which I think of the

  2625
  utmost importance, and should be mentioned. I am wholly in favour, of course, of an increase in the number of judges. Nothing is more essential than that speedy and swift justice should be brought to the poorest man's door. The money saved to the British taxpayer by keeping justice for one moment from the very humblest individual is wasted money, and could not be any blessing. I have said, as any man of humanity would say, that I approve of the appointment of additional judges, but let me say that the method of procuring the appointment of a judge by an Address to the Crown in the House of Commons is a very bad precedent, and extremely wrong from the constitutional point of view. My right hon. Friend, with his right honourable and good character, took the House immediately into his confidence, and he said that he could not accept the Amendment because he was acting, as a Member of the Cabinet, in pursuance of a Resolution of the Cabinet Committee. That again shows the enormous disadvantage of this procedure. The Address to the Crown for the appointment of a judge must be stimulated by the Executive Government, must be in itself an act of the Executive Government, and must, in the nature of things, and this is my point, invade what may properly be called the high prerogative of the Lord Chancellor that he should appoint the judges alone. I have in my hand a letter from a gentleman whose name shines very brightly indeed on legal and judicial aspects, and he puts this point far more bluntly than I would do. He writes, this is
  "a point of real constitutional importance. The House of Commons is going I see to pass an Address praying for an additional judge for the King's Bench Division under the Judicature Act of 1910, which makes such an Address necessary when the Puisne Judges are fifteen or upwards. They are now fifteen, hence the Address. It is reasonably clear that hereafter sixteen Puisne Judges will be the minimum, the past few months having shown that fifteen are quite inadequate, and that seventeen, the total of two years ago, are not too many,—"
  The letter continues—and this is the pith of it—
  "but certain it is that they will soon fall below fifteen. The necessity for an Address appears to an outsider to shift the patronage from the Lord Chancellor to the Prime Minister of the day. An agitative Lord Chancellor who wanted the new judge might not be unwilling to accept the nominee of the Whips, they being in command of the situation. In fact the situation will be 'No X—no Address.' The Lord Chancellor has hitherto been entirely free in the matter of judicial appointments, and on the whole with great advantage, so that it would be a serious thing to hamper hint unnecessarily, but it looks as if this consequence had hot been foreseen—I mean that whenever a judge is appointed the Whips should have a say."
  2626
  The method of an Address to the Throne is a wrong principle. I asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General in an interruption whether in the terms of reference to the Commission the method of the appointment of judges would be included, and he told me "No." I confess that the method of appointment of Puisne Judges by the Lord Chancellor is, in my judgment, when it is exercised by a Lord Chancellor, who has the traditions of his profession and the dignity of the position, and who holds himself as trustee for the people, the very best possible. I am fortified in that by a reminiscence which cannot be of unimportance. So far back as 1874 my lamented friend, Mr. Isaac Butt, who was then Leader of the Irish party, proposed a Motion in this House that Irish judges should be appointed in the same way as English judges are, by the Lord Chancellor, without any consideration of political or personal influence or service. It is because I, like everyone who has been connected with Irish public life, have had melancholy experience of judges appointed absolutely for political reasons in Ireland that I want Puisne Judges to be free.
  Mr. MORTON: Will the hon. Member tell us who wrote that letter?
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: No, I shall not indeed. The letter is not marked "Private," but I am perfectly certain it was never intended to be read by me in the House of Commons, and I would be committing a great breach of confidence if I gave the name. But I can assure the hon. Member that his curiosity would be gratified if he knew the name.
  Mr. MORTON: The hon. Member asks us to be led away by an anonymous letter.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: I am not anonymous, and I take the responsibility on myself. The appointment of a Puisne Judge should of all things be non-political. It is shown again and again in our Statute Books that it is meant to be non-political. In the Election Petitions Act, for example, the Lord Chief Justice, who is bound to have had a political career and to have proceeded from the House of Commons to the bench, is excluded from serving in such actions. An honoured Member of this House once said that he would like a self-denying ordinance to be made that Members of the House of Commons should not go on the bench. I do not want to go on the bench myself, but I should be very sorry if such an ordinance were passed. It

