asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a precedent exists for the representation by this country to a Foreign Power as to alleged ill-treatment of political prisoners, and that Mr. Gladstone's pamphlets on political prisoners in Naples were sent by our Foreign Office to our representatives at all the Courts of Europe with the view that they should be noted by the various Governments; and whether, having regard to the action which our country has taken in the past in using all legitimate pressure to further political liberty and justice, he will consider the propriety of approaching other Powers on behalf of political captives who are alleged to suffer without trial in the prisons of Portugal and Russia?

The answer to the hon. Member's question is in the negative.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to the effect that the Russian law acknowledges the existence of political prisoners, or any information regarding the sentences passed on such prisoners, or the crimes for which such prisoners are punished; whether the allegations made regarding such prisoners and the punishments inflicted upon them have, so far as the Foreign Office is aware, any authenticity; and whether His Majesty's Government has acquired by treaty, instrument, or capitulation any right or title to inquire into or make representations concerning the internal administration of a friendly Power?

The answer to all the hon. Member's question is in the negative.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the number of robberies that are reported to have occurred on the Bushire-Ispahan trade route in Persia during March last, including the looting of a caravan of lamb skins, the property of Russian subjects; whether the Russian owners have been or are to be compensated for their loss; and, if so, whether he will insist upon the right of British subjects to be equally compensated for the losses that they have incurred?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part my only information is to the effect that according to a report received by the Persian Government the chief official at Yezdikhast pursued the robbers and recovered the goods. As regards British losses; I see no reason to depart from the procedure hitherto followed whereby failing recovery of the goods or satisfaction being given by the local authorities, a claim is presented to the central Government by His Majesty's Minister at Teheran.

May I ask if there is any prospect of the claims being satisfied?

I am afraid that the pecuniary claims in Persia are not in a very satisfactory condition, and therefore the only certain remedy is to recover the goods. I think in some instances that remedy has been obtained in the case of British goods, but I gather that, in this particular Russian case, the goods were recovered.

Will the British Minister press for compensation in cases where the goods have not been recovered?

The claims are put on record, and, of course, we shall press for compensation and the actual payment, whenever Persian finances admit of it.

Can the right hon. Gentleman take no steps to make the trade routes more safe for British subjects?

That has been discussed at length, and the step we have encouraged is the gendarmerie under Swedish officers, which has lately made some progress in the protection of the routes.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information as to the present state of affairs in Tibet; and whether the condition that the Republic of China will not be recognised till the question of Tibet has been satisfactorily settled still holds good?

The latest reports show that hostilities are still in progress between the Chinese and the tribesmen on the eastern frontiers of Tibet. But otherwise all Chinese officials and troops have left the country, which is being peaceably administered by the Tibetan authorities. With regard to the question of recognition, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given to the unstarred question by the hon Member for East Nottingham on the 7th ultimo and to the statement during the Debate on the Motion for Adjournment on the 8th instant.

May I ask if that means the conditions formerly imposed will not now be enforced?

The statement was that we were anxious to make the formal recognition of China in concert with the other. Powers, and that the one condition of which we were now asking for general recognition on the part of the Chinese Government was that previously existing treaties should be maintained.

Will the question of Tibet be settled before that recognition is given?

I do not know when the question of Tibet will be definitely settled. We had not contemplated the making of the special recognition of Tibet a particular condition apart from the general recognition of existing treaties.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India when the Report of the Delhi Town-planning Committee will be published; and whether an opportunity will be afforded to the House to discuss its recommendations?

The Delhi Town-planning Committee has submitted three reports—the first report on the election of a site; submitted after the first visit of the Committee to India; a special report on the possibility of building the Imperial capital on the north site, and a final report on the town planning of the new capital. The three reports have been printed in India, and copies are now on their way to this country for presentation to Parliament. The last part of the question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but in the normal course the House, if it chooses, can discuss these matters with others in the debate on the East Indian Revenue Accounts.

Can we be assured that copies of these reports will come over in sufficient number for them to be generally circulated, or will only one or two copies come?

A sufficient number of copies will be sent over to circulate them to every Member of the House.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India has yet come to a decision as to the conduct of the honorary magistrate who recorded the confession of the accused in the Poonah torture case; and, if so, can he state what it is; and whether the reforms promised by him and published on 25th September, 1911, have ever been carried out, and especially whether the local governments have yet considered the question therein stated to have been submitted to them as to the advantage of having confessions recorded at all before the commencement of the trial?

The honorary magistrate to whom the hon. Member refers has been deprived of his powers. As regards the reforms promised in September, 1911, action in various directions has been taken, and generally it may be said that most of the reforms have been carried out. I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question on 15th April last. The reply to the last part of the question is in the affirmative. The Government of India have not, however, as yet communicated the result of their consideration of the opinions expressed by the local governments.

asked how many applications have been made by non-commissioned officers of the unattached list in the Secunderabad Division to go on furlough for the years 1910, 1911, and 1912; and how many passages were available in each such year?

The Secretary of State has not the information, but will ask the Government of India for it if the hon. Member so desires.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the custom of only allotting a limited number of passages to the unattached non-commissioned officers in India who desire furlough is in fact depriving them of their rights under the Army Regulations to come home on furlough after six years' service in India; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take?

The answer is in the negative. The Indian Army Regulations do not confer on unattached non-commissioned officers a right to a free passage to England with furlough after six years' service. The Regulations make this term of service a condition of eligibility, while restricting to 100 a year the number of free passages with furlough that may be granted to officers of this class. Applicants have to take their turn in order of length of service abroad, unless they like to pay the cost of a passage. The Secretary of State does not consider that the Regulation calls for amendment.

asked whether the, Committee presided over by Lord Nicholson has yet presented its Report?

The Secretary of State has no official information on the subject, but he understands that a Report has been submitted to the Government of India, by whom the Committee was appointed, and by whom any recommendations will in the first instance be dealt with.

Will the hon. Member bear in mind the desire on the part of many Members in this House to discuss the Report before any of the recommendations made are carried into effect?

I will bear it in mind, but I do not think that there is any probability of the Report being published at all.

asked the Secretary of State for War if, under the Regulations of the War Office, the First Lord of the Admiralty is entitled to any special ceremonial recognition; if so, what is the nature of the same; and, if there is no such special recognition, whether he will take steps to ensure that the high position occupied by the First Lord of the Admiralty is adequately recognised?

This matter is governed by paragraphs 1807 and 1810 of the King's Regulations. There is no intention of amending them.

asked, in further reference to the accident to Lieutenant Dawson, of the North Midland Field Ambulance, if, when the accident referred to occurred, Lieutenant Dawson was occupied in the duty of taking a horse of the Territorial Force back to headquarters; and whether he was still on the manœuvring area in uniform, and in the company and under the command of Captain Wraith, a superior officer, by whom, if the accident had not happened, he would have been dismissed from duty on his arrival at headquarters?

I regret that I can add nothing to the answer given to a similar question on 22nd April of this year.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the final statement made in the question is true or not—that is, whether this officer was on military duty at the time?

There are always cases of hardship in dealing with questions of this kind, which are on the border line. I do not demur to the statement in the question, but what I said in answer to the previous question was that that did not bring this case within the Regulations.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by which branch of the Inland Revenue Department Mineral Rights Duty is levied; and what is the estimated annual cost of levying such duty?

The Land Values Branch of the Secretaries' Office, London, and the Offices of the Assistant Secretary and Comptroller in Edinburgh and in Dublin are concerned with the levying of Mineral Rights Duty. It is not possible to separate with any approach to accuracy the cost of collecting this duty from the cost of collecting Inland Revenue Duties generally.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the dicta of the Lord Chancellor and Lords Shaw and Moulton in the recent case of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Herbert and others, that original site value by reference to which Increment Value Duty is to be ascertained under Section 1 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, is not the assessable site value recorded in the valuation under Section 25, he will state how many assessments to Increment Value Duty have been made inaccurately; what steps he proposes to take to rectify the errors of the Commissioners; and by what method the correct amount of Increment Value Duty will be calculated?

I can at present add nothing to the reply which I gave on the 7th instant in answer to the questions of the hon. and learned Member for West St. Pancras and the hon. Member for Chelmsford.

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is now in a position to make any statement in regard to additional appointments to the staff of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland?

I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the result of his communications with the Governor of British East Africa with regard to the trial of an Italian at Nairobi, on 5th February last, on the charge of killing a native by kicking him in the stomach; and whether he is now prepared to consider a modification of the existing jury system in the case of capital charges in which racial feeling may be involved?

I understand from the Governor that he is not yet in a position to furnish me with a report on the jury system pending the result of the personal inquiry which he is making. A despatch is now on its way to me which presumably will contain information as to the trial of the Italian.

Will the right hon. Gentleman lay Papers with reference to the whole question when the right time arrives?

If and when the right time arrives for the Papers to be laid they will be laid. I will consider the question.

Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly inform me when he receives the Report as to the trial of the Italian, which has already been very long delayed?

Yes.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the result of the sale of Government land by public auction at Nairobi on 7th April last, at which all the plots but two were bought by a single purchaser; whether many of these plots were sold less than an hour after at four times the price paid to the Government; and whether he proposes to substitute for this method of sale some system which will be more likely to meet the needs of small buyers who are prepared to settle upon farms themselves and do not merely buy to re-sell?

I have no information from the Governor as to the result of the sale to which my hon. friend refers. I have seen an account in the local papers which bear out his statements, but I may point out that the plots in question were offered for residential purposes in Nairobi, and were not farms.

Will the business for next week be, as already announced, the Government of Ireland Bill?

I have to announce a change in the business for next week. In order to comply with the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, we must secure the Second Reading of the Finance Bill before we take the Second Reading of the three Bills recently introduced, and which it is our intention to take consecutively. We, therefore, propose to take the Second Reading of the Finance Bill on Monday next, and to postpone the Second Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill until the following week. I hope to-morrow to indicate the business to be taken on the other days of next week.

Was the consideration to which the right hon. Gentleman refers present to the mind of the Prime Minister at the time he made the announcement the other day?

It was a purely provisional announcement, and the Prime Minister definitely stated that.

Yes, he did.

If the Government succeed in getting the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill, will they make any attempt to make progress with further Orders on the Paper to-night?

We hope to be able to get a little further business.

What is it proposed to get on with?

Will the Mental Deficiency Bill be taken?

I understand it is proposed to proceed with the Mental Deficiency Bill.

Was it not stated that the Mental Deficiency Bill would not be taken to-day?

I am informed that that is not the case, but if my hon. Friend can refer me to any statement or promise to that effect, of course that would affect the decision on the matter. However, I am assured that no promise of that kind was made.

