I do not wish to occupy much time on this question, but I desire to develop somewhat the observations I made on the introduction of this Bill. It is a very extraordinary Bill, because its Second Reading is moved at the end of July, while it is of a nature which ought to receive, and is designed to receive, the fullest attention and consideration of the House. Last year the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced a Colonial Loans Fund Bill, which was so framed that it organised certain machinery dealing with this department of public business; but any loan that was to be put forward with the specific approval of Parliament was to be embraced in a clause of the Local Loans Bill. But objection was taken that if a loan or loans were dealt with in that way there would be no opportunity to the House of Commons to. make itself thoroughly acquainted with the circumstances, the necessities, and the quality of the loan, and to obtain all the information which was necessary. That having been the feeling of the House of Commons last year with regard to loans which might be embedded in that Bill, based on a comprehensive measure which had received the assent of the House of Commons, the right hon. Gentleman now asks us to approve a specific measure of two clauses, but containing in the schedule a list of no fewer than seventeen loans, all of which will receive the sanction of the House if this Bill passes into law. On the face of it, is it not an overreaching altogether of the proprieties of the case to ask the House in the last week of the session to deliberately give its approval to seventeen separate loans, a good many of which are entirely new, and of the particulars of which we can know nothing? Some of those loans are exceptional. There are two loans of small amount to meet the distress and the damage caused by the hurricane in the West Indies. They stand on a separate footing. But most of the others are loans of which we have absolutely no knowledge whatever at this moment. If there was such a strong opposition to the prospect of having one or two loans dealt with in a somewhat regular and deliberate manner, what shall we say of the seventeen loans now brought before us, without any opportunity whatever being given to the House of knowing what they are for? I regret that the matter should be in this condition. I know the right hon. Gentleman may be able to tell us that arrangements have been made, almost necessarily, anticipating the assent of Parliament. There may be a case on that account, but that is no reason why, owing to the arrangement of Government business, this question should be pushed over to the last hour of the session. In these circumstances I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to say whether it is reasonable to expect the House of Commons to take this Bill into consideration.

I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has thought it necessary to make such an appeal. I think it has been always understood that this Bill would be introduced towards the close of the session. The First Lord of the Treasury referred to it some time ago, when making arrangements for the progress of business, and he said it would be a daughter Bill depending on the Colonial Loans Fund Bill.

It is not a daughter; it is a litter.

The right hon. Gentleman has argued on an entirely erroneous assumption. Last year, in deference to objection which was taken to our original proposal, I promised that the Colonial Loans Fund Bill should merely be a Bill for instituting the machinery for making loans, or rather the fund out of which loans should be made, and that before a loan could be made the separate authority of Parliament should be obtained. I never thought for a moment that each particular loan to a colony, perhaps of £20,000 or £30,000and no more, should be the subject of a separate Bill. Any such proposition seems to me—

But ample time should be given to Parliament to look into them. That is my point.

It has been all along understood that this, like the Public Works Loan Bill, is necessarily one of the Bills to be introduced towards the end of the session. Objection is taken to this, as an extraordinary proceeding on the part of the Government. Just let the House consider for a moment what happens with regard to local loans. Parliament is asked in a Bill, always introduced towards the close of the session, to provide and sanction this year no less than seven millions sterling for local loans within the United Kingdom. Those local loans are decided in individual cases, not by the Government, not by Parliament, but solely by the Public Works Loans Commissioners. Once the Public Works Bill of the year is passed, Parliament retains no control whatever over the grant to individual cases. By this Bill Parliament does exercise control over loans in individual cases, however small they may be. The right hon. Gentleman has not asked me, and it is not my duty to explain to Parliament, the particulars of any one of those loans. The Secretary of State for the Colonies will readily un- dertake that task, just as the representative of the War Office or of the Admiralty is responsible for the proposals of the Naval Works or Military Works Loans Bill. It is quite true this Bill involves the making of these loans, not out of a Colonial Loans Fund, but out of the Local Loans Fund already established by the authority of Parliament. I understand that the hon. Member for Poplar objects to this, on the ground that it constitutes a new departure. I can only say that by no conceivable process would it be possible to bring to the knowledge of Parliament future proceedings with regard to these loans more effectively than by making them out of the Local Loans Fund. Parliament has been asked in previous years, from time to time, to guarantee loans to colonies in need of such assistance, and it has done so in a casual kind of way, without any provision for communicating to Parliament how far the loans have served their purpose, and to what extent they have been repaid. But under the procedure we now propose, Parliament will be informed, just as it is this year, by the Return annually presented relating to loans made within the United Kingdom of the future of every one of these loans, the repayments made from time to time, and of all particulars in regard to them, and the Comptroller and Auditor-General will audit the accounts, just as he now audits the accounts of the loans that are made to local authorities in Great Britain and Ireland. That is the reason why I propose the loans should be made out of the Local Loans Fund, rather than by a separate guarantee. I hope the speech of the right hon. Gentleman does not presage any great opposition to the Bill. I have made such inquiries as were possible to me, and I gathered that those hon. Members who were opposed to the Colonial Loan Fund Bill were opposed to it on the ground that it did constitute an entirely new departure in finance by the institution of a Colonial Loans Fund, and that it imposed no limit whatever on the amount which might be issued. Some one suggested the total might run up to 200 or 300 millions, but of course that was neither our intention or expectation. Therefore, I understood that I was meeting the wishes of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite by making the present proposal for a limited amount to be lent to colonies where such loans are required. This question must necessarily form part of the examination of the process of utilising the Savings Banks deposits and investing them in various ways, which will come under the notice of Parliament next session. One of my reasons for introducing this Bill was that that subject might not be prejudged, and that we might make those loans which are absolutely required without binding Parliament as to its future action in the matter. Seeing that the Colonial Loans Fund Bill passed its Second Reading practically without opposition, it was anticipated that the measure would become law this session, and various Colonial Governments incurred expenditure on matters referred to in the schedule for which money will have to be provided and which cannot be provided in the ordinary way. Loans for those purposes which would otherwise have been issued have been kept back for something like eighteen months, and it is now impossible to issue them all at once under the old system. The great bulk of them will be extremely remunerative to whoever may lend the money. If hon. Members like to refer to any stock or share list in regard to the credit in the market of some of the colonies to whom loans will be made under this Bill, they will see, for example, that Jamaica Three per Cent. stock now stands at par, Mauritius Four per Cent, stock at a premium of more than 20, Trinidad Three per Cent, stock at par, and that Barbados Three-and-a Half per Cent. stock stands at 107. So that hon. Members must not imagine that the great bulk of these loans come into the category of charitable or eleemosynary loans. In my belief they will be extremely good investments for the savings banks deposits if Parliament will sanction that investment. There are others, like the loans to Barbados and St. Vincent on account of the damage done by the hurricane, which are more in the nature of an eleemosynary loan, but these loans have been announced many months ago, and I do not think any single voice was raised in opposition. If hon. Members oppose the other loans set out in the schedule to which I have referred, I think they will be depriving the colonies of an advantage, which may be safely extended to them, of obtaining money at ¼ per cent. less than they would in the open market, and they will certainly be depriving the depositors in the savings banks of an. admirable investment for their money.

I think the right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension as to the nature of the opposition which we find ourselves compelled to offer to this Bill. It is not so much, as far as I am concerned, the principle contained in the Bill to which I object; on the contrary I think that loans to our colonies for railways, and the two which are known as "hurricane loans," meet with our approval. What I do object to is that this is practically a new departure not only in our relations to many of our colonies, but also in regard to the source from which loans are to be made; and I object very strongly that in the last working days of the session the House should be committed to that policy, and to such an enormous extent as £3,300,000. I entirely agree with what fell from the Leader of the Opposition with regard to the hurricane loans. I do not think anyone will object to them. What we do object to is that a new policy is introduced by this Bill for the first time, and we are asked to give the advantage of imperial credit to many of our colonies. The right hon. Gentleman talked as if this had been done constantly in the past, and as if we were now simply regularising that system; but I find that we have hitherto only made four such loans, and now at the extreme end of the session we are being asked to sanction an entirely new policy. The right hon. Gentleman says that he did not give a promise that each loan should be put into a separate Bill, but I believe the general impression in the House was that, while some loans might be classed in one Bill, it never was intended to include seventeen different loans for all sorts of purposes in the same Bill. Such a course puts some hon. Members in the very difficult position, if they do not accept the Bill, that they will be practically opposing some loans to which they do not object. When this subject was discussed the other day the right hon. Gentleman pledged himself most distinctly that the fullest possible explanation should be given of all these loans, but up to the present there has not been a single word of explanation even from the Colonial Secretary. Indeed, I think it would be rather difficult at this period of the session to give a full explanation of seventeen different loans. With the hurricane loans and some other loans I should be inclined to agree, but there are other items, such as those with regard to Jamaica, to which, I for one, should strongly object. I do not think it is the business of the Imperial Parliament to lend her credit for such matters as securing the efficiency of railways and the payment of interest on railway debentures. It ought to be remembered that there has been a very considerable development of this policy of loans under this Bill, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year said two things; in the first place, that he did not expect that for some time to come the Crown would be likely to assume any large amount, and in the second place that he did not think it would be necessary to make loans to the West Indian colonies. Yet now we are asked to advance £3,300,000, and of this, sum half a million is to go to our West Indian colonies! It only shows that this is a policy which is likely to rapidly develop if we once approve the principle. I do not think the House ought to be committed to the principle of the Bill at this stage in the session, and in the circumstances I shall certainly oppose the Bill.