  2627
  is one of the glories of this House and of this Government that Lord Chancellors of England have again and again appointed to the bench men opposed to the Government in the House of Commons; It has been done with excellent results, in the cases, for example, of Mr. Montagu Smith and the present Master of the Rolls, and also in Scotland in the case of an ex-Lord Advocate.
  If any man other than the Lord Chancellor would be justified in exercising influence in the selection of judges, it would be the present Prime Minister, who is as much read in the law as the Lord Chancellor himself. But it is absolutely essential that the Lord Chancellor should have the absolute command of the appointment of judges. If that is not the case, the appointments may become political in England, as they have been in Ireland with the very worst results. Lord John Russell, when Prime Minister, in the course of his examination before a Committee, was asked how he appointed Puisne Judges. He replied, "I never appoint them at all. The Lord Chancellor appoints them absolutely. He informs me simply as a matter of news who the man is." The then Home Secretary, who also was examined, said, "I have nothing whatever to do with it. The Lord Chancellor appoints them solely and wholly on his own responsibility." If an Address to the Crown on the appointment of every judge becomes necessary, I am certain that this will never happen. The late Lord Campbell, when Lord Chancellor, on his sole responsibility, appointed to the bench Colin Blackburn, an outsider with very little practice. He had the "Times" and other papers rattling at him, and the question was asked, "Who is Mr. Blackburn?" In his diary he records, "All these things are passed away. I have given great disappointment to many. … but I have made the best appointments in my power." How admirably he was justified? Lord Lyndhurst would not allow himself to be spoken to. Lord Eldon, who was no great stickler for constitutional principles, when he came to appoint Puisne Judges, was approached by the Prince Regent who wanted to plead for a personal friend. Lord Eldon at once tendered his resignation. Mr. Gladstone who bore some people, including pious lawyers, very gladly, allowed Lord Sel-borne to override a suggestion of his own. It may be said that you are giving into the
  2628
  power of a single man, who is a law officer, the head of the judiciary, an officer of the Crown, and a judge, such power—is it right? I say, yes, because a Lord Chancellor who is really worthy of the position will never violate it. Men have done so and men have known even on the Woolsack what it is to have the sanction of public opinion against them, especially the public opinion of our profession. Against such no man can stand, or ought to stand. It is on these grounds and as a poor outsider in reference to a great system that I offer these hints. I hope those who are concerned will take to heart what I have said in venturing with much humility to intervene in this Debate.
  Mr. HODGE: I have no desire to detain the House for any length of time, but in my experience in this Chamber and outside, I have never known any body of men to sing their own praises so much as members of the legal profession have done here to-day. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for St. George's, Hanover-Square, had a very high eulogium to pass upon His Majesty's judges. I do not know that I can altogether agree with what he said. If he had qualified it to some extent I think it would have met with more general approval. There is one particular point, however, that I regretted very much that the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General did not agree to make the subject of inquiry, and that was the method of preferment of the judges. It is a matter of common notoriety that the great bulk of the judges and other preferments are made because of political services rendered to a party. I quite agree that the present Lord Chancellor has selected political opponents to go upon the bench. His immediate predecessor did the same thing, but their predecessor was hardly ever known to prefer a political opponent. Lord Halsbury hardly ever appointed a political opponent as a judge. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes."] Hardly ever.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: There was Justice Wright and Justice Cozens Hardy.
  Mr. HODGE: I say of my own knowledge that what has been done demonstrated his partisanship. The result was seen in one of the judges who appeared at the Durham Assizes, when a miner was brought before him. Simply because—
  Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the time to criticise the action of particular judges.