May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the announcement he has made, he means definitely to state that the Government of Ireland Bill will be taken on Monday week?

In all probability it will be taken on Monday week.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister stated that the Bee Diseases Bill would be proceeded with? [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]

Of course the Government would be very glad to get all the Orders up to and inclusive of Order 7, which is the Bee Diseases Bill, and if the hon. Gentleman can persuade his hon. Friends behind him, we shall be very glad to proceed with the Bee Diseases Bill in the proper course.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Bee Diseases Bill is a highly controversial Bill, and is opposed on both sides?

Would it not be better to wait and see whether you get the. Appellate Jurisdiction Bill before considering whether other Bills are to be taken?

Why is it necessary, because of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, to postpone the Home Rule Bill, seeing that there is a month available for the Second Reading?

I do not know how long the Second Reading of the three Bills with intermittent dates might take.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very great wish in Scotland that the Mental Deficiency Bill should be delayed, as it is only recently printed and they have not had time to consider it?

This is the English Bill, and does not apply to Scotland.

The Prime Minister stated that all the Orders, No. 2 to No. 7 inclusive, would be taken on Wednesday—that is to-morrow?

I am assured that what the Prime Minister said was that they would be taken between to-day and Wednesday, and we propose to make progress with those Bills.

Are we to understand that the Mental Deficiency and Lunacy (Scotland) Bill will not be taken to-day?

We do not propose to take the Scottish Bill to-day.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say when something more definite will be stated to the House with regard to the Home Rule Bill than that it will be taken "in all probability" on Monday week next?

I do not know that I could possibly say anything more definite than that. That is the intention of the Government.

Mr. Speaker, May I be permitted for the convenience of the House to add a word to what I stated as to the business for to-day? I understand that there is some misunderstanding as to what the Prime Minister actually said about the business for to-day and to-morrow. There is an impression that he conveyed the idea that the only Bill to be taken to-day would be the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill, and the Resolution as to the appointment of an additional judge. Under the circumstances we do not propose to go beyond those.

I beg to move,

"That leave be given to introduce a Bill to provide for the establishment of a minimum wage and the regularisation of the hours of labour of agricultural labourers."

Some hon. Members may disapprove of the Bill which I now ask leave to introduce, but no one, I think, will question the great importance of the subject proposed to be dealt with therein. To all quarters it seems evident that the pathetic figure of the agricultural labourer is destined in the near future to occupy a considerable amount of attention of our statesmen and politicians. There is a number of us who feel that the problem we are attempting to deal with in this Bill are amongst the most urgent that can command the attention of the House. The latest available Board of Trade Returns show the average weekly wages, including every sort of additional payment and allowance to the agricultural labourer, to have been 17s. 6d. per week for the year 1907, but, as I have previously remarked here, in my opinion those figures are extremely delusive. It has to be borne in mind that the facts dealt with by the Board of Trade are exclusively supplied by employers, and, whilst not intending to charge them with intentional exaggeration, yet I respectfully submit that when you have figures furnished by one party alone, they, at any rate, need some consideration before receiving unqualified acceptance. This comparatively high figure of 17s. 6d. requires a little further analysis. We find that it ranges from about 14s. in some parts to 23s. in others. In those parts of the country where labour is in further demand, where mining operations and other industries prevail, the agricultural rates are considerably higher than in other parts of the land. I believe it is a remarkable fact that the agricultural wage is lowest in the most fertile tracts of the country. In the part of the land whence I hail we are able to boast of the most fertile soil of the country, and yet the rates of wages are of the lowest in the land. Then, again, it is a very common practice for deductions to be made from wages in respect of time lost through inclement weather and other considerations. Therefore I feel that some of the figures I have produced to the House have not been so far out as some have ventured to contemplate. I am aware of the fact that there are many employers in the agricultural industry who acknowledge as frankly as we do that a very strong case exists for improvement amongst this class of labourers, and many of those employers would be very glad of the assistance rendered in the fashion that I propose in this Bill. Everybody is aware of the fact that employers are subjected to competitive conditions, and if any group of employers care to avail themselves of the very low wages and depressed conditions in the competitive field, they are able to unfairly handicap others in the industry. I may very well sum up the provisions of this Bill to be that we would aid the fair employer to continue to act fairly towards those he employs. Tins Bill contemplates not only the fixing of minimum wages, but also the regularisation of the hours of labourers in agricultural affairs. It is common knowledge that the hours worked in rural districts are inordinately long. Not only is that unfair to the individual, making for great fatigue and weariness, but it also prevents the rural worker developing his educational, recreative and civic qualities. I believe a very strong demand exists throughout the whole of our rural communities for the hours of labour to be regulated, and for a weekly half-holiday to be provided also. We propose to proceed in this Bill by following the precedent of the Trade Boards Act. County boards will be set up with power for counties to co-operate—that is to say, we allow a certain amount of elasticity. I believe that the county unit is the most natural one, and there may be circumstances probably to render it desirable for counties to unite for this purpose. It is too late in the day to claim that Parliament should not intervene in this matter.

Quite frankly, I would prefer that every class of labour should be able to secure reasonable living conditions by associated endeavour through trade union organisations. But, on the other hand, I feel that Parliament is doing the right thing, when it finds depressed groups of workers, in enabling them, by fixing minimum conditions, ultimately to help themselves to a higher standard of existence. That is the justification prompting us to put forward this Bill. We do not suggest that a flat rate should be applied to the whole of the country. Conditions are varied throughout the land, and the constituent elements that go to make up the reward of labour display such wide variability that I regard it as quite impracticable to fix a flat rate for the whole of the country. Hence we leave it to the boards, whether representing county or district areas, to take into consideration all those elements that enter into the reward of the agricultural labourer, simply laying down the principle that those elements, coupled with the cash wage itself, shall be of such a standard as to ensure to the agricultural labourer the possibility of maintaining himself and his family in a state of decency and comfort. In fact, the Bill proceeds on the assumption that it is possible to determine a national minimum of real wages—that is to say, such a wage as, worked out in its cash equivalent, will equalise local variations in the cost of living. I must confess that I experience considerable difficulty in ascertaining the causes of the wide disparity that obtains in agricultural districts. The prices of agricultural produce reveal no such disparity, and if the prices realised should have any relation whatever to the wages I feel that no justifiable case can be advanced for the maintenance of the wide disparities that exist. If this Bill is privileged to receive a Second Reading it will become necessary and desirable that we should justify our case at greater length, but having regard to the urgency of the problem and the sympathy which is being widely expressed towards the rural workers, irrespective of political parties, I think I may with considerable confidence ask leave to introduce this Bill.

The hon. Gentleman asks leave to bring in a Bill with two objects—to fix a minimum wage for agricultural labourers and to regularise the hours of their labour. I think that both those objects are bad. Ever since I have been in this House I have always opposed interference by Parliament with the wages of adult male labour, and I could not allow the present occasion to go by without repeating my protest. We have seen something of the sort in the coal-mining industry, and from the reports which have reached me the attempt of the Legislature to interfere in that industry has by no means proved successful. If the amount of wages paid to the agricultural labourer is to be fixed by the State it follows that the amount of wages in every industry in the country must be so fixed. I believe that that would be a fatal policy. The hon. Gentleman himself had some glimmering that his proposal was bad, because he said that he would have preferred that the amount of wages should be settled by trade unions or other kindred associations. I prefer that, the amount of wages should be settled by the natural law of supply and demand. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, no!"] I say, "Oh, yes!" The laws of nature cannot be overridden or turned aside by any Act of Parliament, and the bringing in of Parliament to settle what rates of wages shall be paid will only recoil upon the people who are supposed to benefit.

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

I beg to move,

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

In moving this Resolution I would desire the House to realise that the only object is to carry out the unanimous recommendation made by the Royal Commission now sitting to inquire and investigate into the delays in the King's Bench Division. I would impress upon the House that nothing they may do to-day will in the slightest degree affect the position of the Royal Commission or will prevent the House in the future objecting to the appointment of more judges. What I want to make quite clear is that this is really a recommendation made by the Royal Commission, in order to meet the arrears at present and pending the inquiry of the Royal Commission. It is not intended in any way to stereotype the number of judges at eighteen, nor is it intended in the slightest degree to have the effect of preventing the House of Commons on any future occasion to object to the appointment of any new judge when the number is less than eighteen, so long as it does not get below sixteen. There was considerable discussion as to the appointment of two additional judges of the King's Bench Division, and in 1910 we passed a Statute which said that whenever the number of judges should fall below fifteen the old practice should be resorted to, and a judge should be appointed in the ordinary course, without any action by this House; but that beyond fifteen neither of the two judges should be appointed without an Address from both Houses of Parliament to His Majesty on the ground that the state of business necessitated the appointment of either or both of the two judges. If we now appoint another judge it will bring the number of puisne judges up to seventeen, or, including the Lord Chief Justice, to eighteen, for the King's Bench Division. Suppose that within the next six or twelve months, or at any time, there is a resignation, or for some other cause, there is a vacancy in the Divisional Bench, the result will be that this matter would have to come again before the House of Commons. We are preserving the absolute right which the House of Commons, or rather Parliament, took by the Statute of 1910. Whatever the House may do—I say this particularly having regard to the Notices of Motion which I see on the Paper, and in which some Members seem to think it is not desirable that we should have as many as eighteen King's Bench judges—or, at any rate, that they do not desire it without certain suggested reforms being carried out—I want to make it quite clear that nothing done to-day will prevent the House giving effect to that view at any time when the Commission has made its Report. That stands absolutely untouched by anything done to-day. In the First (Interim) Report of the Royal Commissioners [Cd. 6761] there are three paragraphs that I would like to read to the House:—

"In view of present circumstances, we do not consider that this number"—

That is the number of judges now—

"is now sufficient to overtake the arrears and thus remove a delay which is the cause of justifiable complaint by suitors.

"We propose to proceed without loss of time to consider the various suggestions made to the Joint Committee, and to ourselves, for enabling the King's Bench Division to deal satisfactorily with all its work by better arrangements for the conduct of its business and greater economy of time."

I would call particular attention to this:—

"But even if any of such suggestions could be immediately adopted, we should not be justified in recommending them without full examination of their probable effect on the important public interests concerned; and pending such examination, arrears would continue to accumulate, which it is essential to the proper administration of justice should be removed.

"We therefore humbly recommend to Your Majesty that in the meantime an additional judge should be appointed to the King's Bench Division in the manner authorised by the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1910, so that the number of judges be maintained at eighteen until the presentation of our final report."