I regret very much to hear the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which he held out no hope of any modification in the procedure in regard to this Bill. He told us that there was no understanding come to when the Colonial Funds Bill was under discussion, that each separate loan should be brought forward in a separate Bill. I remember very well, however, what occurred when objection was being taken on the ground that the authority of Parliament over the various loans might not be preserved. The right hon. Gentleman told us that on that point we were perfectly safe, because a separate Bill would be brought forward to deal with the loans. These words, of course, might not imply a separate Bill for each loan, but I am bound to say I understood it to convey that meaning, and. my view is strengthened by the first clause, in which I find the following words:

"Where a loan under this Act to a colony is by a separate Act relating to colonial loans authorised to be made within the time, to the amount and for the purposes therein specified, such loan may be advanced out of the Colonial Loans Fund."

Surely, the meaning of these words is, that the intention, of the Bill was that each. separate loan should be passed through this House by a separate Act, so that the House might have an opportunity of considering it on its merits.

It meant an Act separate from the Colonial Loans Fund Act.

I am aware that that is a possible meaning, but I think the obvious meaning of the words I have quoted is that under this Act loans should only be advanced by means of a separate Act. In the past, whenever the Imperial credit has been pledged on behalf of a particular Colony, it has always been done in a separate Act, and I am certain that the general idea the House gathered from the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that the authority of Parliament would be amply maintained in future in the matter of these loans. But is the authority of the House of Commons being so maintained on this occasion, when we see a Bill brought in during the last week of the session by which a totally new departure in regard to financial arrangements with our Colonies is being introduced, and we are asked to advance a sum of over three and a-quarter millions for various purposes as to which we have absolutely no information? I do not think that that is a fair way of treating the House of Commons. It is invidious to put upon anyone at this period of the session the duty of criticising, however feebly, the proposals of a Bill into the details of which it is almost impossible to enter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that these loans are likely to be remunerative, and he has referred to the financial position of some of the colonies to which they are to be advanced. Surely, if a colony can borrow at 3½ per cent., it is proof that there is no really substantial need to give it financial assistance. I always thought that the policy of the Government was to make these colonies as far as possible independent and self-governing, and I certainly cannot see how you are increasing their independence by thus coming forward with indiscriminate offers of assistance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer also spoke of this as affording an admirable opportunity for the investment of Savings Bank deposits. I do not think that that is a fair argument. We know that the matter of the investments of these deposits is to come before us next session, and I do not think we ought to be asked by this totally new departure in the mode of making loans to our own colonies to establish a new fund in which to invest our Savings Bank deposits. Let the House consider what are really the proposals of this Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred to the fact that this is practically a daughter Bill of the Colonial Loans Fund Bill, and my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out that it is not the birth of one but rather of a litter. Here we have a proposal to make seventeen loans to twelve different colonies, and the gross total proposed to be advanced is £3,300,000. What are the purposes for which this money is to be advanced? We are asked in the schedule of this Bill to vote a sum of £1,680,000 for West African railways. That is an astounding proposal to be made in the last week of the session. The information which has been afforded to us in regard to it has been of the vaguest possible character. Is it necessary that this money should be advanced? I have been looking into some Returns with regard to the West African Colonies, and I find that Sierra Leone in 1873 borrowed £40,000 on her own security for the purpose of certain harbour works. I do not know what progress was made with those works, but the interest of the loan and the capital sum as well have been paid off. Surely, then, there is no great need for this advance for railways in Sierra Leone. What security is there that the interest and the principal of the loans will be paid? Clause 2 of the Bill provides that the principal shall be a charge on the revenues and assets of the colonies; but the present financial condition of some of the colonies is not first class. In the case of the Gold Coast, for instance, it is admitted that the colony cannot pay its way, and of late years the Imperial Parliament has made increased grants in aid of its revenue. Could there be anything more absurd than trying to hoodwink the public into the idea that you are advancing money on good security, when you yourselves have recognised in the last year or two that the colony cannot pay its way, and needs grants from the Imperial Exchequer to enable it to cover its current ordinary expenditure?

The grant was made in aid of the northern territories. It was quite exceptional, and did not arise under the ordinary expenditure and revenue of the colony.

I accept that explanation, but it only shows the difficulty the House is in. May I ask the Colonial Secretary whether the railways are entirely in the Gold Coast Colony or in the northern territories?

The railways are practically entirely in the colony, but there is a proposal to carry the railway to Kumassi.

I understood that the part of the grant in aid which related to telegraphs was given to the colony and not to the northern territories.

The telegraph is in the northern territories. My feeling in regard to all these matters is that where money is being expended for the development of the territories it should be granted by way of loan; but where the money is required in order to make provision against possible aggression—which, fortunately, has now been rendered unnecessary by the Convention with France—I hold it is not fair the abnormal expenditure required should fall on the colony.

May I ask whether the revenues of the Gold Coast are the security for the railways?

Yes.

In the short time which has been at our disposal, it has been impossible for outsiders to closely examine the matter; but I have looked through the Colonial Office List, which gives a summary of the revenue and expenditure of some of the colonies within recent years, and I find that, as to the Gold Coast, in 1888–89 there was a deficit, in the three following years a surplus, in the three next years a deficit, and last year the revenue was £237,000 and the expenditure £406,000. What kind of security will the revenue of the Gold Coast be for a loan of half a million sterling? Lagos and Sierra Leone are to get between them a million sterling for railways, but the House has been afforded no information in respect to those places. Half a million is to go to the Malay States, in all of which, except one, there is a deficit. The security, therefore, does not look very first class. £450,000, divided into five different purposes, is to go to Jamaica. One purpose is railway rolling stock, a very strange object for which to lend money from the Imperial Exchequer. It certainly is not a very promising form of investment, and I think we ought to have had some explanation about the proposed payment for debentures. It seems to me that the creditors, seeing a prospect of getting a loan from the Imperial Exchequer, have been holding out for better terms. But no information has been vouchsafed us at all.

I will give it now.

It is rather too late. I am not speaking for myself, but I say the House of Commons is not being fairly treated by being asked to pass this Bill without information during the last week of the session. There is an item of £150,000 to Jamaica, for what purpose? In aid of the revenue. Loans are to be made on the security of the revenue, and at the same time Parliament is making a grant in aid of the revenue. Surely, that is taking money out of one pocket to put it into the other. I will not go further into detail, but I do say there are two strong arguments against proceeding with this Bill at this period of the session. The first is the absolute want of information as to the purposes for which we are asked to advance this money, and the second is the absence of information as to the security to be given. Surely, it is an extraordinary thing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should, at this late period of the session, propose to advance over £3,000,000 without informing the House as to the security on which this money is to be invested. This is a distinctly new departure both in financial and colonial policy. The Secretary for the Colonies has been in the habit of making interesting speeches upon the subject of his colonial policy, and his desire to develop the backward colonies out of the Imperial Exchequer. There may have been Votes of this character passed by this House, but this House has not been committed to that course, and there is a strong objection, indeed, to public credit being used for the purposes of constructing these public works and building these railways in backward colonies, in order to promote their commercial development. That is a question which ought to be discussed and debated, and the House ought to have an opportunity, in full session, of debating it. I do think that the mode in which the Government have brought forward this very important Bill, which contains so many novelties, both financial and political, at the very fag end of the session, is really playing with the control of the House, and I think we are entitled to an explanation. I beg leave to move the adjournment of the Debate.

I cannot accept that motion.

Then I move that this Bill be read a second time this day three months.

We have voted no less than £14,000,000 during the last fortnight, and it can only be said in regard to £6,000,000 of that sum that full notice was given to the House. That is the amount which the House has been called upon to authorise the payment of within the past fortnight. It seems to me that a very strong ground of objection to the present proposal can be taken upon that fact alone. By bringing forward this proposal at this late period of the session, we are committing the House and the country to a principle which, I submit, has never been discussed. It is quite true that, earlier in the session, the Colonial Secretary indicated what his policy would be, for he described it as one of active and vigorous Colonial development. We were, however, promised full opportunity for discussion; but we are now called upon to give our adhesion and consent to the Second Reading of a Bill containing a principle which there is not time to fully consider. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, in February last, that—

"Before a loan is made a proposal will come before Parliament, and a full explanation will be given as to the reasons why it is asked for."

Here we are asked to authorise a series loans to the various colonies which the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself expressly excluded. With regard to the argument that these loans will offer good investments for the Savings Bank Fund, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that that was a matter requiring consideration; therefore, I can hardly think that he is entitled to assume that the House will be disposed on that ground to assent to this Bill. In the discussion upon a similar Bill last year, it was clearly indicated that the result of this policy would be to bring about a consolidation of the loans already given to the colonies. We are not only assenting to the loans mentioned in the Schedule, but we are opening the door to the proposition hinted at by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it may be convenient to take advantage of this machinery to enable the whole of the colonial loans to be consolidated into one fund similar to the Local Loans Fund of this country. Practically, we are giving up, once and for all, our control by assenting to a principle which has never been discussed by the House. I know the same practice has been adopted by foreign countries for the development of their colonies, but it is open to doubt whether the commercial men of those countries approve of it. It is a very serious matter to ask the House, within a week of the end of the session, to adopt such a proposal, when it is impossible to discuss the Bill thoroughly, and when many hon. Members who could contribute valuable information are absent. I think the Government is exercising its predominant power to the very great detriment of the confidence which the country might be disposed to have in the future deliberations of this House. It seems to me to be straining representative institutions to the utmost, that no consideration should be given to the very weighty reasons which have been advanced for postponing this Bill.

I do not share the regret of the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentlemen opposite at this Bill being passed through Parliament at the end of the session. I do not share that regret, because it embodies a principle which I have strenuously advocated—namely, that the credit of the mother country, on reasonable and solid security, should be granted to the aid of Crown colonies in cases where justification has been made out for it. Therefore, I am glad that, even at this eleventh hour, this Bill has been introduced, and I hope it will pass into law without alteration. But in saying this, I must be allowed to express my regret that a Bill, embodying an entirely new principle, should be introduced and passed into law without proper discussion in this House, and without proper consideration outside. I do not object so much on the ground of procedure, for I would rather sacrifice procedure than principle, but I do feel that this is a great departure from the financial regulations which govern the administration of the finances of this country, and I am sorry that that new departure cannot be, and will not be, subjected to that discussion and examination in the country which it ought to receive. My right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the 23rd February last, said:

"I was desirous of introducing this Bill before, because I felt it was a measure which it would be advisable should be known and discussed in this House and in the country."