  2629
  If the hon. Member wishes to do that, he must give notice of a Resolution in the usual manner; then the matter can be discussed.
  Mr. HODGE: I was only desirous of showing that political partisanship did enter into the appointment of some judges, and that they were not so virtuous as hon. Members—
  Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the time nor the opportunity for doing that. If the hon. Member wishes to do that, there is a well-known form by which he can do it.
  Mr. HODGE: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, for having a second time transgressed. This Debate is evidence of the power of the legal trade union, and so far as they are concerned, of course they are judge and jury. The reason we have so many of the legal profession in this House is that they are all after legal preference, [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] My opinion is that many legal Gentlemen secure preferment by being Members of this House which they would not secure if they were outside the House. While I have no objections to the appointment of another judge, or even two judges, if it is going to expedite legal business, I do object to the various methods by which a number of lawyers extol their own virtues.
  Mr. RIGBY SWIFT: I should like to ask the Attorney-General one question, which I think may clear the air a little. As I listened to the speech in which the right hon. Gentleman introduced his Motion—a speech by which we were all very much impressed—I gathered that the Committee of the Cabinet came to the conclusion that one judge at least should be appointed. It seems to me that was the conclusion—
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think what I said was that the Committee thought it was indispensable that one judge should be appointed.
  Mr. RIGBY SWIFT: At least! I am willing to take it as the Attorney-General puts it now. The Committee thought it indispensable that one judge should be appointed, but they did not say it was not advisable that two judges should be appointed, and in fixing the minimum of what was absolutely essential the Committee had not got before them evidence of the strong consensus of opinion expressed in all quarters of the House this
  2630
  afternoon. I venture to hope, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment. It seems to me that all the arguments conclusively prove that you will be only half doing the work now if you confine yourself to appointing only one judge.
  Mr. HAMAR GREENWOOD: I want to say this, and this only, that in matters of this kind, especially after what the Attorney-General has said, I do not see that the Resolution of the Committee of the Cabinet has the slightest effect upon the merits of this question. That Committee had no more knowledge than this House. The suggestion that the House of Commons on a great national question of this kind, where no party interests are concerned, should for a moment listen to what the Executive suggests, is a point of view against which I most vehemently protest. On the merits, and especially after the eloquent speech of the Attorney-General, it is clearly proved that two additional judges at least are necessary. [HON. MKMBEES: "No, no."] Certainly! I support the Amendment not only upon its merits, but especially as I object, as a Member of the House of Commons, to the slightest suggestion that we as Members of this House have not a right to exercise our own discretion as to the number of His Majesty's judges required without any further reasons than those given in the speech of the Attorney-General.
  Colonel YATE: The Attorney-General told us that the judges were appointed with a salary of £5,000 a year, with a pension of £3,500. I would like to ask is there any precedent for any official getting a pension of more than 50 per cent, of his salary?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with this question.
  Colonel YATE: Is it not the case that in other professions it is considered advisable to regulate matters by fixing the age for retirement? Does the Attorney-General not think that the age of seventy-five, eighty, or eighty-five should be the limit?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 121; Noes, 90.

  Division No. 274.]

  AYES.

  [4.50 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Hazleton, Richard

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

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Malley, William

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Hinds, John

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Hodge, John

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Barnes, George N.

  Hughes, S. L.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

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

  Jones, Leif Stratton (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Joyce, Michael

  Radford, George Heynes

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Keating, M.

  Reddy, Michael

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Kelly, Edward

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  King, Joseph

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Clough, William

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Lansbury, George

  Rowlands, James

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Leach, Charles

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeten)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lundon, T.

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

  Cullinan, John

  Lynch, A. A.

  Sheehy, David

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  McGhee, Richard

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Delany, William

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Dickinson, W. H.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Doris, William

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Duffy, William J.

  Martin, Joseph

  Thomas, James Henry

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Meagher, Michael

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Falconer, James

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Mooney, John J.

  White. J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Morison, Hector

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Herbert Craig and Mr. Wedgwood.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Grady, James

  NOES.

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks)

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Barrie, H. T.

  Hills, John Walter

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Roch, Walter F.