Anyone examining the evidence which has been given before the Royal Commission will see that whatever reforms you may introduce, that it is essential that you should get rid of the arrears that have accumulated and are accumulating. Let me remind the House of what happened on the last occasion when we discussed this question on 25th October, 1912. In consequence then of arrears and delays, I moved a similar Resolution to that of today. In 1910 the House passed the Statute to which I have made references, and we appointed two additional judges who quickly began with the arrears which had accumulated, and made great inroads upon them. Unfortunately during the next year there was the death of one judge, and the retirement of another who had been ill for several months. The consequence was that there was a great loss of judicial time during that year, with the immediate result that the arrears began to accumulate very quickly. In the end the state of things was such that in October of last year I moved a Resolution, as I have said. I then stated to the House that it was our intention to appoint a Royal Commission, which was subsequently appointed. The House will remember that the hon. Member for Mansfield moved an Amendment that the House should recommend the appointment of two judges instead of one. I do not want to go into the discussion that took place on that particular Friday, but may I shortly remind the House that I was pressed very hard from both sides of the House to accept the Amendment. I did not feel I was justified in doing that in view of the notice on the Paper asking for only one judge, and the fact that doubtless many Members had not come down to the House thinking that there would be no question of two judges. The Government Whips were not put on, and the view that one judge would meet the case was adhered to by the House. I ventured to say that if the Royal Commission in the course of its investigation found that a second judge was necessary, that no doubt the House would take what had happened in October, 1912, into consideration on the discussion of that recommendation. That is the position at the present moment. I content myself, therefore, with reminding the House of what took place then without going into details, as I confess I do not see that any very useful purpose would be served by going into all the details; but, having regard to the evidence placed before the Royal Commission, composed of men of various views, and considering that they have unanimously recommended that an additional judge should be appointed, I submit to the House that we may safely appoint another judge, so that arrears may be disposed of, and that the suitors may get the justice to which they are entitled.

I beg to move, as an Amendment, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words "pending the final Report of the Commission and the consideration of all the recommendations of that Report, no steps be taken to increase the numbers of the judges in the High Court of Justice."

As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) did not rise to move the Amendment on the Paper in his name, I propose to move that Amendment. I adopt that Amendment because it will give the House an opportunity of discussing in a wide fashion the whole question if it so desires. It is an extraordinary thing that on the subject of the arrears in the King's Bench Division two Commissions have sat in the last four or five years. One Commission reported in 1909, and recommended that various changes should be made in the methods of the King's Bench; but, strange to say, not one of the recommendations of that Commission have been accepted by the Government. As was indicated by the Attorney-General, fresh judges were appointed, and these judges have, to a certain extent, done something to remove what he calls the arrears; but now, owing to illness and retirement, the Attorney-General comes forward with a new Motion, that the number of judges should be increased without at the same time suggesting to the House that any of the recommendations of the Commission of 1909 will be adopted by the Government, and without suggesting to the House the method of dealing with these arrears. I object to the number of judges in the King's Bench Division being increased for several reasons. I object to the increase, firstly, because they are not dealing now with the number of cases they formerly dealt with, and because what they call arrears are in point of fact, the programmes of business before them, and that during the last few years the judges are managing to tackle fewer cases in the King's Bench Division.

4.0 P.M.

I object to the increase in the number of judges because they have not only dealt with lesser cases, but they work an extraordinarily few number of hours in the week, and I object from the fact that they are paid out of the Exchequer of the country a sufficient sum to warrant the country getting its business done efficiently. As to the number of cases they now dispose of, let me quote from statistics given in the evidence of Lord Lore-burn when he was Lord Chancellor before the Commission which reported in 1909. As the distinguished head of a distinguished body of judges, he strongly objected to the increase in the number of judges from sixteen to eighteen, and said so clearly in his evidence. The words he used were:—

"I am not able to advise that two judges or any judge should be appointed."

Notwithstanding that, the Commission did recommend an increase, and of course the Government adopted that recommendation. In his evidence upon that occasion the ex-Lord Chancellor pointed out what I have already stated, that the arrears were due to the fact that the judges of that Division were doing less in the way of tackling cases than they had done a few years before. He pointed out for example that in 1901 the cases dealt with were 1,653; in 1902, 1,775; but that in 1908 the number had fallen to 1,243, so that in point of fact the judges of that Division are at the present moment dealing with only two cases where so lately as eight or nine years ago they dealt with three cases. They are tackling only two-thirds of the business now that they tackled then. Lord Loreburn further pointed out that what are called arrears and what were referred to-day by the Attorney-General as arrears, and which he put forward as a basis for an extra judge, are really the programmes of the Courts. Lord Loreburn says:—

"What are called arrears really mean the business programme—the work to be done by the Courts."

Even if we accept the expression "arrears," no great case is made out, because the number of cases in arrears—that is to say, the number of cases on the programmes of the Division—has not largely increased. In 1900 the figures were 768; in 1904, 736; in 1906, 927; in 1907, 997; and in 1913, on which this Commission which is now sitting has made a temporary Report, the arrears are only 918; so throughout these years there has been a steady number of cases called "arrears," but called by Lord Loreburn "programmes." There has been no such increase as to call for the appointment of new judges. Then as to the number of hours, perhaps it will surprise the House to realise that the number of hours the judges of this Division sit is twenty-five in the week, and that the number of days which a judge sits in the year is probably about 200. As Lord Loreburn says in his evidence, and indeed as most of us are aware, there are fifty-two weeks in a year. The judges sit for thirty-six weeks and have holidays for sixteen weeks, and during the thirty-six weeks they sit they only sit twenty-five hours per week, so that the judges we have cannot be said to be an overworked body. Not long ago I asked the Attorney-General for a statement of the number of days in the year upon which these judges sat, and I received, on the 28th April, an answer which shows that the greatest number of days on which Mr. Justice Lush sat was 209 during the year. In the column which is specially devoted to absence through illness, unfortunately, it appears there that Mr. Justice Lush was absent sixty-one days from that cause, and that number must come off the 209 days. Another distinguished judge sat for 207 days, and he was absent on account of illness for sixty-six days. Those are the two judges who had the highest totals, and the lowest runs down to 152 days. With a 25 hours' week, and working from 150 to 200 days per annum, I do not think that the present number of judges in this Division is insufficient to tackle the work. As to the salary, I asked the Treasury to indicate to the House the amount of money paid to the judges in this Division, and on the 7th May I was told the amount was £56,510 per annum and that £17,500 was paid in pensions to ex-judges of that Division, so that something like £75,000 is paid to these judges in order to do the legal work of the country. In view of these considerations, I think it is unwise for the House to consent to this Address asking for the appointment of another judge. I oppose this proposal more emphatically because there is a measure now before the House dealing with the appointment of two new Lords of Appeal. In the first three or four hours of the first sitting after the Recess, the Government are asking us to pass measures which will cost the country £17,500 a year for judges, or a capital sum of £400,000, and this is the Government which came in on the ticket of economy. I think the Government would do well either to abandon this suggestion or, at any rate, abandon the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill, which is the more expensive of the two. I know that we shall be overridden in this matter by the Government, who will receive the support of Conservative Members opposite, who are always willing that new judges should be appointed. I think the time will come when the Government will regret that method of overriding their own supporters. The Government are adopting the principle of utilising one majority for one type of legislation and another majority for another type of legislation, and I think that is a most unconstitutional method to adopt.

I beg to second the Amendment.

Hon. Members below the Gangway who are opposed to the appointment of this judge are not necessarily opposed to the principle of the appointment of judges if they are actually required. We recognise that there is no more important function of government than the administration of justice, which must be kept up to the mark, and the expense must not be considered if it can be shown that it is necessary to spend money in order that judges should be available to the people of this country. Under those circumstances we should be ready to support the Government in spending money. The reason we are opposing this proposal is because we are opposed to the method which is being adopted for dealing with this question. The Attorney-General has pointed out that merely agreeing to this proposal to appoint an additional judge will not prejudice our case for a reform, but we think it will. We are asked to support this appointment because the Royal Commission has asked for it, and we are told that some time later on, when another judge may be asked for, we can object to the appointment and press for our reform. When will this kind of thing end? This is the only chance we shall get. The Government tell us that we cannot start our reform now because the arrears must be disposed of. On the last occasion this question was before the House the Attorney-General was able to show that in one particular case the judges had done something and an Order in Council was passed by which at Assizes the judge may hear civil as well as criminal cases. I think that is a step in the right direction. What reason have we to suppose that anything is going to be done to meet our views? A Joint Committee was appointed in 1909 and they heard a lot of evidence and made a number of recommendations to the Government, only one of which has been considered.

We think that now is the time to press upon the Government the great necessity there is for considering these matters which cause delay in the administration of justice. In 1850, when Charles Dickens wrote "Bleak House" and made his celebrated attack on the Court of Chancery which had the effect of reforming that ancient institution, what did he say in a later edition of "Bleak House?" He attended a meeting which was addressed by one of the judges of the Chancery Division, at which it was said that the real reason for these delays and for this denial of justice, was that there was not enough judges in the Chancery Divisions. That was the complaint then, and it has been the complaint ever since. When the Joint Committee sat in 1909, it really was a duel between the late Lord Chancellor (Lord Loreburn), and the Lord Chief Justice. Lord Loreburn took the ground we are taking to-day, and he stated in the most definite terms that there was no necessity whatever for the appointment of these additional judges, and at that time the arrears were very much greater than they are now. In 1910 the arrears were over 1,100 cases. That means cases untried, but really they are not arrears, because every case put down is not a case in arrear. No Court in the world has got a clear list, and there are always a number of cases coming on for trial. Lord Lore-burn said he did not think there was any necessity whatever for appointing two more judges, and I would ask hon. Members to read the evidence given by Lord Loreburn on that occasion, and they will see how he suggests that these arrears, or this failure to keep the work up to date, can be disposed of.

I intend to go into the different suggestions made by Lord Loreburn to deal with this difficulty. I do not think that the Attorney-General is justified in saying that this is not the occasion to press for a reform. If it is not, when will the occasion arise. The Attorney-General stated that there is a Royal Commission sitting. Probably when it has sat for three or four years, and when they have made their final report, the Government will take the matter up. Of course three or four years will not make much difference in a matter of this kind. I understood that a Royal Commission was to be appointed, not for the purpose of holding up this matter and taking the responsibility off the shoulders of the Govern- ment, but for the purpose of further investigating this matter in order that those opposed to the appointment of these judges might have a full investigation of the matter. A large number of Members were opposed to appointing even one judge. There was no excuse or reason for the Government appointing a Royal Commission. The facts were all before them. They had the evidence of Lord Loreburn, and they had the evidence, directly opposed to him, of the Lord Chief Justice, who, when he appeared before the Joint Committee in 1909, practically took the stand that everything was as perfect as it could be and that there was no necessity for any reforms whatever. Lord Loreburn, on the other hand, thought that there was great necessity for reform. While the Lord Chief Justice was supported by two distinguished leaders of the Bar and two judges of the King's Bench Division, Lord Loreburn was supported by the President of the Law Society, who made some most practical suggestions.

