An Asterisk (*) at the commencement of a Speech indicates revision by a Member.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Thursday, 7th March, 1907.

The Right Hon. Sir Richard Henn Collins, late Master of the Rolls, having been appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary under the provisions of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, with the dignity of a Baron for life, by the style and title of Baron Collins of Kensington, in the county of London, was (in the usual manner) introduced.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

King Edward's Hospital Fund for London Bill [H.L.]. Report from His Majesty's Attorney-General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.

Barnsley, Wombwell, and Wath Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway (General Powers) Bill; London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill; Boston Spa Gas Bill; South-Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways Bill; Simon-Carves Bye-Product Coke Oven Construction and Working Company, Limited-(Petition for Bill). The Order of yesterday referring the Examiners' certificates of non-compliance Orders Committee, discharged; and the with the Standing Orders to the Standing said certificates referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Thursday next.

Kendal Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Read 2 (according to order), and committed; The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with: General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation, Limited; Renfrewshire Upper District (Eastwood and Mearns) Water Electric Supply Corporation; Sutton Coldfield Rectory Bill [H.L.]. Royal Bank of Scotland; Glasgow Read 2 (according to order), and Corporation; Aberdeen Corporation; committed. Electric Supply Corporation (No. 2). The same were ordered to lie on the

Table.

Standing Orders Committee-Report from, that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Barry Railway Bill ought to be dispensed with, provided that the powers to take the waters of the streams known as the Rhydwaedlyd, the Nant-cwm-Nofydd, and the Nant-y-Briwnant be struck out of the

Bill.

That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Rawtenstall Corporation Bill ought to be dispensed with, provided that the powers to construct Tramways Nos. 10, 11, and 11A be struck out of the Bill: And

That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Cavehill and Whitewell Tramways Bill [H.L] ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill be allowed to proceed.

Read, and agreed to.

Buckhaven Dock Bill [H.L.]. Presented; read 1; and referred to the Examiners. VOL. CLXX. [FOURTH SERIES].

King Edward's Hospital Fund for London Bill [H.L.]. Read 2 (according to order), and committed.

Newquay and District Water Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 27th of February and Thursday last discharged and Bill committed for Tuesday next.

Galwey's Divorce Bill [H.L.]; Fitz Gerald's Divorce Bill [H.L.]. Read 3 (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PETITION.

ALLEYNES GRAMMAR SCHOOL (UTTOXETER).

Petition of Thomas Allen, praying that leave may be granted to Mr. A. F. Loch, Charity Commissioner, to circulate among members of the Legislature, the Press, and teachers' associations, copies of his

2 K

Appeal but who are not Lords Justices. The Lord Chief Justice presides over a great Department. He has immense legal duties, and it is not reasonable that he should leave the work of his Division to take part in that of the Court of Appeal. The same remark again applies to the President of the Probate Court. Everyone can recognise these difficulties, but that does not advance us very far in the ascertainment of a remedy. The Lords Justices admittedly work hard, and those who are entitled to sit in the Court of Appeal do all they can to assist the Lords Justices; but there is, notwithstanding, a large list of arrears. The remedy proposed in this Bill is that of reducing the number of Lords Justices in each Court, with the consent of the Lord Chancellor, from three to two. That is a very serious proposal. The fact that the consent of the Lord Chancellor is required is an important limitation, but I should be glad if the noble and learned Lord would take an opportunity of saying exactly what is meant by that.

Speaking generally and broadly, it is better to have the Appellate Court composed of three Judges rather than two. With two Judges and a difference of opinion arising, obviously the judgment of the Court must be less satisfactory

than if the Court were constituted of the

uneven number. The result will be an increasing number of appeals to your Lordships' House. I can speak with more knowledge of Ireland than of England. In Ireland the Appellate Court is composed of three Judges, and sometimes more, and that, I believe, accounts largely for the fact that there are very few Irish appeals to this House. I am aware that the object is to avoid further pecuniary demands upon the Treasury for an additional Judge or Judges, but I am doubtful whether that necessity can be avoided. I think it is reasonable to shrink from the appointment of new Judges until it is proved to be an absolute necessity. I am not sure that if this Bill passes in its present form it will give satisfaction to the public. The late Lord Chancellor a few years ago introduced a Bill which became an Act giving power, where the parties agreed, for cases to be heard by two instead of three Judges. I admit that it is difficult to get suitors, who are at arm's length, to agree to anything. At any rate, I do not think the records show that that Act has been largely

availed of. This is a matter which requires much thought, and I hope the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will not unduly hurry the Bill, but will allow time for a thorough examination and criticism of it.

LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, my noble and learned friend who has just sat down has very fairly, I think, reviewed the position in regard to this Bill There is no doubt that the evil of congestion in the Court of Appeal exists to an extent which has become almost a scandal. The present state of things is a denial of the promise made long ago that in this country there should be neither refusal nor delay of justice. There is now a stay in the administration of justice by virtue of the delay that occurs in the Court of Appeal. It is due, however, to the Judges of that Court to say that the existence of the evil is not attributable to them. They work assiduously but are unable to cope with the accumulating arrears.

If we admit that this evil does exist, we have to ask ourselves what is the remedy. It has not been found possible to suggest a remedy which will meet with The only the approval of every one. other practical suggestion is the creation of new Judges. That may be attrac without knowledge; but I certainly think tive and alluring to some who speak that our profession would protest as much as they could against an undue creation of Judges, which would, of necessity, weaken the standard of knowledge and ability on the Bench. But something has to be done, and I venture very respectfully to commend the Lord Chancellor's proposition now before the House. The proposal in this Bill seems to me to be the best thing that can be done. In the days of men like Lord Justice Turner the Court of Appeal consisted of two Judges, and not one administration of justice by that Court. word of complaint was heard of the

I admit the inconvenience that may arise where the two Judges hearing a case may differ, but it is not an inconvenience which has been found in our experience to be great. I believe that there might be some classification of cases into those which could be taken by two Judges and those which were of such importance that they should be taken by three Judges. I do not know

this matter from a broader standpoint.

whether classification would suffice. law. Therefore, I ask my noble and There is another view, that the Lord learned friend, in the early days of what Chancellor should take the responsibility may be a great Chancellorship, to look at of making out the list of the three-Judge cases and the two-Judge cases. I know the difficulty of that. I do not see how my noble and learned friend could obtain the information in all cases to enable him to differentiate, but by consultation with the Judges of the Court of Appeal such a list could be drawn up. I am quite sure that this is a good practical measure, which will remedy the evil that has to be met and do nothing to deteriorate the high character of our Judges.

*LORD ALVERSTONE: My Lords, your Lordships will naturally expect that, holding the office of Lord Chief Justice of England, I should, as far as possible, place before the House the result of any experience I have had that may bear on this question. I desire to say at once that it is quite impossible for me to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, because I believe that something must be done, and that no other prompt remedy could be applied. With things as they stand, I believe that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack could not do

other than ask that, as a temporary measure, the Court of Appeal should be empowered to sit with two Judges.

This is no new question to me. I thought over it during the years I was Attorney-General, and I communicated with Lord Halsbury on the subject at that time and since I have been Lord Chief Justice. The real difficulty is this-I do not care whether you are dealing with three Courts of two Judges or two Courts of three Judges-it is really really impossible to have a Court sitting every day throughout the whole legal ments, you are using the full number of year when, as under present arrangeyour Judges. I know that Lords Justices have not infrequently sat when they were not fit to do so. I refer to men like Lord Davey, whose loss we so deeply deplore, and Lord Lindley, who is fortunately with us. tunately with us. Why did they do it? Because they knew that if they did not sit two Lords Justices would be rendered idle. Two tribunals of three Judges cannot be worked with a Master of the Rolls and five Lords Justices.

It may officio Judges; why cannot they help ?" Let us take my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I endorse everything that Lord Ashbourne said regarding my noble and learned friend, and I wish to bear witness to the extraordinary efforts made by the Lord Chancellor to carry on the work in the Court of appeal. I English word, he has shown; but it like the pluck, to proved too great a strain, and I believe the noble and learned Lord did consider

be said: "There are three ex

use

the familiar

able harm to his health by sitting in the Court of Appeal when he was new to

But it is because I have the greatest desire to improve in every way the administration of justice that I venture to ask your Lordships to look at this matter from a broader standpoint. It is from that point of view that I ask your Lordships to allow me to speak for a few minutes. I appeal to the Lord Chancellor, whom every member of our profession rejoices to see occupying his present high position, to look at the other duties which in themselves were matter from the broader aspect. My noble and learned friend will have the very heavy. I protest against the Lord support of every Member of your Lord Chancellor's having to go into the Court ship's House in any proposal he may Lord Justice who may be ill. There of Appeal merely to take the place of any make for the improvement of the administration of justice; His Majesty's may, of course, be great cases now and Judges will be unreservedly at his then, for the trial of which he ought to service, and he may count on their active support in the preparation of any measure with that object; and

in the other House he has an un. paralleled majority. I know from communications made to me by colleagues of my noble and learned friend in the Government that they would welcome an improvement in the administration of the Lord James of Hereford.

sit; but to expect him to take the place of one of the regular Lords Justices who is temporarily absent is putting a strain on the Lord Chancellor which never ought to be put.

I will refer for a moment to my own position. Although my duties are nothing like those of the Lord Chancellor, still they are very arduous, and it