  Boyton, James

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Bull, Sir William James

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Crickdale)

  Shortt, Edward

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Clough, William

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Swift, Rigby

  Cotton, William Francis

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Dawes, James A.

  Macpherson, James

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Fell, Arthur

  Millar, James Duncan

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Morgan, George Hay

  Webb, H.

  Glanville, H. J.

  Muldoon, John

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Neilson, Francis

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Gulland, John William

  Nolan, Joseph

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Hackett, John

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Hall, Marshall, (E. Toxteth)

  O'Dowd, John

  Younger, Sir George

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Markham and Mr. W. Joynson-Hicks.

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

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Main Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 199; Noes, 14.

  Division No. 275.]

  AYES.

  [4.55 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Dowd, John

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

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

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Hills, J. W.

  O'Malley, William

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Hinds, John

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Barrie, H. T.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Boland, John Pius

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

  Radford, George Heynes

  Boyton, James

  Joyce, Michael

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Keating, Matthew

  Reddy, Michael

  Bull, Sir William James

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Kelly, Edward

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  King, Joseph

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Roch, Walter F.

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Rowlands, James

  Clough, William

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon H. L. (Cleveland)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lundon, Thomas

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

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

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Sheehy, David

  Crumley, Patrick

  McGhee, Richard

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Cullinan, John

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Shortt, Edward

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Delany, William

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Doris, William

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Duffy, William J.

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Swift, Rigby

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Martin, Joseph

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Falconer, James

  Mason, D. M. (Coventry)

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Meagher, Michael

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Fell, Arthur

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Ffrench, Peter

  Millar, James Duncan

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Ward, W. (Dudley (Southampton)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Mooney, John J.

  Webb, H.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Morgan, George Hay

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Morison, Hector

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Muldoon, John

  Whyte, Alexander F.

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

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Neilson, Francis

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Hackett, John

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Yate, Col C. E.

  Harrnsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  O'Brien, Patrick Kilkenny)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O' Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Younger, Sir George

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O' Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Doherty, Philip

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

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

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  NOES.

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Thomas, J. H.

  Barnes, George N.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hodge, John

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Lansbury, George

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. W. Thorne and Mr. Tyson Wilson.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  O'Grady, James

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty representing that the number of the Puisne Judges of the King's Bench Division of the High Court
  2634
  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

  2635
  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.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Four minutes after Five o'clock, until Monday next, 28th October, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14th October.

  PETITIONS PRESENTED DURING THE WEEK.
  The following Petitions were presented during the week and ordered to lie upon the Table:—

  TUESDAY.
  Criminal Law Amendment Bill—Petition from St. Austell, in favour.
  Land Values (Scotland) Bill—Petition from Glasgow, in favour.

  WEDNESDAY.
  Bankruptcy Bill [Lords]—Petition from Glasgow, for alteration.
  Criminal Law Amendment Bill—Petition from Earlsfield, in favour.
  Franchise and Registration Bill—Petitions for alteration, from Manchester and Uphall.

  THURSDAY.
  Criminal Law Amendment Bill—Petition from Rochdale, for alteration.

  FRIDAY.
  Criminal Law Amendment Bill—Petition from Mortimer, for alteration.
  Franchise and Registration Bill—Petition from Hornsey, for alteration.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  TEACHING PROFESSION (APPROVED SOCIETIES).
  TEACHING PROFESSION (APPROVED SOCIETIES).
  CERTIFICATES OF EXEMPTION (INCOME TAX).
  CERTIFICATES OF EXEMPTION (INCOME TAX).
  National Education (Ireland).
  National Education (Ireland).
  Post Office Engineers.
  Post Office Engineers.
GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  IRISH SERVICES (COST).
  IRISH SERVICES (COST).
  Royal Army Medical Corps.
  Royal Army Medical Corps.
  Motor Vehicles (Identification Plates).
  Motor Vehicles (Identification Plates).
  Irish Store Cattle.
  Irish Store Cattle.