There is one reform, however, which was not brought before the Joint Committee at all, and which seems to me is really one of the most important of all. There should be an age limit for judges in this country. The Lord Chief Justice said, "No. So long as a judge is alive he is capable of performing his judicial duties." He and Mr. Justice Phillimore took the extraordinary ground that the older a judge gets the more competent he becomes. That, no doubt, would be true if it were not for the frailty of human nature, but I have no hesitation in saying that when any man, whether he is a judge or not, gets beyond sixty-five, he is not able to do the same work day after day as he has been prior to that age. An age limit has been adopted in many other countries. Sixty-five is the age limit in the United States, and I am told that it is sixty in India. There is no age limit here at all. An hon. Member asked the Prime Minister a question about the matter, and he said the Government did not intend to take up the question at all; he was satisfied that every judge as soon as he became incapable of doing his ordinary work would resign. I suggest that has not been the case in this country. I do not wish to name anyone or to make any attack. I should be very sorry if any of my remarks were interpreted as an attack upon the judges of this country, for whom I have the greatest respect. We all look up with the highest respect not only to the Bench in this country, but also to the Bar which practises before that Bench. The decisions of the judges of England are quoted all over the world, and are regarded as a judicial exposition of the law of a very high plane. My remarks, therefore, are not intended in any way as an attack upon the judges, but as a Member of the House of Commons I consider it my duty to deal with matters which seem to me to require legislation and change. The responsibility of the judges is to carry out the law as it is laid down by Parliament. It is the responsibility of Members of this House, when it is shown there are gross defects in the law, to deal with those gross defects and to call upon the Government to remove them, as far as they can, by administrative action, and, when that is not sufficient, by legislation. No man when he gets old appreciates the fact, and the pecuniary arrangements give the strongest inducement to a judge to hang on as long as he can. A judge is probably appointed when he is about fifty-five or sixty years of age—many of them are over sixty when appointed—and he is not entitled to a pension until he has sat on the bench for at least fifteen years, except in special circumstances. Therefore, in his own interests—probably he is not a rich man—he must stay, if he is appointed at sixty years of age, until he is seventy-five before he can get the benefit of the very proper legislation which gives a judge a pension on retirement. That is a matter which requires the attention of the Government.

I was very much surprised to find that the appointment of shorthand writers was not at all customary in the Courts of Justice in this country. People in Canada and in the United States of America would never think of attempting to conduct their Courts of Justice on the old system of requiring the judge to take the whole of the evidence down in his own handwriting. Anyone who proposed such a thing would be looked upon as silly. That is another defect in our system. When a man gets old he cannot write with the same freedom as he did when younger, and this causes the greatest delay. I know this because I practised in Canada before they had the system of shorthand reports. The difference between the two systems is simply wonderful, not only in speed, but also in efficiency, especially when you get into the Court of Appeal. When a judge of the Court of Appeal reads the evidence as it is in the shorthand writer's notes when ex- tended, he has a picture before him of everything that occurred at the trial, and not simply the statement that a man made condensed into a sentence by the judge. He has the actual words with the hesitation of the witness. This is a matter which would not require legislation. It would only be the question of spending a little more money in providing shorthand writers.

The only objection I have heard is that there would not be enough shorthand writers, but that is absurd. If you were willing to pay a reasonable salary, as, of course, you would have to do, it would not be long, if there are not enough shorthand writers at present, before there were enough. They have no difficulty in Canada or in the United States, where they pay a very large salary, especially in the United States, in getting shorthand writers, and the money is well spent. Mr. Winterbotham, the president of the Law Society, in his evidence referred to the present circuit system as antiquated and wasteful. I am sure he is entirely right. One of my hon. Friends on the occasion of the last discussion gave an extract from Lord Russell's diary when he was on circuit in Wales. The Government have been in power for eight years, and have never attempted to deal with this question, and the Attorney-General was frank enough to say that they dare not tackle it because the towns where the Assizes are held would not give them up. What do they want them for? So that the judges and the barristers and the officials and witnesses may spend a few shillings over the bars of the hotels and for their night's lodging.

Does the hon. Member suggest that I said that?

Yes.

That I said they would not give them up because people went there and spent a few shillings over the bars of the hotels?

The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion was that the Government found it impossible to deal with the matter, because the moment they proposed to do so the towns where the Assizes were held—Reading, for instance—were up in arms because they would not have this source of income and because Members would get up in this House and protest vigorously. What other reason is there? It is not for the administration of justice, because Mr. Winterbotham says that when a judge goes to a place and finds there is nothing to do his time is wasted. He has to stay there one day and then travel to some other town. Mr. Winterbotham suggests that a number of these small places, which were perhaps entitled to Assizes one hundred years ago but which would not need them now, should be grouped together. The solicitors are in favour of it—

No, they are not.

I do not know whether Durham is an Assize town or not, and whether they want to have a few shillings spent there, but it seems ridiculous if that is the only reason the Government can give, and it is the only reason why these Assizes are held in these small places. They ought to have been done away with years ago. Mr. Winterbotham suggests that there should be more criminal trials at Quarter Sessions and more cases taken at the County Courts. That is a very simple and plain suggestion. It does not need a Royal Commission to inquire into it further. A judge of the High Courts goes to Reading or to Durham or to any of these other small places to hold a Court and to try two or three petty criminals who would be just as well tried at Quarter Sessions. I am quite sure the Attorney-General would not take the stand of the Lord Chief Justice, and say that no reform is required. Surely all these things can be done without a Royal Commission. Take next the question of the County Courts. When the Prime Minister introduced the Supreme Court of Judicature Bill, 1910, he stated that nearly all the recommendations of the Joint Committee did not require legislation, but could be remedied by administrative action. He went rather far in that statement. It is true many of the recommendations could be given effect to not by the Government alone but by the Government and the judges combined, but it is equally plain that so long as the present Lord Chief Justice is at the head of the judges they will not agree with the Government in making any of these changes. If we are to have any reforms at all, we shall require legislation especially for the purpose of any extension of County Court jurisdiction. I give the Government every credit for good intentions. When Lord Loreburn was Lord Chancellor he did introduce into the House of Lords an admir- able County Courts Bill which passed that House, and which largely extended the jurisdiction of the County Courts by transferring cases for considerable amounts from the King's Bench Division to the County Court. But what happened to the Bill when it came into this House? Many notices of opposition were given to it. We know the practice is not to print more than six such notices, but we are well aware that there were very many more objections to this Bill, and these objections to a beneficial measure came from the lawyers in this House. [An HON. MEMBER: "I thought you were one."] I am not a lawyer in this country. I have not been able to get into the trades union here. I have spent a great part of my life in the law, and at the same time have been a politician, and I can say from personal experience that no great legal reform has ever been carried in Canada without the most active opposition on the part of the lawyers of that Dominion. I believe the same thing holds good in this country.

The fact is the County Courts Bill was very strenuously objected to by the lawyers, most of whom sat on the other side of the House. When we on this side objected to the appointment of an additional judge the Government promptly dealt with us, and, in order to do so, used the majority they possessed, largely reinforced by the votes of hon. Members opposite, in order to enforce against our wishes and against our protests the proposal for appointing additional judges. Why did they not mete out similar treatment to the lawyers who opposed the County Courts Bill? That was a small measure which no lawyer could reasonably have opposed in this House, but the Government, in the face of their notices of opposition, kept quiet.

Twice I offered in this House to eliminate from that Bill those elements which were looked upon as controversial, in order to pass the rest of the Bill, which was undoubtedly very much needed. Of course, I wanted the whole Bill, but time did not allow us to pass it, and, consequently, I had to do what is very often done, I had to try and make terms, and so I offered to eliminate the controversial elements. Unfortunately I was not successful. But I am still ready to reintroduce the Bill without these controversial portions.

I am not making any attack upon the right hon. Gentleman. What I wish to point out is that, while the Government compelled us by the use of the brute force of their majority, a majority consisting almost entirely of Tory Members, they did not take the same course in regard to the lawyers opposite who were opposing the County Courts Bill. The Attorney-General tells us that he offered to eliminate the most controversial matters. I say he had no right to do anything of the kind. The County Courts Bill might have been controversial from the lawyers' standpoint, but it was not so from the point of view of the country generally. Therefore, why did not the Government use their majority to force the lawyers to accept the Bill. If they had done so, the Attorney-General would not have found it necessary to be here today asking the House to appoint another judge for the King's Bench. No doubt some County Court judges are better than others, but I understand that, generally speaking, the County Court Bench stands very high indeed, and that solicitors, at any rate, are quite prepared, no matter how large the amount involved or how important the point raised, to have their cases tried in the County Court.

I come next to the third suggestion, a most important one, that there should be a shortening of the Long Vacation, and more regular Saturday sittings from 10 to 2. With regard to the Long Vacation, it is a disgrace to the administration of justice in this country that, on the 31st July, there should be, as there was last July, 918 cases waiting to be tried, and that the workshop in which these cases were to be dealt with should be closed for two and a half months. It would be perfectly reasonable to cut two or three weeks off the Long Vacation. If you have sixteen judges and lessen their vacation by ten or twelve days each, you get the equivalent of a year's work of one judge. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the Government would be justified, on the ground of economy alone, if, instead of asking this House to appoint another judge at a cost to the country of £5,000 a year, it was to shorten by two weeks the holidays of the existing judiciary, and thus practically give another judge. Why should a judge have 153 days' holiday in a year? Is there any other class in the community which has such a holiday? I should like to make it quite clear that I do not think it is the fault of the judges these things occur. It is the fault of the Bar. They want the holidays just as much as the judges. Whether it be for the good of the country, or otherwise, the legal profession have a tremendous pull in this House. The laws are, to a large extent, made by them. Why is it the House does not sit until three in the afternoon? It is in order that the legal Members may attend to their practices in the Courts. How is it that the hon. Member for White-chapel (Sir Stuart Samuel) had to fight a by-election the other day because his firm had done important work for the Government in looking after the silver question, while lawyers in this House can take thousands of pounds of work from the Government every year without anything being said about it? It is because the lawyers practically control the House. No one would suggest that the hon. Member who sits for Whitechapel was affected in his votes by the silver transactions of his firm.

The hon. Member is getting very far from the question now before the House.

