§ Mr. WILLIAM PEELasked the Home Secretary whether he is prepared to move an Address praying His Majesty to remove from the bench those judges whom he has accused, in a recent reply to a deputation of the Parliamentary Committee of Trade Unions, of using language reflecting on trade unions, which was extremely ignorant and out of touch with the general development of modern thought, and which has greatly complicated the administration of justice and added bitterness and a sense of distrust to the administration of the law?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI have nothing to add to the remarks I made to the deputation to which the hon. Gentleman refers. They should be read with their context.
§ Mr. PEELHas the right hon. Gentleman nothing to take away from the statement which he made, and does he not think it desirable that, if such criticisms are considered necessary, they should first be made privately to the Lord Chancellor or to some other authority in order that the judges may have an opportunity of answering the charges?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI have nothing to add to the statement I made, and I have nothing to subtract from it.
§ Mr. PEELIs the right hon. Gentleman not aware that these particular judges whom he has accused of ignorance and of being out of touch with public affairs in connection with the Osborne judgment are mostly Liberals?
§ Sir E. CARSONDoes the right hon. Gentleman think it fair to attack men who are not allowed to reply?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThat is obviously a controversial and debating remark, and nobody knows it better than the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTDoes the right hon. Gentleman consider that the strictures he made are to any extent confirmed by the decision of the Appeal Court in the case of Sir John Benn?