It was discussed.

The Bill was very little discussed in this House, and cannot now be discussed in the country at all. This Bill differs very much from the previous Bill, and requires not equal but more examination than the other Bill. My right hon. friend may recollect that when the other Bill was introduced Amendments were suggested which I thought were unreasonable, but in the present case what is going to be done? Not only are we unable to have the Bill examined as it ought to be examined, but we cannot receive what my right hon friend told us we should obtain, and that is a full explanation of the purposes for which the Bill is required. I am bound to say that I differ from the right hon. Gentleman as to the nature of the securities, and on this point I share the opinion of my right hon. friend below. Here we are going to transfer the administration of these loans, and a Department of State is to make these advances and report to the House, not before but after the money has been spent. We are going to authorise a Department of the State to make these advances and report to us, not before but after the money has been advanced. I have a little experience in loans, and if the control of the House of Commons is worth anything, surely the House should be consulted before, and not after, the advance is made.

It is being consulted now.

I do not think that my right hon. friend will claim that the examination which we are now allowed to institute is a very searching or critical examination; but, even superficial though it be, it does enable us to discriminate between advances which are urgent advances which are not. We all approve of the House of Commons being asked to aid the West Indies in connection with hurricanes and other emergencies; but a railway in Sierra Leone, or a harbour and railways and irrigation in Cyprus, do not appear to me to partake of the urgent nature which distinguishes the advances to Barbados and St. Vincent. There is another principle which I also think ought not to be sanctioned by this House in this casual way, and that is with reference to the employment of the Post Office Savings Bank Funds. Personally, I am not desirous that these funds should be invested in any security that has not at the back of it the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom. If these funds are invested in these loans, it is the State that will run the risk. That is an important departure from the principle on which we have hitherto acted. In spite of these objections I do not wish to prevent this Bill passing into law. (Opposition laughter.) I am not aware why hon. Gentlemen should laugh. As I said at the outset, this Bill embodies a principle I have always advocated. I hope it will be passed, but I regret that it has not been submitted to sufficient examination and investigation.

The hon. Member appeared surprised that we on this side laughed just now. I believe we had reason. The hon. Member made an excellent speech against the Bill, and then he finished up by hoping that the Bill would be passed. I might have hesitated as to whether I would vote for or against the Bill, but the hon. Member has so thoroughly convinced me that this is a bad Bill, that he himself is to a certain extent responsible for the action of my legs in taking me into the Lobby against it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer used a most extraordinary argument in favour of this Bill. He said that we required investments for the Savings Bank Funds, and that therefore he created these investments. Of course, they will be safe enough as far as the Savings Bank is concerned if you give a Government guarantee; but I never heard of a Government giving a guarantee and then saying they give it in order that they might be able to invest in a good security. The question really is, whether we will have good security ourselves, or whether we may be called upon to pay under the guarantee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a director of an insurance company, and I ask him, would he in that capacity regard this loan as an Al security without a guarantee? Of course he would not. Why, then, should he ask the country to invest in these securities, which would not be regarded as A 1 for an insurance company's purpose? I look through the Schedule of this Bill and find most extraordinary things. We are asked to believe that a grant to Jamaica in aid of revenue is a good investment. Jamaica cannot carry on on its own revenue, and we are asked to supply the deficit and to hope that in the future Jamaica will be able to repay us with interest. Then there is to be another advance to Jamaica for the completion and equipment of a railway, and the very next item for Jamaica is "interest on railway debentures," which means that the railway is unable to pay the interest on its debentures. Then, again, we are asked to advance £314,000 to Cyprus for "Harbour and Railways and Irrigation." Why, Sir, we know perfectly well that the first charge on Cyprus is the amount of £100,000 per annum, which is paid practically in tribute to the Turkish Empire. At the present moment Cyprus cannot bear the expenses of administration, and we are expected to believe that in the future she will be able to meet her expenses and pay the interest on this loan. We know perfectly well what will occur. After a little while we shall be told that Jamaica, Cyprus, and the other places cannot pay, and that we shall have to pay. I have observed that in Turkey, China, and other remote parts of the world, there is great competition for concessions to build railroads among financiers; but even the wildest financier would never dream of taking, even as a gift, the right to build railroads in Jamaica or Cyprus. We are asked to vote certain sums of money for these purposes, but we are not told whether more money will be required. Surely these railroads are not to be left half finished. Our great complaint is that the Bill has been brought in so late in the session, and at a period when it was understood controversial measures would not be introduced. No one will deny that this is a very controversial measure. On the Schedule alone it will be my painful duty to divide the House at least fifteen times—and allowing fifteen minutes for each Division, that means nearly four hours—and allowing an hour for discussing each item, which cannot be regarded as excessive, that means nearly twenty hours on the Schedule alone. Under the circumstances, if we go on with this Bill, the session is not likely to end at the period which is now contemplated. We want to go away for our holidays—we fully admit that—but we are ready to sacrifice ourselves. There are hon. Members on these benches with such determination and patriotism—I am not speaking of myself—that they will sit during August and September rather than allow this Bill to go through in this reckless fashion. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will realise that, whether the Bill be good or bad, it is too important, and too controversial, to go through this session, and that accordingly it will be at once withdrawn.

Before the Bill is read a second time, I should like to—

Order, order! The

I beg leave to move an Amendment restricting the item in the Schedule of "ranges, including accommodation for manœuvring and mobilisation," to the sums provided under the Military Works Act of 1897. My object in moving this Amendment is to carry out a pledge which I gave to the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in accepting this Amendment, and so obviating a repetition of what happened under the Act of last year, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer allowed the Government, under the ambiguous phrase in question, to purchase land at Salisbury Plain, including the right hon. Gentleman's own property. The record of that transaction never came before the Public Accounts Committee, but was hidden away among the items in the Military Works Bill of that year.

The hon. Member has made a personal charge against me, on which I must say a word. He has said that by a phrase or expression hidden away in the Military Works Act, 1897, the Government were enabled to purchase a large area at Salisbury Plain, including my property, for the purposes of manœuvres, without the knowledge of Parliament,

I did not say that.

I am not inclined to rest under what is obviously intended as a personal reflection, and I should just like to state in a very few sentences my connection with the matter. Some three years ago, very soon after the Government was formed, my noble friend the Secretary for War informed me that, in the opinion of himself and his advisers, it was necessary that the Government should obtain possession of a large area of land for the purpose of exercising troops. I suggested to him that, in my opinion, the most convenient place would be adjoining Aldershot, where, of course, the Government already possess a considerable area of land. He proved to me that land near Aldershot could only be purchased at about £100 an acre, and that it would be impossible, under the circumstances, to purchase there the large area of land that he required. I then suggested that an area should be purchased somewhere in the midland counties, and I think I indicated Cannock Chase. For reasons which appeared sufficient to my noble friend and the War Office, that area could not be chosen, on account of the nature of the ground, or something of that kind. He then said they had made up their minds, and they desired to purchase a large area at Salisbury Plain. I said that was not a matter on which I could say Aye or No, as the scheme must necessarily include property belonging to myself, and that if the Government decided on such a policy, I could not deal with it as Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that the Cabinet must deal with it without my advice. The Cabinet having adopted the policy, I requested my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury and my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, who had previously held the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, to do what was properly my duty in the matter—namely, to check the financial aspect of the question. The whole transaction was carried out by them, acting with Lord Lansdowne, as Secretary of State for War, and Parliament was completely informed of the intention of the Government to purchase this area by the present Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs when he brought in the Military Works Act of 1897. Subsequently, when it came to a question as to whether my property should be purchased and the price to be given for it, I took no part whatever in the decision; the whole matter was carried through by arbitration. Neither in the decision to take land on Salisbury Plain, nor in the purchase of my property, did I take any part. I think the hon. Member owes me some apology for his offensive and unfounded imputation.

I must say I had no intention of making any imputation upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if my words were susceptible of such an interpretation, I beg in the most unqualified way to withdraw them What I did say was, that of the purchase of the property on Salisbury Plain, including that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, there was no record in the public accounts, and it was paid for out of this item of "ranges, including accommodation for manœuvring and mobilisation. "There is an ambiguity in the public accounts which I should think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be himself anxious to remove, and I am glad that it will be removed by the Amendment. I desire once more in the most unqualified way to apologise to the Chancellor of the Exchequer if I have injured his feelings in any way—which was far from my intention—for, of course, we all know that the right hon. Gentleman is the very soul of honour.