I am very sorry, but in the course of my study of this question, I have been thoroughly impressed with the fact that it is the privileges of the Bar that really stand in the way of the reforms for which I am asking. I want to see carried out the reforms asked for by Mr. Winterbotham. We find that these lawyers have got the finest trade union in the world. I do not wish to violate the ruling of the Chair, but I would like to say that I have spent thirty years in the practice of the law, and surely I ought to know as much as a young boy coming direct from a university; yet I cannot practice the law here unless I am willing to spend three years and pass a whole lot of examinations. I cannot understand why the Labour party in this House do not more strongly endeavour to get for their own unions power to do away with competition such as the lawyers possess in their trade union. This is a very serious matter, and I want it to be realised that the responsibility for the trouble rests not with the judges but with the Bar and its privileges. Then there is the suggestion that the judges should sit on Saturdays. When the Prime Minister introduced the Supreme Court of Judicature Bill in 1910 he gave a very definite promise that the Government would interfere to ensure that the judges did sit on Saturdays.

He gave no such promise.

I heard what he said.

He said they would sit a couple of hours longer during the week in order to make up for a short sitting on Saturdays.

It amounts to the same thing. They were either to sit on Saturday, or to have longer sittings on other days.

If they did not sit on Saturday they were to sit longer on other days, and that is what is occurring.

I doubt it very much. Not long ago I asked the Prime Minister for a return showing the number of Saturday sittings. No doubt some of the judges have sat on a considerable number of Saturdays, but many of them sat for a very short time indeed. The fact is, instead of the hours of judges lengthening they are getting very much shorter. I think it was Lord Haldane who, when a Member of this House, stated that when he commenced practising, the Courts used to sit from ten till four. Now the time is generally eleven to four. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Then is it the case that the judges are less punctual? That is a matter which can be put right, probably without any legislation. The fourth suggestion made by Mr. Winterbotham was that there should be some assistance given by the Chancery Judges. The Chancery Judges have their cause lists practically up to date, and there is no complaint in regard to that Division. I believe it happens quite frequently that a Chancery Judge concludes his daily work long before the hour for closing the Courts. Mr. Winterbotham and other witnesses suggested—I think Lord Haldane also made the suggestion—that there might be considerable assistance given by the Chancery Judges. It was pointed out to the Committee that they could give considerable assistance in connection with the Divisional Court. The Divisional Court has appeals from the County Courts, applications for new trials, and a number of matters of that kind with which to deal. It was suggested that the Chancery Judges might be called upon to give a good deal of assistance, and thus free some of the King's Bench Division Judges to deal with those cases.

The fifth suggestion made by the president of the Law Society was that the arrangements for carrying on the business of the Courts at the present time were very bad indeed—that suitors, solicitors and counsel were very much put about by expecting cases to come on at a particular time, and then finding they did not come on. His suggestion was that the shifting of judges should be avoided, and that a judge should have his list, say, a non-jury list or special jury list, or common jury list continuously month after month, so that he could keep control of it and be able to so arrange matters that a great deal of the time which is now wasted should not be lost. There was another suggestion that from time to time retired judges might be called upon. All these things were discussed at length in 1909—four years ago. The Joint Committee, while they overruled the suggestion of the Lord Chancellor that it was not necessary to appoint any additional judges, made it very plain indeed that while they recommended the appointment of two additional judges, it was to be a purely temporary measure. When the Government accepted the recommendation of the Joint Committee to appoint two additional judges, they impliedly agreed that they would act upon the further suggestion that as soon as the arrears had been disposed of the question of reforms would be gone into by them. My charge against the Government is that they have entirely failed to carry out that pledge in any way, shape or manner, except in regard to the one little matter to which the Attorney-General referred, and for which I give him credit. With regard to the present Royal Commission, when that Commission was promised the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division (Sir A. Markham) asked the Government in appointing the members of it not to put many lawyers upon it. I supported the hon. Member in that suggestion, and, in fact, I went further, stating that I would be glad to see a Commission dealing with matters of this kind with no lawyers upon it at all.

And no lawyer witnesses.

It is a remarkable thing that so far as the Commission have gone they have called none but lawyers as witnesses. Every witness has been either a lawyer or an officer of the Court. I suppose that is not to be taken as a precedent, and that before the Commission gets through their labours other persons will be called.

Question!

This Commission has a large number of lawyers upon it. I have not a word to say against any individual member of the Commission. I have no doubt they are all very estimable men. Some five of them are Members of this House and every one of them stands well in the House. No doubt they will give their very best attention to the matters brought before them. My complaint against the Commission is that you cannot expect, especially with the strong pull of the legal profession, to get reforms reported upon by a Royal Commission unless you have upon that Commission a number of really strong law reformers—men who understand the question, men who have made a reputation—there are men of that kind—and who have gone into these matters. I have no doubt in the world that such men as the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. G. H. Roberts) and the hon. Member for the Wellington Division of Shropshire (Sir Charles Henry) and other Members of this House would be most valuable allies, but I do not suppose that any of those Gentlemen would put themselves forward as law reformers. No doubt they are prepared to look into the question from the business standpoint and from the general standpoint, but they can be easily blinded by the lawyers, who really do understand the question, but who do not use their understanding of it for the purpose of suggesting reforms. They take the stand the Lord Chief Justice took when he declared that no law reforms were needed at all. There are a couple of Members of the House of Lords upon the Commission. I have nothing to say against either of them, although personally I do not look forward hopefully to any serious reforms coming from the House of Lords. The next member of the Commission is Sir Charles Darling, one of the judges of the High Court. I object very much to the inclusion of Mr. Justice Darling in that Commission.

I do not think it is open to the hon. Member to go through all the names of the members of the Commission and to pick holes in them here and there. This is not the time for doing that. He can do that when we reach the Vote for Temporary Commissions.

The Attorney-General has made the suggestion that we should swallow this proposal to appoint an additional judge, and that we should wait until this Commission has reported before we concern ourselves further with this matter. Surely I can object to that step, and I do object to it. I think the Government have adopted the wrong system of dealing with this matter. All the facts were before them, and they should have taken the responsibility upon themselves of dealing with the matter, without referring it to any Commission. I make the charge against the Government that they have referred this matter to a Commission, and that they have appointed the kind of Commission which is not likely to report in favour of any reforms whatever. From that standpoint, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that I have a right to consider what gentlemen have been appointed upon this Commission.

To the first proposition the hon. Member has laid down I assent altogether, namely, that he is entitled to ask the House not to accept the findings of the Commission; but solemnly to go through the names of the members of the Commission, and to canvass the merits or demerits of each is quite beside the mark upon this occasion.

Is it not within the power of the hon. Member to contend that this Commission was a white-washing Commission, and to show that by the names of the people who sit upon it?

The proper time to do that is when the appointment of the Commission comes under review. It is not under review now; it will come up for review upon the Vote for Temporary Commissions.

I submit that the Motion before the House at the present time is to consider the recommendation of this Commission, namely:—

"We therefore humbly recommend to Your Majesty that in the meantime an additional judge should be appointed to the King's Bench Division in the manner authorised by the Supreme Court of Judicature Act,"

and that since we are discussing the recommendation of this Commission we are entitled to consider the names of the people who form that Commission.

I do not see that that follows at all. As I have said, the hon. Member was quite entitled to ask the House not to accept the recommendations of the Commission, but that to solemnly go through all the names of the members of the Commission and to find a petty fault here and another petty fault there, is quite out of keeping with what is the proper conduct of business upon this occasion. The hon. Member will have an opportunity later in the Session, if he desires to avail himself of it, of criticising the Government for having appointed certain members of that Commission. He is now entitled to ask the House not to accept their recommendations.

Is that not rather a question of propriety than a question of Order? Is it outside the Rules of Order of this House to discuss upon this occasion whether that Commission is a properly constituted Commission to whose recommendations this House can agree?

Yes, it is irrelevant to the Motion to appoint another judge; it is very far remote from it and irrelevant.

Is my hon. Friend entitled to take the name of one of the members of the Commission and to object to his presence, without going through the whole category of them.

He has named several already. He need not go over them again.

This is the first one to which I have objected—Mr. Justice Darling.

I beg the hon. Member's pardon; he referred to two Noble Lords, and said he would not take anything from them. I must ask the hon. Gentleman—he has been speaking for nearly an hour—to address himself more closely to the subject now under consideration.

I do not very often address the House, and I am very sorry I have taken up so much time. This is a very important question. I think you misunderstood me, Sir. I have not suggested that we should not adopt the Report of this Commission, far from it. If the Report of the Commission is a good report, I shall be very glad myself to accept it. What I have suggested is that I am endeavouring to attack the Government. I say that the Government have not done their duty; I say that they should have dealt with this matter themselves instead of shelving it, as they have done, by referring it to this Commission. When you stopped me, I was going into the question of the different members of this Commission, not for the purpose of attacking the members particularly, but for the purpose of showing their entire lack of qualifica- tion to deal with the important questions which the Government have shelved by handing them over to this Commission. With regard to the judge, I have nothing against him—

I must again ask the hon. Member to apply himself to the Motion now before the House. He will have an opportunity upon a future occasion, if he desires to avail himself of it, of criticising the composition of the Commission and criticising the Government for having appointed it. That will find its proper place upon a future occasion in Committee of Supply. At the present moment the question the House is asked to consider is whether it will adopt the interim Report of the Commission and appoint an additional judge.

I suggest very strongly to the House that they should not adopt the suggestion of the Attorney-General to appoint another judge. The only reason he has given for making that suggestion in his very short speech was the unanimous Report of this Commission that it should be done. I say it should not be done. I say that we are not in this House to be guided in our actions by what a Commission sitting outside the House may think fit to suggest, unless we are in agreement with that suggestion ourselves. My hon. Friend (Mr. Watt) went into the question of these arrears, which are such a bogey in this matter. They are not arrears at all; they are cases to be tried; and Mr. Winterbotham, who is no doubt a most capable president of the Law Society, in his evidence before the Joint Committee, pointed out that of the list which there is before the Court at any particular time, not more than 65 per cent. ever come on for trial at all. The reason is this. A great many lawsuits which are before the Courts are practically bogus lawsuits, the parties knowing perfectly well they have no case. They are put through the Court, the pleadings are closed, and then they are put upon the list, and they stay upon the list as long as they can, being a great worry no doubt to the defendant, and as soon as they are reached they disappear. The moment you can get to the point of having the clerk of the Court call out the name of the case, Jones v Brown, there is an end of Jones v, Brown, because there is no case and it disappears, so that we have, in considering whether we ought to appoint another judge, to take off at any rate one-third from the list of arrears. The list, as it was on the first of the Michaelmas Term, 1912, was 966—not 966 cases in arrear, but 966 cases which were to be tried. That only makes about fifty cases to each judge. That does not seem to be a terrible thing for a judge to tackle, and we must remember that we have to take off a third of these, so that, instead of being 966, according to Mr. Winterbotham's evidence, only 600 are real live cases which require the Court's intervention. That reduces it to about forty cases to each judge. In addition to that, Mr. Winterbotham told the Committee that solicitors put down cases at any rate three months before they expect them to be tried, that the normal list before any of the Courts would at any rate go back at least three months, and that no solicitor expects to get a case. I can quite corroborate that from my own experience, because the circumstances are practically the same here as in Canada in matters of this kind. You cannot expect to bring a case of any importance for trial and get your evidence ready in less than three months from the time it is put upon the list.

