HC Deb 30 June 1924 vol 175 cc940-2
Mr. LINFIELD

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House in order to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the threat of the Lord Chancellor to remove the name of A. E. Dent from the Commission of the Peace on the ground that the magistrate in question is a Passive Resister."

Mr. SPEAKER

That is not a Motion which I can accept under Standing Order No. 10. Any criticism of the action of the Lord Chancellor can take place only on a Motion duly tabled, after proper notice, not under the procedure of Standing Order No. 10.

Mr. LINFIELD

May I, with respect, submit that this Motion is not connected with the Lord Chancellor's judicial functions but with his departmental and administrative work. I have recently had an opportunity of looking up the matter and I find that so long ago as 1908 Mr. Swift MacNeill addressed a question with regard to the Lord Chancellor's duties in respect of departmental and administrative action apart from judicial action. In that case, the Prime Minister himself said that he thought he was responsible. I would like to point out that this is not a judicial function, but administrative and departmental.

Mr. SPEAKER

I also have looked up the record, and have not found any trace whatever of any allowance, on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, for a criticism of any action of the Lord Chancellor.

Mr. PRINGLE

May I submit that in this particular matter of the regulation of the Commission of the Peace, questions have been raised and discussions have taken place in this House, though not under Standing Order No. 10, and if it has not arisen under Standing Order No. 10, it has only been due to the fact that in none of these cases has urgency arisen But may I remind you that during the Parliaments of 1906 and 1910 the action of Lord Chancellor Loreburn in regard to the appointment of Justices of the Peace was frequently discussed in this House? If, therefore, a case of urgency can be made out in this case, because there is an immediate threat to remove a Justice of the Peace from the Commission of the Peace, surely in these circumstances the House will be entitled to have the matter discussed on the Adjournment Motion.

Mr. SPEAKER

I was here at that time, and I remember what occurred. There were general discussions on the number of Justices belonging to the different political parties, but that was not under Standing Order No. 10. This is a question of the removal of a Magistrate, and that, I hold, is a matter which can only be discussed, if the Lord Chancellor is to be criticised, on a direct Motion.

Mr. MAXTON

In the very exceptional circumstances in which we are placed today, in which a Liberal Lord Chancellor, sitting in a Labour Government, puts through a policy which a Conservative Lord Chancellor has never deemed necessary to put in operation, is it not desirable that in these circumstances, irrespective of the precedents, this House ought to have an opportunity of expressing its opinion?

Mr. SPEAKER

Those complications do not interest me.

Mr. PRINGLE

May I be allowed to make a further submission? As I understand your ruling, it is to this effect, that the Lord Chancellor's action can only be dealt with in this House under a specific Motion, By the admission, which I understand you have made, the action of Lord Chancellor Loreburn was, in fact, discussed in regard to the Commission of the Peace without a specific Motion, and, if that were so, if it could be raised on the Vote, for example, for the Prime Minister's salary, as the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Linfield) would suggest, if a case can be made out for urgency, surely under those circumstances it would be appropriate to deal with the matter under Standing Order No. 10?

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) is, I think, suggesting that I admitted something which I did not say, and certainly which I did not intend to say: The rule of the House is very general and wide, and under it the action of the Lord Chancellor can only be criticised on a direct Motion, after due notice given.