There is a motion down on the Paper in my name for an address to Her Majesty, asking for an additional judge to be added to the Chancery Division of the High Court. There was an addition to the judges of the Chancery Division, which was asked for, I think, authoritatively, by a Committee over which Lord Esher presided now a good many years ago, and subsequently to that I think two successive Governments, in 1886 and 1888 respectively, announced their intention of asking the House to grant this additional strength to the Chancery Division. For reasons which it is not necessary now to mention, these intentions never were carried out, and reforms which Lord Esher intended to inaugurate by the appointment of a new judge have in consequence never been carried into effect. Hence we are not only suffering from arrears of business due to an insufficient staff, but from arrears of business due to the imperfect condition of the courts which are dealing with Chancery business. I do not know that it is necessary for me to remind the House that, if these evils of arrears of business were already manifest as far back as 1886 and 1888, they have not diminished but increased since then; and inasmuch as the courts show no power to deal with the arrears which exist, it seems to be high time that steps should be taken to strengthen them. An hon. friend of mine put a question to me the other day on this subject, suggesting that additional strength to the Chancery Division should be taken from the Common Law Division, and cited a case which occurred recently, where a judge went down to Wales and found no judicial business laid before him, except that of releasing a youth upon his own recognisances—not a function of sufficient importance to make it necessary to send a judge of the High Court down to Wales. But, Sir, while I am far from denying that in existing circumstances there may be, and perhaps must be, some undoubted loss of judicial strength, I doubt whether it is possible to have a circuit system at all in which a certain amount of waste is not necessary—I may go further and say that I am not prepared to deny that improved organisation may result in something material to prevent that waste; but when my hon. friend and those who think with him go a step further and say that, because there is now a certain waste of judicial strength, it is desirable that a judge should be lent by the Queen's Bench Division to the Chancery Division, I would point out that nobody, as far as I know, suggests that a judge could be permanently transferred from the Queen's Bench Division to the Chancery Division; and any relief from that source would take the form of lending a judge for a certain number of days in each year. Of the propriety of that course I am not in a position to form an opinion from any original observations or experience of my own; I have to take my opinions on trust; but those who are competent to advise me upon the point seem clear that the idea of lending a judge temporarily for a certain number of days in the year by one division to another is but a makeshift, and is likely to produce, on the whole, many inconveniences. I therefore, after consideration, reject that proposal, and I am more strengthened in that view by the fact that I understand that the Queen's Bench Division is not at the present moment of more than the proper strength to carry out the work that comes before it. I believe the Lord Chief Justice gave a somewhat rosy view of the condition of work in that division; but in recent years we have had to throw more work on the Queen's Bench Division than it used to have. A Railway Commissioner has been taken from amongst the judges, additional bankruptcy work has been thrown on it, and under an ecclesiastical Bill of a year or two ago further work of a different kind has been entrusted to it. In these circumstances I feel obliged to reject the suggestion. We are, therefore, brought face to face with the Chancery Division and the Chancery Division alone, and all we have to ask ourselves is, Can that division do the work the public require of it? Ten years ago there; were arrears, fifteen years ago there were arrears, and if we compare the statistics of the court at present with what they were ten years ago, we shall find that the arrears have been actually augmented. In those circumstances one of the primary duties of the House and the Legislature is to see that justice is administered to Her Majesty's lieges. I think there can be no doubt as to the propriety of the resolution I propose to the House. Cheap justice we shall never be able to give. That is an ideal to which no reformer has ever been able to attain; but if we cannot give cheap justice, we may do something towards speedy justice, and I think it would be a pity if the House should allow a state of things to continue under which one of the chief courts of the kingdom remains avowedly and undoubtedly undermanned.

I cordially agree with the closing; remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House—that it is one of the primary duties of this House to secure, as far as possible, a speedy administration of justice. I also agree with him that in the present state of affairs in our courts there is very good ground for complaint as to delays, and I might also say the confusion which takes, place under our present system. But I am not prepared at once to accept the remedy which the right hon. Gentleman proposes without venturing to submit one or two considerations to the House bearing on the question. I think we must remember that we are dealing on this occasion with an exceptional state of things. There is no doubt that the administration of justice has, during the last three months, been very seriously interfered with in this country by the absence from England of the Lord Chief Justice, and of one of the Lords Justices of Appeal. Now, I should be the very last man to use any word which would imply any doubt—if any doubt at all existed—as to the extraordinary capacity and qualification which these two judges possess for the public duty they have undertaken. But I venture to think that the first duty of the Lord Chief Justice of England is the administration of justice in England, and that no public duty which could possibly be imposed upon him, at all events of an ordinary character, is any sufficient justification for the Government of the day removing him from the high judicial duties which he, and he alone, so long as he fills that office, can fill. I am aware that the lamented death of Lord Herschell created a vacancy which we all deplore, one which, perhaps, it was not unnatural the Government should for the moment think might best be filled by the appointment of another great judge. But Lord Herschell's position was essentially different from that of the Lord Chief Justice. The Lord Chief Justice has public duties at home to discharge—duties that I think are of greater importance to the suitors of this country than the settlement of the dispute on which he is at present arbitrating. Lord Herschell, on the other hand, had no such primary duties devolving upon him. I think the circumstances are aggravated by the fact that a very learned and eminent Lord Justice of Appeal was also taken away. at the same time. In passing, I would only make this remark, that I do not think the resources either of diplomacy, or of statesmanship are exhausted, and I think, with all my admiration and respect for Lord Chief Justice Russell and Lord Justice Henn Collins, two other distinguished men might have been found whose selection would not have involved. the very serious injury which I think has been inflicted upon the administration of justice in this country. But, passing from that, I admit that the normal state of affairs, even if these two judges had been at home, is most unsatisfactory, and I think the time has arrived when a remedy should be found. But I would ask the House, whether the first consideration should not be whether our existing judicial time, and our existing judicial power, should not be better economised than at present, and whether we are getting—I will not say the most advantage—but the ordinary amount of advantage which we ought to get from so powerful, so expensive, and so valuable a machine as the judges of our Supreme Court constitute. Our difficulties arise both in criminal and civil trials, and it is to be regretted that our criminal judicial system, even now, allows so long an interval often to elapse between the committal of a prisoner for trial and his trial. It is a very poor consolation to a man who has been in prison three or four months to be discharged without a stain on his character. That is an evil which ought to be remedied at all costs, but is the course the right hon. Gentleman now proposes the best course to take? The circuit system is a very expensive and extravagant way of spending judicial power, and when I see judges sent round to try, not only quarter sessions cases, but insignificant quarter sessions cases, I feel that those who advise the Government have not considered the question of the readjustment of judicial time. So far as quarter sessions are concerned, I think they are steadily improving in their judicial character. There was a time when there was a just outcry for the appointment of officers to preside over quarter sessions similar or equivalent to the recorders who preside over borough sessions. But so far as I have been able to watch the trend of opinion amongst magistrates, the tendency of the last few years has been for magistrates to elect as chairmen of quarter sessions men who, though, perhaps, not practising lawyers, have displayed to a great extent the judicial faculty, and who have made excellent chairmen of quarter sessions. Without saying whether it is desirable or not to add to our Courts of Quarter Sessions trained judges, the extension of the jurisdiction of those courts would be an economical and a speedy mode of relieving the criminal business of the High Court, leaving to the judges of that court the criminal business of the more serious character: Then there is another waste of judicial power, irrespective of the distribution of circuit work—I mean the Divisional Courts. In the Chancery Division of the High Court one judge is considered sufficient to decide in court of first instance matters of the gravest character, involving the largest amount of property and the most difficult questions of law. By what I think was not the intention of the Legislature in 1875, we have Divisional Courts consisting of two judges, and, as one of the judges said to me the other day, that means a divided responsibility and, to a great extent, so far as one judge is concerned, no responsibility at all. I think it is a waste of judicial power that two judges should be sitting on one side of the Courts of Justice to decide matters not comparable in magnitude and importance to those which on the other side are decided by one judge, and if that were reformed there would be great saving there of judicial power. There is another point, and perhaps this is the most important of all, and that is the anomalous and unsatisfactory condition of the county court jurisdiction. That jurisdiction is at present limited to£50. We have an expensive and elaborate system of county courts, an evolution from the old debt-collecting system. Many of the county court judges are most capable men and qualified to sit on the bench of the High Court. They, together with the registrars, administer, no doubt to some extent, a system of justice, but devote a great part of their time and energy simply to debt-collecting, fixing the times in which debts can be paid and ought to be paid. I think before the Government asked the House to make an addition to the High Court, they ought to have dealt with the question which was before the House in 1888, and again and again since—namely, the extension of the jurisdiction of the county courts, so that they would have the power to deal with a larger class of cases than they have now, leaving to the High Court the cases of greater magnitude. The question has been repeatedly brought before the House by the hon. Member for Gloucester, and those who have preceded him in the office of President of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, and an extension of the county court jurisdiction is the desire of all the commercial classes of the country. In 1888 a few reforms were introduced by means of the Consolidation of County Courts Act. I well remember that Mr. Gladstone was rather severe upon some of us who thought that that was an appropriate opportunity of trying to make some amendments of the existing law in regard to the administration of county courts. I am happy to say that, notwithstanding his undoubted reluctance to introduce any Amendment in that Consolidation Act, laying down the sound and wise principle that a Consolidation Act should not alter the law, certain Members of this House, one of whom was the present Lord James, did effect some very valuable improvements in that Bill. But a great many improvements which were then suggested have never been carried out. There are some county court judges who do the full amount of judicial work that it is possible for judges to do, and they do it remarkably well. There are other county court judges who do not sit a hundred days in the year, and whose appointments are practically sinecures. There was a power given in the Consolidation Act to alter the districts and to distribute the judges; there was power given to the Executive to make the idle judges work harder and to relieve the judges of the great towns in their judicial work by the addition of other judges. But practically nothing has been, done. There has been no redistribution of the circuits, and the old evils have gone on. We have not availed ourselves of the remedies at our hand, we have allowed these arrears to accumulate; and now, when the hereditary instincts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to resist the appointment of an additional judge have been overcome, this rough-and-ready-method is proposed, and things will go on as before. I very much regret that in the course of the session more time has not been given to the question of the administration of justice. I do not ask for more time in this House. I quite understand the great labour that devolves on the House of Commons and the Ministry of the day; but I think, if there was a branch of public administration which deserved and demanded the attention and supervision and reform of another place, it is the administration of justice. If a scheme of utilising, both in criminal and civil jurisdiction, our present staff of judges, of the readjustment of the limits of county court authority, had been matured in another place, this House and the country would have been very much indebted to that House, and some solid progress towards law reform would have been made. At all events, the present proposal does nothing; but we cannot refuse, and certainly I shall not refuse, to join in the motion of the right hon. Gentleman. I believe it to be a necessity, although I do not think it is the most excellent way of providing a remedy for the present state of things. The right hon. Gentleman has given up in despair the idea of cheap justice. Our justice is a long way from being cheap. It is the dearest system of justice in the world. I admit that it is the best; but I think that every reform that has been made in the administration of justice, at all events during the last thirty years, has added enormously to the cost of justice and to the delay, has prolonged the time given to individual cases, and has produced, and is producing, a general state of dissatisfaction amongst all classes of the community. The present system cannot go on. The right hon. Gentleman has proposed a stopgap, and that may, perhaps, stand the strain upon it for some little time, but sooner or later our judicial system will have to be reconstructed. It can be carried on, and ought to be carried on, at a much less cost and with much greater rapidity than at present, and I hope that some day a Minister will arise who will endeavour to carry out that reform, which is, perhaps, a greater reform than many others on which public attention is more generally concentrated.