These arrears, especially if you take off the third which are bogus cases, do not extend over about five months' work, so that the Government are asking us to go to the expense of appointing an additional judge at a salary of £5,000. I do not object to the salary. If you are going to have a judge at all, it is poor economy not to pay him a good salary so that you can get good men. That is one great mistake we made in the Colonies. We pay judges altogether too little. I do not object at all to the amount which a judge gets, but I object to the Government coming forward and making no case whatever, so far as I can understand it, in opposition to the deliberate opinion of one of the greatest lawyers of the country, who was till a few months ago a Member of the Government (Lord Loreburn), who under circumstances which were worse than they are to-day—there were over 200 more cases in arrear than there are now—said deliberately that there should not be any additional judge. We want to have these reforms. The Attorney-General says the reforms are not stopped. We can bring them up again when he comes to ask for another judge, and then he will make us the same answer. I do not think any case has been made out for this Motion. The right hon. Gentleman only spoke for a few moments, and the only reason he could give was that this Commission had recommended it. That is not a sufficient reason. Hon. Members opposite find a good deal of fault with the Government from time to time for their failure to carry out their pledges of economy which they made when in Opposition. I should like to know what position right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench would take up if they were sitting on the Opposition Front Bench and the Tory Government were proposing to incur an expenditure of £5,000 a year, especially when we remember that £12,000 more are coming later on. I know perfectly well they would consider it a gross waste of public money. Because I happen to be a Liberal and a supporter of the Government of the day, that does not prevent me saying most emphatically that, in my opinion, this suggestion to appoint another judge is a gross waste of the public money.

I must first apologise for rising when I did, but I presume I had risen so many times to oppose the appointment of judges that you naturally assumed I was opposed also to the appointment of this judge. For years past I have done my humble best to get reforms in the judicature system of this country. I have made long speeches. I know every quotation which my hon. Friends have read to the House, and I have given them myself time after time, and on many occasions you have called me to order for doing so, because the only step a private Member can take in a case of this kind is obstruction. I want to tell the House why I am in favour of the appointment of this additional judge. There have been two reforms in the judicature system of this country, one already made and another one promised, and as a humble Member I claim the credit for both. In the first place, the declaration made by the Prime Minister in 1910 was the result of a compromise in which the Prime Minister undertook to say, on behalf of the House of Commons, that in his opinion the judges ought to sit an equivalent number of hours if they do not sit on Saturdays. The judges have loyally carried that out. I understand from one of His Majesty's judges that it is a fact that the judges in the main have respected the statement made by the Prime Minister on behalf of the House of Commons, and that they have sat these additional hours, whereas before the House was asked, in 1910, to appoint these additional judges, the judges had not been sitting on Saturdays or an equivalent number of hours. In October of last year we were again threatened with one of these useless discussions, and we were going to get no more forward. I became tired of seeing this question raised repeatedly, and I do not think it is in the interests of the dignity of the House of Commons that we should have reflections constantly made on His Majesty's judges here when these Motions are made, and therefore I went to the Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor and said, "Surely it is time something should be done to put a stop to these discussions which are taking place. All we want is reform." I am as earnestly in favour of reform as my hon. Friend. The Attorney-General said he would give the most careful consideration to the question whether a Royal Commission should be appointed. He subsequently appointed a Commission, not, as my hon. Friend suggests, merely to shelve the question, but he appointed it on the representations of several of my hon. Friends and myself, who urged this course on him. Then I asked the Attorney-General that there should be a reasonable number of business men on the Commission and that there should not be a majority of lawyers. The Attorney-General found very great difficulty in forming this Royal Commission, but it has been appointed, and on the whole it has a very fair composition.

It is not fair.

It is true that no Member who had taken any active part in opposition to the appointment of the judges was appointed, except the hon. Member (Mr. H. J. Craig), but it is not quite true to say the Government took this course, because I think the Attorney-General would have taken the names of one or two other people if they had been willing to serve. It is not quite true to say that those who have been in opposition to the appointment of additional judges were excluded from the Commission. But the Attorney-General then gave his word of honour on behalf of the Government—and I accept the word of the Attorney-General before that of any man in this country that he will carry out and do what he said—that as soon as this Commission reported, which would be at the earliest date possible, the Government would forthwith introduce legislation to deal with this question and to carry out these reforms. What is the good, therefore, of my hon. Friend reading out all these reports and going over all the same ground?

We are imitating you.

That is all very well, but we have accomplished something. We have the pledge of the Attorney-General—a pledge which is perfectly satisfactory. It is no use the hon. Member telling us what they do in Canada. That does not get us any more forward in dealing with these arrears. He is at liberty to go before the Commission and deal there with any grievances he has against the Bar.

I have no grievance whatever.

We are here for the purpose of enacting legislation. I would point out that under our present judicature system we deny the obtaining of justice to hundreds of His Majesty's subjects. What are the facts? I had a case taken in the Chancery Court a few weeks ago, and it came on for hearing in fourteen days. What is the position in the High Court? I was concerned in a case in that Court which could not be heard for seven months. It was put down in July last, and it came on for hearing at the very end of February. After all, that is surely an undue delay, and we ought to endeavour to shorten the time within which cases can be heard. I hope the Commission will see their way to recommend something in relation to that matter. The point is that under the present judiciary system many subjects are denied the speedy justice which ought to be given in every Court in this country. We have a pledge from the Attorney-General on behalf of the Government that this matter will be dealt with. As the Attorney-General has given that pledge to the House, I am not going to believe that the reforms will not be carried out. I do not say that we will get all we are asking for, because the reference to the Royal Commission is drawn so very close that the scope of the inquiry may not allow the Commission to recommend all that we would like. The Attorney-General has stated to-day that if this additional judge is not appointed, the arrears must still continue. Why are we only appointing one judge? That is what I wish to know.

We could not appoint another judge under the Act, and it is necessary that one judge should be appointed.

It is not a question of appointing one judge. If any judge falls out, as in the case of the Lord Chief Justice, whose unfortunate illness has led to the bench being understaffed, or if a judge retires, are His Majesty's subjects to be debarred from having justice because these gentlemen are not on duty? Many of them are of advanced years. What I wish is that the Attorney-General should have come down and told the House how many temporary judges ought to be appointed in order to get rid of arrears altogether. It is a perfect scandal that this congestion should go on, irrespective of the merits of the reforms which we are all anxious to see accomplished. After all, the House has to look at this question from the practical side. I submit that after we have the Report of the Royal Commission, legislation will follow, not this Session perhaps, but certainly early next year. When in 1910 the Judicature Act was brought in, there was no provision to make the appointment temporary. We got that safeguard put into the Act. There is no reason why the House shoud not accept the Motion for the appointment of an additional judge. When we have disposed of this subject, we are going to embark on the discussion of the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill, which I shall oppose in every legitimate manner at every stage.

As a humble Member of the Royal Commission which has been somewhat roughly dealt with by the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment, may I be allowed to say a word in support of the Motion proposed by the Attorney-General? We thought it our duty to make an interim Report some time ago, and I quite concur with the Attorney-General that it contains simply an interim recommendation, and leaves the House absolutely free to make whatever comments it pleases. It is a Report of an interim character simply to meet the pressing needs of the present moment. The Lord Chief Justice gave evidence, and I am rather afraid that was not conducive to his health in his present state. On that occasion the question was put to him:—

"Do I gather that it is your opinion that an addition to the Bench is absolutely necessary?"

He replied:—

"Absolutely necessary; but I should try at first one more judge."

Then he was asked:—

"Supposing we come to a decision that that was necessary fairly early in our proceedings, would it be of assistance to you if we made an interim Report to that effect?"

He replied:—

"Of the greatest assistance."

That is the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice, and I may tell the House that every witness examined was of the same opinion.

The witnesses examined were all lawyers.

No, I beg your pardon. We have examined a good many witnesses who are not lawyers. It is possible that the evidence of the gentlemen who are not lawyers is not contained in this book, as their evidence may have been given subsequently. Therefore the hon. Member may not have seen their evidence. We certainly examined a great many witnesses who were not lawyers.

Not before the issue of the interim Report.

That is what I said. The position was this: At Michaelmas, 1910, the number of cases standing for hearing was 1,120. In October of that year two extra judges were appointed. These two extra judges sat for four and a half sittings, and the effect was that by the Hilary sittings of 1912 the number of cases was reduced to 599. In November of that year Mr. Justice Grantham died and Mr. Justice Lawrence retired. Therefore there were two vacancies. The Lord Chief Justice, in his evidence, told us that the reduction was going on slowly with one additional judge. In his evidence he said:—

"That was so satisfactory that when Mr. Justice Grantham died I told Lord Loreburn that I did not think we wanted the eighteenth judge, and I was willing to try to continue with the seventeen—that is, one extra. I was wrong, but still I thought so at the time."

The result of that mistake was this: The number of cases increased again from 599 at the Hilary sittings of 1912 to 918 at the beginning of the Hilary sittings this year, and they have been accumulating since owing to the unfortunate illness of the Lord Chief Justice. The state of arrears in the Courts shows that additional judges were necessary at that time to keep down arrears. The hon. Member for the Mansfield Division (Sir A. Markham) said he was an advocate of appointing more than one judge. Perhaps, individually I should be of the same opinion, but speaking as one of the Royal Commission I feel that I must not in any way anticipate the report. We have not quite finished our work, but we have very nearly finished, and I sincerely trust that before this House rises in July or August the Government may be in possession of our report. I do not think that it would be proper and fair to my colleagues to in any way anticipate the recommendations we may make. There are various points to be dealt with, and I think to-day we should confine ourselves to the subject before the House, namely, the appointment of an additional judge. I wish to draw the attention of the House to the evidence of three of the witnesses.

Is it competent for the hon. Member to quote from a document which is not available to the House?

The hon. Member can get a copy of the report at the Vote Office. I am reading from a report which was issued to every Member of the House about six weeks ago. I was going to draw the attention of the House to the evidence of three gentlemen who represent different classes of the law. The first is Master Lawford, who has the arrangement of the business of the King's Bench Division. He said:

"In my opinion it is absolutely necessary.…to have ten King's Bench judges in town continuously.

