I am sure that none of us desires in any way to disturb the arrangement that has been made, but I should like to make one or two observations upon a matter to which the Attorney-General has just referred, and, perhaps, to put one or two questions to him. In the first place, I hope he will not in any way belittle the necessity of bringing Financial Resolutions before the House. He seemed to me rather to think, though perhaps I may be wrong, that, because he gave a very excellent explanation on the Second Reading of the Bill, and that that occurred only a few days ago, therefore we might treat this matter as a purely formal matter to-day, and not worry any more about it. I see the Lord Privy Seal in this place, and I know he will confirm me at any rate in this, though not, perhaps, in much else in regard to current matters, that this is a very necessary part of our procedure, and is the only time that the House has when it can properly review and look into the financial commitments so far as we are concerned. Therefore, I hope that the Attorney-General will not do or say anything which would materially alter or endeavour to minimise the value of this stage in the House of Commons.

I do not know whether he or the Lord Privy Seal can say why the practice has not been continued in connection with this Bill which I think has operated in connection with a good many others, namely, that we should have a short financial statement ready and available for us, from which we can see the exact financial commitments. I remember that Sir Donald Maclean, when he was in the House, urged this upon the Government on every occasion, and there was a very valuable House of Commons reform, namely, that, when these Financial Resolutions were placed before the House, we should have at the same time a white paper setting out exactly the financial arrangements and the sum of money that the House was voting. I hope the Lord Privy Seal will look into that in this connection, and also in connection with any other Bills that may be brought forward. It is most useful to Members of the House, but it has not been provided in connection with this Bill. I hope that, either on this or on some other occasion, we may have a statement on behalf of the Government that at any rate that practice is going to be continued, because it is in the public interest, whatever party may be in power or in Opposition.

It is perfectly true, as the Attorney-General has said, that the scheme in connection with this County Courts Bill, upon which this Money Resolution is based, has been arrived at by agreement between the four parties to whom he has referred; and none of us, I feel sure, would desire to disturb that arrangement. I do feel bound, however, to say this afternoon, as it is the only opportunity we shall have, that there are a a number of old servants in our County Courts who are not really getting a very generous contribution under this arrangement. The Attorney-General referred to them, and I think he told the House that some of the older of them, who have been employed in our County Courts up and down the country for 30 or 40 years, are only going to get practically a bonus of one or two years' pay. I frankly admit the difficulties, in any scheme, of providing for these older men, especially when the Attorney-General tells us that the present Chancellor of the exchequer has been very difficult in regard to providing pensions even for the present salaried staffs of our County Courts. That is a matter which we may notice on another occasion, but I am wondering whether it is possible for the Treasury now, even at the last moment, to make some further provision for these old servants.

I think more justice ought to be done to them, and my chief object, in making these few observations, was to put this final question to the Attorney-General, as to whether, even now, something further could not be done for those who, as he knows, have really served the State very well. There is no need to detail their services and the laborious work they have done in their particular duties, which do not bring them very much to the public notice. They have done very useful work in Courts which are becoming increasingly busier, and which are increasingly affecting more often and more frequently the lives of the people of this country. Our County Courts are to-day, I believe, conducting some 80 or 90 per cent. of the litigation of this country, and they are doing it excellently. We very rarely hear criticisms of their work or of the conduct of the officials, or even observations on the County Court Judges themselves. Therefore, I do think there is a strong case for these men, and I hope the Attorney-General will consider it.

There is an omission from this Resolution, which I suppose is a necessary omission, because provision is not made for it in the Bill. The Attorney-General will remember that on the Second Reading a good many right hon. and hon. Members, including, I think, the ex-Attorney-General, made a plea that something should be done for the County Court Judges of the country. It is a pity that no provision has been made for them in this Resolution. There, again, I hope the Attorney-General may be able to say something this afternoon as to whether he can hold out any hope that something further may be going to be done in this direction. It is a very important public question, because it is very necessary, having regard to the amount of business which the County Courts are doing, and the intimate way in which their decisions affect the life of the humbler people of the community, that we should attract the best possible men we can to become County Court Judges. I venture to say that, at the salary which they are now receiving, namely, £1,500 a year, you will not attract from the Bar to-day the best men that you can get, and that is what we ought to aim at. In days gone by, when £1,500 a year was decided upon, it was undoubtedly at a certain stage in the life of even an eminent member of the Bar an attraction to become a County Court Judge, and to be, to a certain extent, relieved from the daily anxieties and arduous duties of a busy profession; but I venture to say that you will attract very few men in the future by a salary of that nature. I dare say Cabinet Ministers can tell the Committee what a small sum even £5,000 a year is to-day, and when yon come down to £1,500 a year, and expect the best members of the profession to accept these posts, I am sure there will be an increasing difficulty. Therefore, I hope the Attorney-General may be able to hold out some prospect that some further consideration may be given to what I think is a very necessary and urgent matter.

Apart from these questions which I have ventured to put—not by any means with a view to criticising this arrangement or the satisfactory solution which has been come to—I congratulate whoever has been concerned in this arrangement, whether it be the present Attorney-General or the ex-Attorney-General—they can share the credit between them. I am, at any rate, authorised to say for a very large number of people who are concerned, that they welcome the rather belated attention that has been given to this matter; and we hope that, by means of the scheme that has now been arranged, not only in connection with the Registrars but in connection with the humbler officers of the Courts, they will have much better financial arrangements made for them, and that in that way we shall attract a still better type of man to perform what are really very arduous and difficult duties. While supporting the Resolution, I venture to express the hope that we may have some assurance from the Attorney-General on the points I have mentioned.