I wish to associate myself generally with everything which has been said by my right hon. friend who has just sat down. I have been professionally connected with the administration of the law for five and forty years. This has certainly given me some experience in the matter, and I doubt whether matters were ever really in a worse condition during that time than they are now. All the reasons, I think, have not been mentioned. In the earlier days, I remember, it was the custom of the Lord High Chancellor himself to sit as a judge almost daily, except when he was engaged in the House of Lords. The work of a distinguished judge of that, description was, of course, of very great assistance in clearing off arrears and in giving that speedy justice which is desired. I have even known a Lord Chancellor—Lord Selborne—to sit as a Judge of First Instance when there was a difficulty in the work being done. It is a very rare thing indeed for the present Lord Chancellor to sit, except, in the House of Lords, and now and then, as one of the members of the Court of Appeal Great advantage would be gained if his Lordship would occasionally—I do not say regularly—when not engaged in the House of Lords, sit as a judge in the Court of Chancery. Another reason why there are these arrears is that the work is not got through as it might, be by the judges, and also the fact that there are a great many appeals which might be avoided. It is always a very disagreeable thing to say anything about anyone who is not present, and especially one does not like to make any invidious remarks with regard to any of the judges. At the same time, there is no doubt that a great deal of the way in which justice is administered depends upon the men who are selected to be judges, and the manner in which they are selected. It has been stated, not in this House, but in newspapers—not in newspapers of a party character, but in the law journals—that there is a great want of confidence in the manner in which judges have been selected by the present Lord High Chancellor.

Order, order! I do not see how that is relevant to the question as to whether a new judge should be appointed.

I will show the relevancy. The relevancy is that if this judge is to be appointed by the Lord High Chancellor, some of us may have such a want of confidence in the appointment as to vote against this motion.

Order, order! That is altogether remote from the question before the House.

I must, of course, bow to your ruling. I understand it is not open to me, in discussing the question whether another judge should be appointed, to make comment upon the manner in which judges are appointed. If that is your ruling, of course I must cease doing so, pointing out, however, that while every other public official is open to the criticism, of this House, that particular public official is not so open, but can do what he pleases without interference from us. I will therefore go on to the other part to which I wish to call attention. Under the old system you could choose your judge. You cannot do that now. The judge to whom a particular cause goes is fixed by ballot, and the consequence is that when you have a question of a particular character to be decided you have to take your chance of the matter being dealt with by a judge who is simply incompetent to decide such a question. I have in my mind the case of the construction of a will. It was a friendly suit. We would if we could have selected the judge to decide it, and all parties would have been content with his decision. The ballot took us before Judge B. His decision was so hopelessly and ridiculously wrong that on appeal it was laughed out of Court.

Order, order! Upon the motion which is now before the House, it is not competent for the hon. Member to discuss the decision or the conduct of a judge in the High Court.

I bow at once to your ruling, but I regret that it is not possible for me to justify, by instances inside the House, what is common talk outside.

Before this resolution is accepted, I should like to say a word or two on the larger question mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton. The acceptance of this resolution must be a matter of course to the House, because, as has been said by my right hon. friend, it is perfectly clear that the Government have felt, after many representations at different times, that it is impossible to refuse that relief which is required by the state of business in the Chancery Division, and the question of the expense of a new judge is a very small matter indeed, compared with the importance of enabling the Chancery Division to carry on its work. I entirely agree that the administration of justice in this country is now a matter which ought to be very seriously considered by the Government and by both Houses of Parliament. I am not prepared to agree entirely with some of the suggestions of my right hon. friend the Member for Wolverhampton, but it is clear that, with regard to the administration of the law at Quarter Sessions and the calls made upon judges of the High Court to go about the country trying what are very often small and unimportant cases, there is room for a rearrangement of judicial work which would save a great deal of time, and—what I look upon as still more important—would save the inexcusable delay there is at present in the administration of criminal justice. A far more important thing than the question of the wasting of a day of the judges' time is the detaining of a man who may turn out to be innocent for three, four, or five months before he is tried. That is a much more important side of the question. I believe that, with regard to this question, we have something like a promise from Her Majesty's Government. I understand that the Lord Chancellor has said that it is not proposed to appoint a Commission. I am very glad that is so with regard to this matter, because all the facts are easily ascertainable, and the Lord Chancellor and the legal advisers of the Government are perfectly competent to make proposals on the subject. It was said that here, or in another place, proposals are to be made at an early period. I am glad that promise has been made, and I think we may wait with some confidence for the fulfilment of that promise especially as the present Lord Chancellor is one of the most experienced lawyers in regard to the administration of criminal justice. He has distinguished himself as a Chancellor by the diligence with which he has discharged his judicial duties both in the House of Lords and in the Privy Council, and, when necessary, in the Court of Appeal. He is one of the greatest judges we have, and certainly one of the most diligent. No doubt there is room for some rearrangement of the work in connection with the county courts. The present county court judges all over the country are almost overburdened with work, and it would be impossible, without making considerable changes in the staff of county court judges, to deal with the jurisdiction of the county courts owing to the important matters which are remitted to them from the High Court. Of course, this proposal before the House refers to the Chancery Division, and is intended only for the relief of the Chancery Division; but the administration of justice in the Queen's Bench Division is at the present time in a very unsatisfactory state. We are now deprived of the presence in the law courts of two of our most distinguished judges. I do not know why the Lord Chief Justice was taken away from his proper duties and removed from that which ought to be the occupation of his life—the superintendence and direction of the affairs of the Queen's Bench Division—in order to sit upon an Arbitration Commission in Paris. But there is one matter in regard to the administration of justice in the Queen's Bench Division, which is not only a mischief to the public, but is also a great inconvenience and disadvantage to the judges themselves. The judges now, in consequence of the change which has done away with the three divisions of the Common Law Courts, have become, practically, a crowd of judges having no special duty or relationship one to the other, and the arrangements for the discharge of their work are not superintended by any judicial direction at all, so far as I know, but depend upon a casual list drawn up by some under officer, and no judge of the Queen's Bench Division knows from day to day what he has to do, or where he will be called upon to sit. It is a very grave misfortune, and I hope, if there is to be any serious attempt to consider the administration of justice in all its branches in this country—and the time is quite ripe for it—there may be serious consideration to see whether it is not possible to restore the old plan under which there were three divisions of the Common Law Courts, under which we had the Exchequer dealing mainly with revenue matters, the Queen's Bench dealing with Crown affairs, and the Court of Common Pleas dealing more especially with commercial business, and in which we had a Court of Appeal which was the best ever invented. The old system of three divisions created esprit de corps among the judges, and it made each judge interested in the success of his own division. I do trust that the question of restoring that old system of the threefold division of the Common Law Courts will be seriously considered when an inquiry is made into this matter. With regard to the appointment of an additional Chancery Judge, I think every lawyer will be grateful to the Government for relieving the pressure by consenting to the appointment of another judge. I only hope that they will also undertake the larger and more important task, and that in the near future they will make some pro- posals which will have the effect of giving a more satisfactory administration of justice in all the High Courts.

In giving notice to oppose this by a Division, it is not my desire and intention to say one word wanting in respect to the judges of the High Courts. We have known many of them here, and we have known them outside. We have the greatest regard for all their merits, and all of them we respect when once they become commissioned as one of Her Majesty's judges. We do that on account of our desire to gain respect and consideration for the law as well as for those who administer it. My objection to this motion is that I cannot help thinking that if the Government like to take the trouble to rearrange and reorganise the judicial system, they will find that there are plenty of judges to do the work that is necessary to be done, and it might be done well and probably in less time than it is now done. There is the case which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton has mentioned, of a judge going on circuit for three weeks to pick up a little case which might just as well have been dealt with by some county court judge. There are numerous instances where judges go on circuit and practically have no work to do. The South Wales instance is a notorious case, where a judge goes prancing about from town to town at enormous cost, and involving an enormous waste of time; and whilst cases are waiting to be tried in London, our judges are careering about round a remote part of the United Kingdom with nothing whatever to do except to kill time and to incur cost. Why should we not make the re-arrangement roughly sketched by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, and then this increased expenditure with regard to the judges would be altogether unnecessary. My opinion is that the judges might systematically sit a few hours longer than they do now. They are highly paid, and they hold positions of great dignity. They hold positions which are sought after by many members of the Bar. I know there are members of the Bar earning so much money in their profession that they would not leave it in order to take the position of a judge; but it is not always the best lawyers who make the best judges. I have seen—

Order, order! The hon. Member is getting away altogether from the question before the House.

Yes, I think, perhaps, I am. My contention is that there are at present quite sufficient judges if the time and work were so distributed as to employ them a reasonable number of hours per day, and a reasonable number of days per year. I should think the long vacation could very easily and advantageously be shortened. The judges take three months' holiday in the autumn; they have holidays again at Christmas, and I believe there is another vacation at Easter; and then a large portion of the time of the judges is spent on circuit, which is very much of the nature of holidays also, and the duties of a judge may become a succession of holidays. I think, when we are so parsimonious in dealing with other branches of the public service, we ought to review the position of the judges. It was only the other day that we learned from one of the Ministers of the Crown that all men between sixty and sixty-five years of age, according to their physical capacity, were to be discharged from the public service without any pension or any consideration at all.