That would enable us to have two judges sitting for special jury actions, two for common jury actions, one for non-jury actions, and one for the commercial list, and either three judges in the Divisional Court taking the Crown paper, or two judges taking the civil paper if the third judge was not required at the Old Bailey."

He was asked:—

"What would that involve? Do you mean if there were eighteen judges that could be carried out?"

He replied:—

"If we had eighteen judges, provided that no judges were absent from illness or any other cause, that scheme could be carried out."

That is the reason why I said just now that individually I am of opinion that at least eighteen judges, if not more, were wanted. If you do not get eighteen, and if there is any illness, or if absence arises from any other cause, this scheme cannot be carried out. The next witness was Sir Walter Phillimore, who was appointed as the representative of the Committee of Judges. His evidence is given on page 71. He said:—

"The Lord Chief Justice says that he could work with eighteen, and on the whole I and the rest of the Committee agree. You could keep down the arrears with eighteen, but you would still have the same inconvenience of broken periods through judges being away on Circuit, or at the Central Criminal Court or elsewhere. In order to work on a uniform smooth system one of our colleagues says twenty, and another says nineteen, but these without a margin for illness or anything of that kind. Two of the Committee have proposed plans upon this basis."

Therefore, you have the opinion of the King's Bench judges that eighteen is an actual minimum. I may mention now the evidence of another witness, Mr. Harrison, who was appointed to represent the Bar and he tells the same story that eighteen judges are required. At Question 1338 he is asked:—

"Do you mean two in addition to the number already appointed?—No, Mr. Justice Bailhache is one, and I submit that at least one more is essentially necessary. Personally, I should like to have an additional judge also, that is to say, I think that two more judges now would be very desirable, but I think that even with an additional Judge, which I conceive there is no doubt ought to be appointed, you still have judges sitting on Circuit such long hours as I consider undue and improper for the administration of justice"

As a member of that Commission sitting and hearing the evidence of eight or nine judges of the High Court, personally I have been deeply interested in the character of those men. You have not got any public servants of greater integrity or with a greater desire to do their duty than the judges of the English bench. They are willing to do their duty and to assist in every way they can in removing any complaint of arrears which exists, but do not press the willing horse too much. Do not overwork your bench to such an extent that you will wear the good machine too quickly, and get an inferior kind of justice. I urge the House, whether to-day or on a future occasion when there may be another Motion put forward, always to consider this question of not pressing the judges too much. Rather, as one hon. Member pointed out before, overdo your judge power than under do it. Then you will have a proper result. I think I may mention without impropriety one other point which is very nearly connected with the appointment of judges, and which was alluded to by the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment. I mean the salary paid. In my opinion £5,000 a year, which is paid to judges now, and which was settled in 1830, is not equivalent to what it was then, owing to the difference in cost of living, style of living, and other things, and I believe that we should be well advised to make the salary even higher than it is. Sir Walter Phillimore in his evidence touched on this point, and excused himself for doing so, because he said that he was very near the age at which he should terminate his judicial career, and therefore it could not be said against him that he was advocating an increase of salary for himself. He said:—

"I am getting to the end of my judicial career, and therefore I think that I may—"

The hon. Member is going now beyond the scope of the Motion before the House, which is the appointment of an additional judge. No question of salary arises on that Motion.

I think you were not in the House when the hon. Member did allude to this subject about the salary, and I am trying to reply to what he said in seconding the Amendment. It amounts to this, that, speaking for the English Bench, £5,000 a year is not now really an adequate salary. I trust the House will agree unanimously with this proposition. I believe that if the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment had heard the evidence which we have heard they would not have made the speeches which they have made this afternoon. The evidence has convinced us that to meet present requirements the addition of one judge to the Bench is absolutely necessary, and while we recommend that we leave it open to the House to judge for itself whether it wishes to keep the present number of judges at eighteen or to increase that number.

It is quite true that I am one of the less qualified Members of this Royal Commission. I certainly possess the quality of not having had a legal training, but I am very familiar with the case which has been made by the hon. Members who have, respectively, moved and seconded the Amendment. When I went on the Commission I had a very strong feeling in favour of their case, and I will not say that my feelings in that particular are yet materially altered. But when a Member of this House accepts an invitation to sit on a Royal Commission the presumption is that he is willing to view dispassionately the evidence which is placed before him, and while I am not convinced even now that any permanent addition to the number of judges is necessary, on the other hand, I am positively convinced that the present state of business in the King's Bench Division renders desirable the additional appointment which is now being asked. It is not denied that there are considerable arrears in the King's Bench Division. It is quite true that you cannot merely quote the figures and say that this is the programme of business. There must always be some number of causes in the list, but when that number exceeds the amount of work that can be performed within a reasonable period, then the excess of that number must constitute arrears in the Court. Therefore it is true to say that considerable arrears do now exist, and that much congestion and inconvenience ensue there-from. The Royal Commission has not yet completed its labour. All the points which have been the subject of speeches here this afternoon will be reviewed exhaustively. But we are quite entitled to ask that we shall not be forced unduly to come to a decision until we have been able to work out the effect of the various recommendations which may be made to us. It is a very easy proposition to say, "Let us knock off all the weeks of the Long Vacation, and thereby, in cumulative effect, we shall get the result of two additional judges." But it is not sufficient to put this forward as an abstract proposition. We have got to be able to work out and to ascertain what may be its real enduring effect upon our judicial system. I am not going to say that I am not altering my view with respect to the holidays of the judges. I have very strong opinions thereon myself, but I think that the recommendation which is before the House this afternoon renders lengthy consideration of those matters totally irrelevant.

The Lord Chief Justice stated in the course of his evidence:—

"Take County Court appeals, where small sums of money are involved, no witnesses are required, and the papers already have been in the office of the King's Bench Division nine months without being able to be heard. There is quite a number of actions for trial. Those cases ought to be heard within about six weeks after they are set down."

Later on he states:—

"County Court appeals are always six months in arrears."

In face of a fact of that character, we feel that the position is one which cannot be tolerated. Every person who enters a Court has a right to expect that the cause will be dealt with within a reasonable period, and in my humble opinion six months is altogether an unreasonable period for cases of that character. My hon. Friends say, "Make them work." I quite agree that they ought to work, but I am not convinced that they do not work. I have traversed the case of my hon. Friends many a time before I went on the Royal Commission. They have urged nothing new this afternoon. As a member of the Royal Commission, any suggestion that they can make to us shall receive appropriate consideration. Even if they are able to submit to us that a class of witness differing from those who have already been heard can be of value to us, then, as far as I am concerned, I am prepared to use my influence to see that those witnesses are properly heard. But I can assure my hon. Friends that from the Noble Chairman down we are concerned to deal as fairly as we can with the great problem which has been referred to us. It is quite competent for hon. Members to allege that one is such a weak-minded person that he can be easily fooled, but one has no right to imply that one is such a knave that he would intentionally mislead the House as to the convictions at which he had arrived as a result of the evidence. I know that there are various reforms which can be adopted. When these reforms are submitted to the House it will be ascertained whether the cumulative effect of those reforms renders it unnecessary largely to increase the number of judges. On the other hand, if I am convinced as a result of this inquiry that an addition to the King's Bench Division is necessary, at any rate, I shall have as much courage as my hon. Friend has, and come out and support the recommendation made by my colleagues and myself. I do not think it is necessary to speak at length on this point. I want simply to make this point, that the whole case submitted on the Motion here to-day is in no way affected by the adoption of the Motion. That is to say, what the Royal Commission recommend is not that there shall be a permanent addition to the number, but that there shall be a single additional appointment in order to relieve the present congestion. If a vacancy occurs, either by death or retirement, that vacancy cannot be automatically filled up, as I understand, and it can only be filled up subsequent to an Address being voted by this House. Therefore we always have the security that this question must come before the House, and my hon. Friends will have the privilege of renewing their opposition if they feel so inclined. But I think we are entitled to ask that they should allow the Royal Commission reasonable time. I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Samuel Roberts) is perfectly correct in saying that we are extremely anxious to avoid undue and protracted consideration of this matter. I believe that another month or two will see the labours of the Royal Commission pretty nearly ended, and the Report presented to this House. If, at that time, it is ascertained that the recommendations then made are not adequate as interpreted by my hon. Friends, then they will be perfectly free to pursue their opposition, and to make counter suggestions if they desire to do so. I do not blame them for having availed themselves of the opportunity presented this afternoon, but I do respectfully suggest that their case is in no way prejudiced if they are prepared to accept the Motion made by the Attorney-General.

I do not rise for the purpose of replying at any length upon the matters referred to by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment. I desire to say that the utmost we are asking from the House of Commons this afternoon, after appointing this inquiry which is proceeding before the Royal Commission, whose report we can expect certainly within a reasonable time, is that we should give fair consideration to their views. They have had the witnesses before them, and whatever may be their views as to the future, they are at all events unanimously of opinion that this appointment ought to be made at once in order to cope with the arrears. I am not going to detain the House with any observations of mine upon the necessity, upon the absolute necessity, to provide an open door to suitors in order that they may not have to stand outside waiting for admission. Open the door to the suitor at once, and give him his opportunity. I have always said in this House, and I repeat it, that I infinitely prefer to hear of a judge being idle because there is no suit for him to try, than to hear of a suitor waiting to bring his action, and very often having to settle it because he cannot get a hearing. I do ask the House to adopt the Motion, in order to carry out the recommendation of the Royal Commission which this House appointed. I repeat that no one is prejudiced by anything that takes place today. There will be an opportunity for discussion if another judge is to be appointed, or there will be another opportunity for discussion when legislation is proposed. I am anxious that this Royal Commission, which has been devoting its time to this subject for the information of the House of Commons and the country, should at least be treated with consideration and respect by this House, and the Royal Commission having come to the conclusion that it is necessary this appointment should be made at once, I trust that it will be done without travelling over the whole ground which was discussed so often in this House before the Royal Commission was appointed. I resent very strongly some of the observations of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East St. Pancras (Mr. Martin), who suggested that this Commission was a whitewashing Commission. He has absolutely no justification for that statement, and I do not know on what ground he made it.

made an observation which was inaudible.

All I can say is, having heard what the hon. and learned Member said, I absolutely cannot understand him. The reference was made by me, and I explained to the House that what we were anxious to do was to get the decision of the Royal Commission on the particular reform advocated by my hon. and learned Friends, and by the hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield and other Members of the House. If we had extended the reference the result would have been that the matter would have taken two or three years, and, in order to avoid that, we have limited it to the special claim which is the subject of discussion.

