§ Mr. KEBTY-FLETCHERI desire, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to call attention to the observations made by the Home Secretary last night with regard to the conduct of his Majesty's judges, and, in view of the fact that such remarks might constitute a precedent, to ask you, Sir, whether they are consistent with the terms of the Standing Order. May I just read the passage from Sir Erskine May's book:—
Unless the discussion is based upon a substantive motion, drawn in proper terms, reflections must not be cast in debate upon the conduct of the Sovereign, the heir to the throne and members of the Royal Family, the Viceroy and Governor-General of India, the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, the Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means. Members of either Houses of Parliament, and Judges of the Superior Courts of the United Kingdom, including persons holding the position of a judge, such as a judge in a Court of Bankruptcy and of a County Court. Nor may opprobrious reflections he cast in debate on Sovereigns and Rulers over countries in amity with his Majesty.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman has read a passage from May which deals with the rule of the House with regard to this particular matter. It is not a question of the Standing Orders. As the hon. Gentleman has read the passage there is not any need for me to do so. Again, there is no question about what the law and practice of our House is in regard to the matter. It is correctly stated in Sir Erskine May's book. I will 1083 be quite frank with the House. I looked at Sir Erskine May's book last night, and I was not quite sure whether there had been a case in which general language in regard to judges had been ruled out of order, or whether the decisions had been entirely confined to attacks upon particular judges named. I find, however, according to old rulings it is equally out of order to make an attack upon the general body of judges. With regard to what was said last night by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, I understood that his argument practically was that the judges, owing to their training and social surroundings, were unconsciously biassed, or liable to be unconsciously biassed, in regard to certain class questions. A great deal depends upon the force of the words which the Home Secretary interpolated, that they are "unconsciously, no doubt, biassed." No appeal was made to me at the time, and I expressed no opinion upon it. If I were pressed, or I had been pressed, for an opinion. I should have been inclined to say that I regret observations which are on the border-line of what is in order in regard to a matter of this kind. I think it is most important that our rule against attacking judges should be kept up. They are not here. They cannot be here to answer for themselves, and they ought not to be attacked except on a substantive motion.
§ Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTONIn reference to the speech which was made here last night, I have refreshed my memory by reading it this morning. I venture to put it to you that, giving full weight to the word "unconscious" which the Home Secretary used, the clear effect of what he said was that the judges had given decisions upon matters of class, upon party matters which came with the utmost surprise to the greatest lawyers in this country. I submit that that is a direct imputation on the competence of the Courts of Justice in this country, made without notice in a general form and in such a manner that no one was able to answer on behalf of the judges, and it was also behind the backs of the judges. I say further, giving full weight to the word "unconscious" which the Home Secretary used, that that is a distinct imputation upon the judges that in matters of class or what the Home Secretary calls "party issues," the judges are incompetent to divest themselves of partiality, and I submit 1084 it would be only right that the right hon. Gentleman, who persisted in not withdrawing those words—
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERWe cannot go back on the incident of last night. I ought to have said that in the first place; I am not giving any judgment on the incident of last night of such a character as to lead me to tell the right hon. Gentleman that he should withdraw anything. If an appeal had been made to me last night. I should have decided on that appeal, and last night was the right time to make such an appeal. I therefore cannot go hack on the incident or order the Home Secretary to do anything with reference to what occurred last night.
§ Mr. A. LYTTELTONMay I most respectfully say that I was not asking your ruling on the matter, but by leave of the House I was putting it—[HON. MEMBERS "No, no."]
§ Mr. JOHN REDMONDI wish to ask you whether, if the right hon. Gentleman is allowed to proceed with the remarks that he is now making, it will be open to other Members of the House to do so after him?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERWe must consider this incident closed. I understood the remarks from him were on a point of Order.
Mr. BALFOURMay I ask, not with a view to in the least suggesting that you should reverse that decision, whether it would be in order to raise the matter in Debate on the Adjournment Motion for the holidays?
§ Mr. KEBTY-FLETCHERBefore the incident closes, and I do not want to go back on last night, but just to say—
§ Sir FREDERICK BANBURYOn the other point of Order which was raised by the Leader of the Opposition, and I do not wish to go into the original point of Order which I regard as past, may I respectfully ask whether it is not in order, on the Motion for Adjournment, to raise any question which is under the responsibility of any Minister, and therefore I ask whether it would not be in order to raise 1085 the question whether a Minister should or should not in a speech make certain remarks about certain people?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLAs this question has been raised, I would just like to say that—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. CHURCHILLrose. [Interruption.]
§ Mr. W. R. PEELI rise to a point of Order. [Interruption.]
§ Mr. CHURCHILLYes; I wish to ask whether I am entitled to point out that the right hon. Gentleman has misrepresented the words that I used, and to read the exact words to the House. As he has put a point of Order to you and has placed the facts wrongly before you, I submit I am entitled to do so.
§ Mr. KEBTY-FLETCHERI resent that.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLIt is a monstrous misrepresentation.