Order, order! I must point out to the hon. Member that the matter he is discussing does not arise upon the question as to whether the time of one judge can be saved without any new appointment.

My intention was to show that the money which is now going to be expended in the appointment of another judge, which I consider to be unnecessary, would have been much more profitably expended in connection with the pensioning of some of our old public servants; but, if I am out of order, I will not further pursue that argument. It was strongly in my mind, and I could not suppress it, and I apologise for letting it out. I do appeal to the Leader of the House, whose sweet reasonableness is susceptible to appeals even from this side of the House, whether it would not be advisable for him to withdraw this motion this session, and take the time between now and the next session in framing such a scheme or rearrangement of the judicial work of the country as will make this motion unnecessary. That is my point, and I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will take that course. I am not a lawyer, and that is my misfortune, but I cannot help thinking that some arrangement might be made whereby circuit work might be concentrated in particular parts of the country. Of course, the objection to this would be that it would be costly to the litigant who lived a long way from the court; but in my judgment it would be far cheaper to the country to pay the personal expenses of the litigant, for in that way you might save sufficient of the judges' time to more than compensate for the cost of travelling and other expenses of the litigants. In the case of North Wales, for instance, you might have Chester as the centre, or some other equally important place, such as Carnarvon, where all the North Wales cases might be concentrated. Look at the enormous saving of time and money this concentration would accomplish. If you take this reasonable and commonsense course in the reorganisation of your judicial system, there is no reason why you should appoint an additional judge at all, and in all probability, in the course of a year or two, you may be able to discharge a few judges. I really think that would be the case, and we should get justice more quickly administered than it is now. I feel that this motion on the part of the Government is one which is unnecessary, although I make no reflection on the judges, for they are simply the creatures of the system. If a judge is idle for a day, a week, a fortnight, or three weeks, as was the case in South Wales, it is not the judge who is to be found fault with and criticised, although he has to bear the blame at the hands of a great many laymen who do not understand the present organisation. A judge is the creature of circumstances, and he must go where he is bidden to go; and if time is wasted, and money is poured out like water, it is not his fault, but the fault of the Government, who do not take the trouble to carry out a little reform in the way of reorganisation, which is certainly wanted and highly necessary in many parts of the country, and which would save all necessity for mischievous motions such as the right hon. Gentleman has moved to-night. From my experience as a layman I do think that there is a great deal of work now done by the judges which might be perfectly well dealt with by Quarter Sessions. He is perfectly right in saying that in many Quarter Sessions districts the chairman is no longer the old port-drinking squire In most cases he is at present a man of large experience in public affairs, and is often quite as capable of dealing with many of the small cases now sent to the assizes as the judge himself. I think if the Government would take the advice of my right hon. friend in that respect, an enormous amount of time might be saved in our assize courts. I also believe that much of the work of Quarter Sessions might be given to Petty Sessional Courts, which ought to have the power to deal with many of the cases which are now sent up to Quarter Sessions.

dissented.

Perhaps the hon. Member for Plymouth does not practise in Petty Sessional Courts, for he is a past master in the High Courts. By increasing the powers of Petty Sessional Courts, I think the work of Quarter Sessions might be considerably lightened with advantage. Why cannot this work be undertaken, for the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have plenty of time? He has the highest skilled advice he can get, and if the advice of the Solicitor-General is insufficient, surely the Member for Walsall might be called in for assistance. I cannot imagine why the right hon. Gentleman does not take that course, instead of coming to the House to make further calls upon the public revenue for work which could easily be done by the present bench of judges if their work was properly re-arranged. I shall certainly divide the House, if anyone will vote with me, against this motion, because I think the proposal is entirely unnecessary and unwise in the public interest.

After the speech we have just heard from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester, I think we shall all agree that his experience as Under Secretary to the Home Department has not made him acquainted with the necessity of having trained lawyers to deal with matters of this kind. Does anyone contend that the humble peasant would prefer to be tried at Quarter Sessions instead of by one of Her Majesty's judges? I venture to say it is the inalienable right of every Englishman to be tried by one of Her Majesty's judges in the county in which he has been committed, and I cannot help remarking that the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester shows his ignorance of circuit matters. I can tell him that Her Majesty's judges do sit late and early in order to enable them to get to the next Assize town on the day when the Commission is opened. I have been in towns where the present Lord Brampton has sat till twelve o'clock at night, and I have known Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams sit from eight o'clock in the morning until twelve o'clock in the evening, in order to be at the next town by the Commission day. But what I want the House to realise is that all this has nothing whatever to do with the question of appointing an additional Chancery Division judge. The experiment of sending Chancery judges on circuit has been tried, but it was not continued for more than two years. I think it would be equally unsatisfactory to transfer judges from the Queen's Bench division to try Chancery cases. Does the hon. Member for Leicester, or the hon. Member for Walsall, suggest that the Chancery Division is too fully equipped with judges? I am sorry the hon. Member for Walsall has departed, because I am very much surprised that he did not deal with the matter touched upon by the Member for Wolverhampton in reference to the question of cheap justice. I can only say that the ratepayers of London found cheap justice impossible while the hon. Member for Walsall was connected with the London School Board. As one who knows something of the circuit system, I venture to say that it is not on the criminal side that we have to look for any alteration. With regard to the administration of justice in reference to crime in this country, I think Her Majesty's judges are the proper persons to deal with it in each county. I believe the Lord Chancellor has under consideration a scheme for concentrating the work of the circuits, but I am sure nothing will be done which will deprive the humblest peasant in every county of the opportunity of having his case tried by one of Her Majesty's judges. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton has spoken of a Chairman of Quarter Sessions with whom he is acquainted; but I know some- thing of a Chairman of Quarter Sessions in other districts who is not a port-drinking squire, but who is one of the most incompetent Chairmen I ever came across. He is a teetotaler, and presides regularly at the meetings of the Young Men's Christian Association, and it would be a disgrace to send cases before that man which ought to be tried before a judge. A great deal is said about the waste of time on circuit, but what about the number of cases that are continually left over in the Chancery Division? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton is quite wrong in his opinion with regard to Divisional Courts. I think it is only right that when an appeal comes from a judge in chambers or from a county court judge it should be decided by two judges and not by one. I only rose to protest against the suggestion that those who know anything of circuit work from practical experience have any desire to alter the circuit system, so that the trial of prisoners could be transferred to Quarter Sessions or that counties should be grouped. Both would be unjust to prisoners and to the witnesses for the defence. I should have thought that the experience that the hon. Member for Leicester had at the Home Office would have taught him that one of the great difficulties which prisoners of the humbler class have to face is to get witnesses to attend at the assize town unless the county pays the expense. To ask those witnesses to come 100 or 200 miles away from their own homes would be a gross injustice on the humbler classes of society.

I propose to pay their expenses.

I am glad the hon. Member is a convert to that extent, but his remark is not an answer to the question, Does the Chancery Division to-day need another judge? I am sure the hon. Member is only influenced by a desire to do justice, but I hope he will not prevent this resolution from being unanimously carried. I regret that the hon. Member for Walsall, who used this opportunity to make an attack on a judge, was not present to hear my remarks upon it.

Many topics of a varying degree of interest, and of a still more varying degree of relevancy, have been discussed in connec- tion with this motion, which, after all,. only relates to the appointment of an additional judge in the Chancery Division. I was extremely glad to hear from the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth that the Government are about to make some proposals for the reform of the judicial system of the country, which would afford an opportunity of full discussion in this House. I am sure such an occasion would be of great interest, and that the whole matter of the administration of justice would be debated very fully, with a view to the removal of what is conceded to be the very great evils of the existing system. The present state, of business in the Chancery Division is somewhat serious. It is business of a. peculiar kind, which cannot be patched up or dealt with by importing temporary assistance, and which is quite different from the business at assizes or quarter sessions, or even in the Queen's Bench. Owing to the way in which the Government keep the accounts, one would imagine that the cost of the Chancery Division is excessive, but a large part of the Chancery business is concerned with the administration of funds in court which result in a very great profit to the Exchequer. They do not come into the ordinary judicial estimates, but they fully justified the Government in seeing that the administration of funds and property is sufficiently and satisfactorily carried on. The more efficient the provision is for that business, the more revenue there is for the Exchequer. But this is a question of more than money. In the Chancery Division there are tried suits of a more particular degree of intricacy and pecuniary importance than on the other side. They go to the Chancery Division because they have that characteristic, and the public chooses that division because they want a careful and thorough sifting of complicated and intricate issues, which: can only be done by a judge armed with the peculiar machinery possessed by the Chancery Division, and which is available for the purpose of working out that peculiar kind of legal problem. In the present congested state of business in the Chancery Division there is a system of sending down cases to be tried, elsewhere, with the result that the cases are mangled, and great dissatisfaction is manifested on the part of suitors. Surely, the business of the Chancery Division is important enough to have it efficiently performed. That, however, cannot be done by asking the judges to sit longer hours. I think the long vacation might be curtailed, but as far as the hours are concerned, speaking from twenty years' experience, I should like the House to note the diary of the life of a Chancery judge. On Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday he sits in court from half-past ten a.m. to four p.m., and on Saturday from half-past ten to four, working as hard as any man can work. On Monday he sits in Chambers from half-past ten a. m., not until four o'clock, but until five o'clock, six o'clock, or seven o'clock in the evening, and I think it is impossible to put more work on the shoulders of the existing Chancery judges. Some are quick and some are slow, but as far as I have been able to observe, there is no more hard-working and conscientious set of public servants in the country. The Government have been pressed for a long time to appoint another judge, and if they are to be blamed at all, they are only to be blamed because they have not brought forward this resolution before. The motion has my support, and among those who are really familiar with the deplorable state of the case, there can be only one opinion.