Why were two Commissions appointed? Why was the decision of the 1909 Commission not accepted by the Government, and acted upon?

My hon. and learned Friend must have forgotten that those were two different bodies, constituted for different purposes. The Joint Commission in 1909 was appointed to determine whether the state of business at that time justified the appointment of additional judges. It is quite easy to make suggestions, but those who are familiar with the subject know that it is not quite so easy to carry them out. It is really only those who are constantly engaged in working under the present system who know the difficulty of carrying out suggestions which are made. We have the suggestion that lawyers are always opposed to reforms, but all the Members on this Side of the House are in favour of reforms—and there are many lawyers on this side of the House—and the hon. Member showed quite plainly that reforms can only be carried with the assistance of members of the Bar. My hon. and learned Friends who moved and seconded the Amendment are both members of the Bar, and it is a very natural thing that those who are most familiar with the subject should criticise and suggest. But we have added to the Commission, the majority of which is composed of those who are not lawyers, in order that they may consider the evidence put before them, and deal with it as business men dealing with a business proposition. That is what has to be done. The judicature of this country is a great matter, and it is essential that it should be dealt with in a businesslike way, and that suitors, whether rich or poor, should find ready and speedy access to it. I hope that it will not be necessary for us to discuss this Motion at any great length, for I realise, from what has been foreshadowed, that there will be opposition to the Bill which is to come on next, and I am therefore anxious that the House should pasts this Motion in order that we may proceed to deal with it.

I hope the House will understand that I do not wish to stand between it and a Division, but this is one of the occasions when we have an opportunity of saying a few words. It is true that I am a lawyer, but I am a member of that branch of the profession which comes directly in contact with the public. The Attorney-General and the hon. and learned Member for East St. Pancras are members of the Bar, and do not come directly in contact with the people. They do not realise, as I have realised from day to day, what delay in the Courts really means. The solicitor who has charge of a case is always in contact with the client, and he knows the consequences of delay, and he knows, from his contact with the public, how clients take their cases to arbitration rather than wait for them to be dealt with in Court. As a member of the humbler branch of the legal profession, I am more in touch with the feelings of the general public upon the subject. The suggestion made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield that there should be a temporary judge is not sufficient. Consider what is to happen. This House is going to sit for two or more months, and it is quite clear that the Government cannot spare time for the appointment of another judge by another Resolution. We shall adjourn from August probably to February of next year, and the moment a vacancy occurs the value of the judge to be now appointed would be gone, and the House when it again met would have to deal with arrears even greater than they are at the present time. May I give the exact figures for the Michaelmas term—this present term? There are now 1,712 cases—or there were last week—awaiting trial in the High Court and the Court of Appeal. That is a higher number than were awaiting trial at the end of the Trinity sitting, and certainly a higher number than during the last few years, if not in the history of the Courts. In 1910 there were 1,619 cases; in 1911 the number had got down to 1,271, and to-day they are up to 1,712, a higher number than at any period during which we have been discussing this question.

I do not dispute the figures, but I think the inference which is drawn is not quite right. I do not think the increase is an increase of the arrears of the King's Bench Division. In point of fact the King's Bench Division for the moment is just a little better, because in the last sittings there is naturally the greatest reduction of the number of cases.

I am very glad to hear that; still, in regard to the King's Bench Division, the total number of cases last week was 675.

Six hundred and seventy-eight.

That is better still—that is to say 99 more than there were at the commencement of the Trinity sitting of 1912, and 32 more than at the same date in 1911. Therefore the state of affairs in the King's Bench Division is not better than it was. I cannot do more than quote from the most reputable law journals. I asked one of my clerks to verify these figures and I am told they are correct. That means that the state of affairs in the King's Bench last week was worse than at the beginning of the Trinity sittings in 1911 or 1912. Apart from the ordinary cases for trial in the Divisional Court of the King's Bench Division, in 1911 there were eighty-two cases waiting for trial at the commencement of the Trinity sittings, and last year there were 190, and this year there are 206, so that the cases in the Divisional Court also are worse than they were last year or the year before. Then in the Revenue Paper there are ninety-two petitions under the Finance Act of 1910, all set down for hearing since the beginning of last year.

That is a Department with which I am very familiar, and while I want this recommendation I do not want any false inferences to be drawn. The number of petitions are in the main awaiting a decision, and the whole of that number cannot be stated to be cases which are actually waiting for hearing.

I do not want to misrepresent the position, but I think those petitions illustrate the dangers and difficulties of delay. Here are ninety-two petitions set down nearly eighteen months ago which are awaiting the decision of another case. That case has been taking all this time, which means a certain denial of justice, because the Courts are so blocked that the governing case which is going to decide them cannot be heard. I cannot see any other explanation of that position. There they are, as the Attorney-General said, waiting for another case to be decided.

Not decided! It has already been decided on the revenue side of the King's Bench. I think what my hon. Friend is referring to is a number of cases which are awaiting the decision of one particular case in the House of Lords which has already been argued once, and has to be reargued by a fuller tribunal. I think all those petitions or the majority of there await that decision.

That shows how long it takes for a subject to get a decision when he goes up to the House of Lords, where the point has to be argued again. That is a matter, however, which will come up on the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill as to the necessity for a double hearing the House of Lords. I cannot understand why hon. Members opposite who Profess to be democrats object to justice being made speedy. [An HON. MEMBER: "We do not."] The hon. Member who spoke from the Labour benches told us that when the Commission reported various reforms would have to be made, and that it might not be necessary to have another judge. I believe exactly the opposite. I am a legal reformer, and I am in favour of reform and making justice as speedy and as certain as possible. I believe if you had reforms effected that not less people, but more people would come to Court, and that you will need more judges the better you make your administration, and the better you make your mode of bringing cases to trial, because people will go to His Majesty's Courts instead of going to every kind and form of arbitration. I believe, and I say it with considerable experience of litigants, that people like to have their cases tried by a judge of the High Court. They have immense confidence in the impartiality and freedom of the judges of the High Courts. They do not like their cases being tried either at Assizes or at what are called Commissions, which are very feeble efforts to get rid of arrears. People have, and I think very rightly, an objection to their cases being tried by a man who is not really a judge. We are trying to work the judicial system of this country with practically the same or a smaller staff than we had fifty years ago. The whole complexity of modern life has grown so much, and there are more cases—

There are not more cases, there are less.

Of course there are less, because people will not go to the Courts at present, but I believe there are more writs issued, and more cases put down for trial. The hon. Member for East St. Pancras said they were bogus cases, but I do not agree. They are tired because they are people who get so waiting for their cases to be disposed of, and who under those circumstances will take any settlement. We have got the Long Vacation coming in two and a half months' time, and of those 1,760 cases I have mentioned, I would venture to say that at least half will not be heard this sitting. You will have when the Courts rise at the end of July at least 800 cases awaiting trial, County Court appeal cases of rich people and poor people standing over for ten weeks, and what is going to happen? The hon. and learned Member knows the rich man is going to make the poor man take less than he otherwise would take because of the law's delay. I know it in my own practice that when July comes the poor litigant is not only desirous, but bound to take less than he is entitled to because he knows he cannot stand the case being taken over the Long Vacation, and not being reached possibly until November and December. It is the poor litigant who cannot afford the law's delays. Though the trials are perhaps fewer than they were fifty years ago, they are longer because of the complexity of the cases, and because of the typewriting, and because of the voluminous correspondence, and because of telephones and things that make life more comfortable, and they are longer because of the scientific witnesses who are bound to be called to-day. The hon. and learned Member knows perfectly well that where it is possible the litigant prefers to have the very highest class of scientific evidence. After all, what the litigant wants is that his case should be tried out to a finish and not jostled through. I can tell him how angry and how wrath the litigant comes out of Court when he feels that his case has been jostled through in order to clear the list. When it is not so, he says, "Whether I was right or whether I was wrong, does not matter because my case has been tried out, and everything I desired my counsel to say has been said and patiently listened to by the judge and jury, and, though they have decided against me, they have listened to everything and I am satisfied that I have had a fair trial." Without any desire to animadvert on the judges, there is a tendency in the human nature of the judges to try, when they get towards the end of June and July, to get their list clear as far as possible, and to try and force settlements. Things of that kind are entirely detrimental to the best interests-concerned.

Saturday sittings have been referred to. Again, I do not believe with the hon. Baronet (Sir A. Markham) that the absence of Saturday sittings in jury cases has anything to do with these arrears. I know again from my own experience that the judges who do not sit on Saturday have been sitting for months past, ever since the Prime Minister gave the undertaking, for an extra period on the other five days of the week so as to make up the difference. It may be said that the weekend habit has increased, and so it has. The whole position of affairs is different from what it was thirty years ago, and you have got to work your Courts in the interests of the public. Witnesses do not want to go to Court for half a day on Saturday and jurymen object in the strongest way to going down for three hours on a Saturday morning. They are members of the public who have got to be considered. Do not let the hon. and learned Gentleman run away with the idea that there are no Saturday sittings because of the laziness of His Majesty's judges. It is more convenient for the general body of litigants and of the public represented by the jury that no cases should be taken on Saturday, and that is the reason. I do strongly appeal to the House with regard to County Court appeals. I think it is a crying shame that a County Court appeal to a King's Bench judge, in a simple case with no witnesses, should involve nine months' delay before hearing, and yet that is the case to-day. I would like to refer to one point mentioned by the Lord Chief Justice with regard to Saturday sittings. On Saturday, the 11th January, at the beginning of the sittings, and a day on which of all others you would think the judges would have been idle, here is what they were doing. There were four judges on Circuit, three judges hearing cases from the Court of Criminal Appeal which usually take about five hours, one judge in Chambers, six judges to take fourteen cases which might be small but were none the less important to the litigants, and there was a commercial judge sitting in the Commercial Court, and Mr. Justice Lawrence was sitting in the telephone case. The Lord Chief Justice stated that for the whole time he has been Lord Chief Justice, he is prepared to stake his reputation that the judges have not shirked their work.

I feel very strongly on this question of the understaffing of the Bench. In recent years there has been an enormous increase in the points that come before judges. We have, for instance, all those petitions under the Finance Act of 1910. There was no Finance Act up to three years ago, and those petitions which are an entirely new class of business, need almost a new judge to look after them. There is all our new legislation, some of it very complicated, most of it very badly worded, and a great deal of it legislation against which I have often raised my voice, and that is legislation by reference which makes it exceedingly difficult for the ordinary man to understand, and involves him in litigation without desiring to be so involved. We have then criminal appeals, and we did not appoint another judge after the Criminal Appeal Act. We passed the Poor Prisoners Defence Act, which has increased the length of criminal trials at Assizes, and we did not appoint another judge.