HC Deb 29 May 1922 vol 154 cc1705-8
Sir ERNEST WILD

I desire to claim the indulgence of the House while I make a short statement which I think it proper to make owing to the duty which I owe to this House, to my brethren of the Court of Aldermen of the City of London, to the Lord Chancellor, the head of my profession, to my constituency, and, incidentally, to myself. May I remind the House, very shortly, of a few facts. On the 28th March, having been elected Recorder of London by the Court of Aldermen and having received His Majesty's assent to exercise judicial functions, I took the Oath. At that time there had been no suggestion of any sort or kind that it was improper for me to continue to be a Member of this House. There was no condition and no suggestion. Indeed, there is precedent upon precedent of Recorders of London being and continuing to be Members of the House of Commons. Since the year 1850, of the five Recorders who have preceded me, four were Members and continued to he Members of this House—Stuart Wortley, Russell Gerney, Sir Thomas Chambers, and Sir Charles Hall. Sir Charles Hall was not only a Member of this House while Recorder of London, but he exercised jurisdiction over his own constituents, because he was Member for Holborn. On the 26th April my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) put a question to the Attorney-General: Whether the acceptance of the office of Recorder of London by a Member of this House vacates his seat? and the Attorney-General's answer was: The answer is in the negative."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1922; col. 543, Vol. 153.] On the 10th May, my hon. Friend put a question which he had deferred by request to the Leader of the House, and the House will recollect the reasoned answer of the Lord Privy Seal. Therefore, I need not trouble the House by reading it again. I had no notice of that answer. I make no complaint of that fact, because I know it was impossible to give me notice, but, in the course of the answer, my right hon. Friend said, The Lord Chancellor would feel great surprise if the Corporation, in filling this high office, contemplated that the judge so appointed would remain for any considerable length of time in the House of Commons. Further on he said: The Lord Chancellor is placing himself in communication with the Corporation and the Recorder, and does not anticipate that any serious disagreement upon the matter of policy involved is likely to arise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th May, 1922; col. 2172, Vol. 153.] Under those circumstances I took the course which, I venture to hope the House will agree, was the only dignified and proper course, and that was to leave myself unreservedly in the hands of the Lord Chancellor and of the Court of Aldermen. I interviewed the Lord Chancellor, and the Lord Chancellor wrote a reasoned letter to the Court of Aldermen from which I need not quote, because it has been published in this morning's and yesterday's newspapers, published, as I understand, at the express desire of the Lord Chancellor. I therefore only wish to quote two short passages from that letter: It is, as the Court of Aldermen are aware, that the Recorder of the City of London ought not permanently to occupy a seat in Parliament. The Lord Chancellor would not push this view to so pedantic an extreme as to suggest that it is incumbent upon anyone appointed to that office immediately to resign his seat. He thinks that anyone in Parliament at the time of his appointment might reasonably continue to retain his seat for some months, but he does not think in any event that he ought again to submit himself to the suffrage of the electors. Towards the end of the letter His Lordship says that he regards it as most desirable that the connection of Sir Ernest Wild with his constituency should be severed at some comparatively early but convenient date, such as, for example, the occurrence of the next General Election. That letter was considered by the Privileges Committee of the Court of Aldermen, who came to the decision that Mr. Remembrancer do inform the Lord Chancellor that the Court of Aldermen will recommend Sir Ernest Wild to take the course the Lord Chancellor suggests. Having therefore left my position—it is not only a personal position, but also the position of a trustee for the privileges of the City—in the hands of the Court of Aldermen, I intend to act on that recommendation. I need not trouble the House for many moments with the reasons which actuate me in taking this course. May I just mention three? First, there is no doubt in my own mind that the Lord Chancellor is right when he says that the analogy between the Recordership of London and a High Court Judge is closer than that of any other Recorder, for this reason, that the Recordership of London involves practically continuous sittings and has very large powers. In the second place, and here I am speaking entirely for myself, I cannot avoid feeling that public opinion, if public opinion may be gauged from the newspapers, is against my standing for Parliament while I am Recorder of London. I may say that that public opinion is in no way reflected in my own constituency, because from no constituent and from no party in my constituency have I received any kind of intimation that they desire me not again to contest the seat. I was reading the other day that great speech which Lord Macaulay delivered in this House on 1st June, 1853, and this sentence struck me: For it is important, not only that the administration of justice should be pure, but that it should be unsuspected. I do not think it desirable, speaking entirely for myself, that anybody should be able even to suspect one's honest attempts to administer justice. The third reason which actuates me is that, although nobody can predict the complexion of the next Parliament, I do not think it unreasonable to suggest that parties may not be so unequally divided as they are in this, and, in those circumstances, it would be quite impossible for a man with the labours of Recorder of London on his shoulders to do his duties to this House and to his constituents. I think, with the Lord Chancellor, that there is a vast difference between remaining in this House where, as Lord Macaulay says: There are extensive and peaceful provinces of Parliamentary business far removed from the field of battle where hostile parties encounter each other. and again contesting an election. Therefore, my decision is this, that, while asserting my privilege and that of the Corporation, I shall, in the exercise of my discretion, guided by the judgment of the Lord Chancellor and the recommendation of my brethren of the Court of Aldermen, continue my membership for this waning Parliament, but not seek re-election. May I conclude by saying that this decision causes me considerable personal pain. I had for 14 years been endeavouring to become a Member of this House, and now I have to relinquish my seat after four or five years. I have made abiding friendships, and I have received generosity from all quarters of the House. There has been practically no pressure brought upon me by any Member of this House not again to contest my seat. Where that pressure has been brought, I am perfectly certain that it does arise from any personal consideration. But there are ideals which I think are greater than any personal consideration. One of these proudest ideals is the aloofness from party fights of any man who is called upon to exercise great and continuous judicial functions.