I think the First Lord of the Treasury somewhat misunderstood the proposal which I ventured to make to him the other day. I suggested that a judge from the Queen's Bench Division should be transferred, not temporarily, but permanently to the Chancery Division; I meant that in future there should be six judges in the Chancery Division, and only fourteen in the Queen's Bench Division, because, although Chancery judges are hard worked at the present time, I do not think that the same remark applies to judges of the Queen's Bench Division. We have the Report of the Bar Counsel, stating that a great waste of time takes place on circuit, and I think some alteration of that system ought to be made before we appoint an additional judge. Those who read the newspapers cannot have helped noticing that a judge of assize recently adjourned his Court in order to be present at a cricket match. If the First Lord of the Treasury made a similar proposal to us, I for one would support him, but then we are not paid at the rate of £5,000 a year. This question ought to be looked at, not merely from the point of view of the practising lawyer, but also from the point of view of the tax-payer. From the latter point of view, I cannot understand the attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When he introduced his Budget, he lectured us on our extravagance, and now he puts this additional burden on the tax-payers, which it seems to me might well be spared, because if we get more work out of the existing staff of judges there is no need for it. The question arises, Can we get more work out of the present staff? The hon. and learned Member for Haddingtonshire said that the judges could not sit longer hours, and I quite agree; but if the vacations were curtailed, I think we could get much more work from the judges than at the present time. The judges have now three weeks' holidays at Christmas, ten days at Easter, ten days at Whitsuntide, and two and a half months during the long vacation. That amounts to nearly four months in the year, which is too long a holiday for those drawing £5,000 per annum. I think we ought to see whether the judges would not put up with a much shorter vacation. If you appoint an additional judge, it will only mean one extra judge sitting for eight months of the year; but if twenty judges sit one month more in the year than at present, you get twenty months of additional judicial time per annum. I would venture to suggest that the Whitsuntide vacation should be given up altogether. It is not too much to ask a judge to sit from Easter until the 11th or 12th of August, after which he will have over two months' vacation. The point I wish to submit to the First Lord of the Treasury is whether, before he asks us to incur this additional charge, he could not see whether the judges could not work one month more a year without breaking down in health. If there were any sign of a judge breaking down under the strain placed upon him, I would be the last person to ask that the judicial holidays should be curtailed.

I wish to bring before the House one point which has not been mentioned in this Debate. I presume that the Government would only be too glad to have suggested to them any means by which the present Chancery judges and the existing Chancery Courts can carry on their work without increase of staff. I will put a common-sense and practical suggestion before the House. In doing so, I would wish to draw attention to the contrast which exists between the mode of procedure in the Chancery Courts and in the Court of Session in Scotland. It is perhaps not known to the House and to the First Lord that at the present time the Chancery judges take down in longhand nearly every word given in evidence by a witness, whereas in the Court of Session the evidence is taken down by a sworn shorthand writer, and the work is naturally done in a very much shorter time. If this proper and necessary change were made, and an effete and an out-of-date system was abolished the whole work of the Chancery Division could be easily done by the present judges. I am speaking, not in the interests of hon. and learned Members who shine in this House, and who earn their livelihood elsewhere, but in the interests of suitors and of the taxpayer; and I venture to think that if my proposal were adopted, thousands of pounds would be saved by the country, and scores of thousands of pounds would be saved by litigants, and the judges themselves would have the advantage of a much more accurate report than if they depended on their own notes. I venture to recommend the suggestion to the First Lord of the Treasury and to the House.

I will not attempt to cover the very wide field traversed by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth. I will only say that I quite associate myself with his observations, except in so far as he approves of the appointment of an additional Chancery judge. I may say at once, in order to remove all misconception, that I recognise that the present Chancery judges are, if anything, overworked, and I recognise the zeal and diligence they display in the discharge of their duties, and also that the character of their work is exceedingly difficult and responsible. But, although I make these concessions, I shall certainly associate myself with my hon. friend the Member for Leicester in dividing against this proposal. I should like to know whether the new judge is to be a judge simply for the trial of causes, or is it proposed that he shall have chambers, and all the paraphernalia attaching to a Chancery judge who has to deal with other matters. It is said, and said truly, that judges are overworked, but let me invite attention to the fact that the total number of days on which a judge sits, including Chamber work, averages 206 per year. That is the: return in the latest judicial statistics. That is not the fault of any particular judge; it is the result of our system of legal vacations. Then, with regard to the trial of actions; the Chancery judges sit five days a week for that purpose. The total number of actions tried by Mr. Justice North during the last year for which statistics are available was thirty-seven, and the total number tried by Mr. Justice Stirling was precisely the same. Curiously enough, Mr. Justice-Kekewich tried no fewer than 139 cases, and I do not pretend to know the cause of the disparity. Mr. Justice Romer tried seventy-eight, and Mr. Justice Byrne 128. Compared with the number of cases tried by a judge in the Queen's. Bench Division, the disparity is remarkable. I draw attention to those figures for the purpose of asking what is the cause of the extraordinary slowness with which cases are disposed of in the Chancery Division. It is very largely due to the considerable number of cases involving long technical investigation that are now imported into the Chancery Division. Hon. and learned Members will confirm me when I say that a single cause, say a patent case, relating to a bicycle or sewing machine, will occupy a judge ten, fifteen, or even twenty days. I have had an opportunity of talking this matter over with persons competent to express an opinion, and I venture to suggest that, if we could relieve the Chancery judges of these long technical causes, instead of Mr. Justice North and Mr. Justice Stirling being only able to try thirty-seven cases, they would be able to try double and triple that number. It would be perfectly possible for cases of this sort to be sent to experts or to official referees, who would deal with the expert evidence and report to the judge, who would then be able to frame his judgment. This is no crude suggestion, and, although I will not, mention names, I know it has the approval of at least two eminent judges. Then, again, there is another cause of the; congestion of the Chancery Division. It. is the common practice of solicitors to set down actions there when they might properly be tried elsewhere. One of the most eminent solicitors in the City of London told me that, whenever he had an opportunity, he always set down cases in the Chancery Division. Something may be said about a more careful trial, but the chief reason is that the scale of remuneration for solicitors is higher in the Chancery Division. I have given these two reasons against the appointment of a new judge. I can assure hon. Members that I am not approaching this question in any Party spirit, but I ventured to intervene in this Debate, because I have taken some interest, very ineffectual I am afraid, in the reform of the administration of the law. The Bar Committee has condemned in the most unqualified way the present Circuit system, as a disgraceful and scandalous waste of judicial time. The Press of the country, from The Times downwards, has, by leading articles, and by correspondence from eminent lawyers, drawn attention to that scandalous state of things. But no attention whatever has been paid to these representations, although they have extended over a number of years. Do hon. Members really appreciate what the circumstances are? Do they understand that, although the vacations eat up nearly one-half of the whole calendar, half of the remaining moiety is appropriated by the judges, who ought to be trying actions in London, to travelling about the assize towns? I do not blame the judges; I do not say a word against the bench in that respect, although I should not be afraid to do so if necessary. But a couple of learned judges go down to some remote Circuit town, where one prisoner is set down for trial, and three or four days are given to that trial. Then they go on to an adjoining county town, and four days are there occupied with, perhaps, no prisoner at all to try. That is a true and not exaggerated statement. Now, why, in the name of common sense, is this archaic system not dealt with? I am not going to enter at large into this matter, but at least, if you will not change the system, you should have some plan by which a learned judge might go and deal with the crime of a district at a convenient centre. Many of the crimes might as well, however, be tried at the Quarter Sessions. A man ought only to have the right of being tried by a judge if he is charged with having committed a crime of a given gravity; but there are a great number of cases which are dealt with now by judges of Assize, which might very properly be sent to the Quarter Sessions. For these reasons, and I might give many more, I object to the present proposal. I fully recognise the strain that is on the Chancery judges, but I ask the Solicitor-General to give a plain answer to these questions—What is the difficulty in the way of referring these long patent cases, which eat up so much time, to some referees who would take the technical parts of the evidence? and, What is the reason why solicitors are encouraged and permitted to enter on the Chancery side actions which might very properly be tried on the Queen's Bench side? Unless I have more cogent reasons than have been given in the very general observations of the late Solicitor-General for the appointment of a new judge, I shall feel myself bound to associate myself with the hon. Member for Leicester, and to vote against the proposal.

If anyone were to take the estimates of the expense of judicial administration, and deduct the amount received in fees, he would inevitably come to the conclusion that there must be courts which more than pay expenses. That must be so, at any rate, in the Chancery Division. And it is right that it should be so, because it deals with large quantities of property, and those who call upon the judicial system of the country to administer their property should pay for it. The more cases, therefore, which are heard, the larger the surplus from the fees that come in, If you increase the judicial staff, the more you will increase the fees, and consequently the appointment of a new judge in that Division will not cost the country anything.

The speeches of more than one hon. Member have been so full, that there is very little for me to say in accepting the proposal which the Government has made for dealing with the present administration of the law. That proposal has been subjected to a great deal of criticism, and there is a very obvious feeling that the Government's suggestion does not adequately settle this complicated and extremely important question. The remedy proposed for the block of business in one division of the courts is to relieve the congestion of causes by the very simple expedient of appointing a new judge. Now, anyone familiar with the administration of the business of the courts knows that this congestion of work is not confined to one division, and no adequate method of dealing with this question can be effective until many reforms, some of which have been foreshadowed during the Debate, have been considered by competent authority and dealt with by the Government. As I have said, the proposal now is to remedy the congestion in the Chancery Division; but I must point out to the House that there is another important Division—the Queen's Bench Division, where difficulties are scarcely less great than in the Chancery Division. The Queen's Bench has more than once come to the assistance of the sister courts. The company business and the bankruptcy business has been taken from the Chancery Division to the Queen's Bench, and has absorbed the time of one of the judges in the Queen's Bench Division, and the result has been that at this moment the Queen's Bench Division is in a condition which has scarcely any parallel—at all events in the recent experience and history of the courts. The metropolitan courts administer justice for over five millions of people living in London. They also administer justice in these courts to parties not only in London, but from every part of England and Wales. For the last few weeks there have been some three or four courts, and sometimes only two courts, dealing with the litigation of this large number of people. I often wonder that the Members for the metropolis don't insist upon a guaranteed minimum—a few years ago there was some talk that there should be a guaranteed minimum—of six courts administering justice in the High Courts of Justice in the metropolis. The condition of the metropolitan courts now indicates a complete collapse of the machinery of the Queen's Bench Division. Are there any explanations for this state of things? A common cause assigned is the existence of the much-abused circuit system. No lawyer is wedded to the circuit system; it is antiquated, troublesome, and costly; but the friends of the circuit system are the members of the various counties in this country who sit in this House, and are most anxious that that time-honoured method of administering justice locally at the hands of the Queen's Justices should not be seriously impaired. It is this strong feeling which has hedged the circuit system from all attacks, and I doubt whether Her Majesty's Government would have the courage to bring forward any proposal to interfere with it. Accept that as a condition of the administration of justice in this country. The people of the country prefer the circuit system, and they are I willing to pay for the circuit system, and I do not see any reason for failing to gratify the popular wish. What is the next suggestion? It is that made by my right hon. friend the Member for Wolver-hampton. He told us that we might relieve the courts of some of the cases by sending them to be tried by the County Court judges. If these judges are to do the work of some of the High Court Justices, you will require a new order, a subordinate order in the judiciary to dispose of the business of the present County Court judges. I fail to see how that argument can be founded on any consideration of expense, or that the change would do more than complicate the system of justice as it exists. The only remaining suggestion is an increase in the number of judges. Of course I don't object to the staff of the courts being sufficient to administer justice in a way to command public confidence and general satisfaction; but until there has been a thorough examination of this question I doubt if this expedient will be accepted as the only expedient which, under existing conditions, should be adopted. Why should we not take into consideration the very grave difficulties connected with the present position of the Court of Appeal? The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth said that under the ancient system we had an admirable Court of Appeal, which dealt most efficiently with the business before it. But at this moment there are no less than 170 cases standing for hearing in the Court of Appeal. Appeals arising out of the Workmen's Compensation Act and questions of mere legal procedure have, since the abolition of the Divisional Courts, been sent to judges of exceptional position and qualification, and the result has been that for weeks, if not months, the Court of Appeal is in arrear with their ordinary work. It is obvious that something must be done. My hon. and learned friend the Member for Plymouth suggested—and I was glad to see the suggestion was welcomed in authoritative quarters on this side—that if we could revive the old method of having three Divisional Courts in the Queen's Bench Division; if we could fan once more into flame the espritde corps which used to animate Her Majesty's Judges in the conduct of business before them; if, instead of having one Chief Justice to preside over a large body of judges, you had smaller bodies of judges of exceptional experience dealing with special classes of cases, we should find it unnecessary to increase the present staff. I hope that the First Lord of the Treasury will take the suggestion I have made into serious consideration between now and the next session.

I do not propose to go at any length into the various suggestions made in the course of the Debate in reference to the work of the Queen's Bench Division. Indeed I doubt whether I should be altogether in order in doing so. I do not think there is any probability of a return to the system of having three separate Divisions of the High Court. I do not believe that is practicable. We must look in another direction for a solution of the difficulty by which we are beset. There was very great force, I think, in what has been said as to the uncertainty of the sittings in London. One week you have only two or three judges sitting, in another week you have so many judges that there are not courts sufficient for them to sit in, and they must either crowd together in greater numbers than are wanted or take a compulsory holiday. I believe a very great deal could be done by the adoption of another system, telling off, some time before the beginning of every term, so many judges for work in town, each to sit in his own court during the term, just as the Chancery judges do, the other judges to hold sittings in the country. The old circuit system has undoubtedly broken down, but sittings in the country might be arranged so that you would have in every term so many judges sitting regularly in town and so many sitting regularly in the country. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton said that some reform was wanted with regard to the Divisional Courts. That is a matter on which I have felt strongly, and I had the honour, as a private Member, of carrying through the House a Bill which took away new trials from the Divisional Courts to the Court of Appeal; and that has been supplemented by other legislation in the same direction. But I think the right hon. Gentleman overlooked the fact that there is a certain class of business in the Queen's Bench Division for which you must have more than one judge. There is all the Crown work, all the Revenue work, and the appeals from inferior courts. What is really wanted with regard to the Divisional Court or the Court in Banc—for I prefer that time-honoured name—is more uniformity in its composition. I should like to see a strong Court in Banc with the Chief Justice presiding, and if you had that, I believe four sittings a year of ordinarily limited duration would be quite sufficient to keep Under all the work. From that court I would have no appeal except to the House of Lords, and I believe the Court of Appeal might be materially relieved by transferring to such a Court in Banc such appeals as those brought under the Workmen's Compensation Act and from the judge in Chambers. I will turn from this tempting subject—for it is tempting to develop the views I have upon it—and only say one word with reference to a matter which concerns both divisions. It has been said that the scale of taxation ought to be not merely in theory but in practice uniform for the two divisions. I cordially agree with that. In theory the scale of taxation is the same, but in practice, for some inscrutable reason, the scale of taxation in the Chancery Division is more liberal. After all, the question is whether there should be a new judge for the Chancery Division. What are the alternative suggestions? One is that the Queen's Bench Division should lend a judge. That, I think, is quite impracticable. It would disorganise the business of the Queen's Bench, and it would not be satisfactory to the borrowing division. Another suggestion is that a judge should be transferred permanently from the Queen's Bench to the Chancery Division. There are two answers to that. In the first place the Queen's Bench Division cannot spare a judge, and, in the Second place, for Chancery work you want an Equity man, and I think either of those answers would be sufficient. It has been suggested that the vacations might be shortened, and that time might be saved by having an official shorthand writer. There is a great deal to be said for both those suggestions, but I do not believe either of them or both of them together would supply the pressing want which is now experienced in the Chancery Division of another judge. The question is whether the Chancery Division should have another judge. That judge, of course, must have his clerk, but if any question should be raised as to whether he should have a staff, such as is attached to most of the judges of the Chancery Division, it would come up for after consideration. The hon. and learned Member below the gangway opposite said that the work of the Chancery Division might be lightened by transferring a great many of the heavy cases to official referees or experts. I say at once I think that would be a most mischievous system.

I did not suggest the reference of cases; I suggested that scientific or expert evidence might be referred to an official referee, or some other person, whose duty it would be to report thereon to the judge.

One has often heard such a suggestion made, but I think the general experience of the profession is that a double trial of that kind is most unsatisfactory. When you come back to the report of the expert you do not know where you are. Very possibly it may be found necessary either that the judge should take a leap in the dark or send back to the expert in order to clear up a point. I cannot agree with my hon. and learned friend that that suggestion of his presents even the possibility of a solution; and having examined all the other suggestions which have been made, we come back to that made by my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury, which I hope the House will adopt unanimously.

The discussion has travelled over a very wide field; and indeed it is impossible ade- quately to debate the question whether a fresh judge should be appointed to the Chancery Division without glancing at the general features—many of them very unsatisfactory—of the present system of administering justice. For my own part, I confess that I look with reluctance, and even with suspicion, at the proposal to increase our judicial staff. It is so much the easiest way of avoiding difficulties, and blinding your eye to the existence of abuses, that one is tempted to take it. But I must say I am satisfied, not only with what has been said, but by my knowledge and experience of the ordinary working of the courts, that this is a case in which the appointment of an additional judge is irresistible and unanswerable. The condition of suits in the Chancery Division, the long arrears of cases untried, and the impossibility of the judges, who. are already overworked, overtaking the duties which the law imposes upon them, is a condition so undeniable and so scandalous as to make it imperative for Parliament to increase the present staff. But while I entirely assent to the motion which the right hon. Gentleman has made, I trust that, after the discussion which has taken place, Her Majesty's Government will not regard this as a solution of the difficulty. It has been admitted by every speaker, and by no one more than by the Solicitor-General, that the present arrangements are chaotic, unbusinesslike, and in the highest degree unsatisfactory. Some reference was made to the simultaneous absence on a. foreign mission of the Lord Chief Justice and another of Her Majesty's judges of the High Court. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton and the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, when they referred to that, did not mean to cast any blame whatever either on the Lord. Chief Justice or the Government which selected him for the position. I am perfectly certain the task was undertaken from a high sense of public duty. When you consider that the United States are represented by the Lord Chief Justice of their Supreme Court, as well as by another eminent judge, and that this country was lamentably deprived of the services of the late Lord Herschell, I doubt whether any other appointment could have been made which would have given so much satisfaction, and I believe that the country is unanimous that it was Lord Russell's duty to accept the appointment. But the fact remains that we are increasingly liable to these drains on our judicial reserves, and that may be an additional reason for this new judge. What I wish to impress upon the Government is, that between now and next session they should take the opportunity of reconsidering the whole of our judicial arrangements, not merely in Chancery, but in the Queen's Bench, with the view of dealing adequately and permanently with the question.

If you are short of judges in this country, we have twice too many in our country, and if an appointment is to be made to strengthen the Chancery side of the courts of this country, I see no reason why that judge could not be drawn from the Irish Bench. There is additional and strong reason why the Government should keep in mind the fact that they can draw from the Irish Bench, without injury to its strength, three or four of its members. I noticed with interest that the Solicitor-General, in his speech, pointed out that the difficulty with which you have to deal in this country when you appoint a Chancery judge is that you require an

Order, order!The hon. Gentleman is out of order in discussing the Irish Bench on the motion before the House.

The only object I had was from the point of view of expense. If my point of view is accepted by the House, the country would save a large sum of money.

That is a separate question. The first question is, whether a judge shall be appointed. Whether, in order to save expense, an Irish judge shall be abolished is a wholly difficult question.