§ 3.37 p.m.
§ Sir WILLIAM DAVISONI beg to move
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that no diminution or reduction in the salaries of His Majesty's judges nor anything otherwise prejudicial to their status or emoluments shall be made except upon an Address by both Houses of Parliament.The House may remember that on 12th July last year I raised this matter by means of a question to the Prime Minister, and suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that an error had been committed in treating His Majesty's judges as servants of the Crown and subject to cuts in their salaries in the same way as civil servants. I further asked the Prime Minister, in order to make clear the judges' independence of the Executive, as provided by the Act of Settlement and confirmed by the Judicature Act of 1925, whether he would take steps to see that the judges' salaries should be paid in full as before, especially as it was in the national interest that the remuneration of the judges should be such as would encourage the ablest men at the Bar to accept judgeships. In the absence of the Prime Minister on that occasion, my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council laconically replied, "No, Sir," and, if I may say so with respect, made matters rather worse by saying in reply to a supplementary question that he saw no reason why a judge should be excused a cut any more than he was. I need not point out to the House that the judges have never been servants of the Crown in the same way as civil servants or Cabinet Ministers. The oath which they take on assuming office is a special oath confined to the judiciary, and I may remind hon. Members of its terms:I will well and truly serve His Majesty in the office of a judge, and will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this Realm without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.That the judges themselves feel keenly on this matter is plain from a memorandum which they prepared and sent to 346 the Prime Minister so long ago as the 4th December, 1931. The details of this memorandum were kept secret—I think it was marked "Confidential"—until the 27th July of last year, when it was made public by the Government with the approval of the judges. In that memorandum the judges, speaking as a whole, said that it was beyond question that they were not in the same position as civil servants; secondly, that they occupied a vital place in the Constitution, standing equally between the Crown and the Executive and the Executive and the subject; and, thirdly, that for over two centuries it had been considered essential that this security and independence should be maintained inviolate. The House will remember that, in accordance with the terms of the Act of Settlement, judges held office during good behaviour, with their salaries ascertained and established, but, of course, in the event of ill behaviour on the part of the judges, they could be removed by an Address passed by both Houses of Parliament and assented to by His Majesty the King. I should have added that the judges also pointed out in their memorandum that if their salaries were reduced without their consent, their independence of Parliament was seriously impaired.It is interesting to note in this connection that Article 3 of the Constitution of the United States of America, which expounded what was understood to be the practice in this country in regard to the judiciary, specially states that the judges of the United States shall hold office during good behaviour and that their salaries shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. I submit that a great constitutional question is involved in this matter, and that it should finally be settled without peradventure and without further delay. This is not a question as to whether the judges can afford the cut or whether they suffer more or less hardship than members of the Government, members of the Civil Service, the police, the teachers, or any other section of the community. The question which is of vital importance is whether it is in the national interest that the great constitutional bulwark of the independence of the Judges of Parliament and of the Crown should be called in question or left in any doubt.
347 In November last the Lord Chancellor publicly stated, on behalf of the Government, that should there be any doubt as to whether the imposition of these cuts in any way undermined or minimised the independence or the prestige of the judges, the Government would not be averse to passing a declaratory Act of Parliament making the position clear. Nothing has, however, been done in this matter, though I think it is evident that there is no question that their position has been gravely prejudiced. I think the House will agree that this is in itself conclusively shown by the memorandum issued by the judges as a whole to which I have already referred, and also by the fact that this opinion is very generally shared by many members of the public, by the legal profession, by the Press, and by others. There is no doubt that their position has been prejudiced by having their salaries reduced by Order in Council under the National Economy Act of 1931. If it is possible for Parliament to take 20 per cent. off the judges' salaries, it is equally possible for Parliament to reduce them by 95 per cent. or by 100 per cent., and we can readily see that in the future some House of Commons might resent something which the judges have done and desire the existing judges to be removed, which, I submit, is not desirable.
I submit that there never was a time when it was so essential as now that the judiciary should be absolutely independent of Parliament, considering that under almost every Act of Parliament that we pass there are rules and regulations and Orders in Council occupying many more pages than the Act itself consists of, and it is essential that, when these rules are made by Government offices and by other people, containing phrases that have never been approved by Parliament, they should be looked into by an absolutely independent tribunal and the liberty of the subject safeguarded. The object of this Bill is accordingly to make clear without any scintilla of doubt the independence of the judges both of the Crown and of the Executive. The operating words of the Bill are these:
No diminution or reduction in the salaries of His Majesty's Judges nor anything otherwise prejudicial to the status or emoluments of the said Judges shall be made or done except upon an Address of both Houses 348 of Parliament, as is now required for their removal from office, in the same manner and form as provided by the Act of Settlement as confirmed by the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1925.Finally, I submit that the absolute independence of our judges is perhaps the most cherished possession of the British people, and we cannot afford to allow this great bulwark of our Constitution to be in any way undermined or subjected to the slightest doubt.
§ 3.47 p.m.
§ Mr. TINKERI hope the House will not agree to the Motion of the hon. Member. We all respect the work of the judges, and we all want them to have a fair deal. We all believe in their integrity, and on that point I cannot allow any Member opposite to question my belief that the judges try to be perfectly fair. But on this question there is a greater issue at stake. The hon. Member would take out of the hands of the House of Commons a power which I think ought to belong to us and which has been fought for for many a long year. Anyone tracing history back will learn of the fight that took place by this House to retain the power over finance, and that means to say that whoever gets money from public funds should be controlled by the House of Commons. The Motion of the hon. Member would hand back to the House of Lords equal power with the Commons on this matter, and if only on that point I think the House would be well advised to reject the Motion.
The Motion mentions the status of the judges. I do not think anyone in this House will try to do anything to lower their status, but the chief point mentioned by the hon. Member was the cutting down of their salaries. We all remember the occasion when everybody, in the time of the country's distress, was called upon to make some contribution to the State, and the same thing that the judges were asked to do many other classes of society were also asked to do, however small their funds. If one section is called upon to make sacrifices, I do not see why all should not be called upon to make sacrifices in an equal way. I do not think there is any likelihood of the judges, because of that reduction of salary, not doing their work thoroughly and properly as they would have done it before.
349 This is a matter of grave constitutional importance, as the hon. Member said, and a private Member's Motion, on an afternoon, is scarcely the time to bring forward a grave question of this kind. It would be far better, if there is anything serious in it, that it should be dealt with by the Government. If the Government have had an appeal from the judges, as mentioned by the hon. Member, they will have examined it in all its bearings and decided whether or not it is a matter to bring before Parliament to discuss thoroughly. One would think that if that were so the Government would at least have brought it forward. Surely the hon. Gentleman has confidence enough that the representatives of the people assembled in Parliament can deal with the judges. Does he fear that probably some time or other the Government may pass to this side of the House and that it might deal more harshly with the judges? He ought to give us credit that we as citizens of the State will do all we
§ can to preserve the rights of the judges and to see that they get fair play. I have not seen any reason to complain about the treatment of the judges. Whenever a question arises about their conduct the Speaker is there to protect their rights and to keep us in order as to the methods of procedure. During the whole time I have been here I have never heard anything detrimental to the work of the judges, and I hope that in view of the grave position that will be created if this Motion were passed the House will reject it and leave it to the Government to bring forward a Measure.
§
Question put,
That leave be given to introduce a Bill to provide that no diminution or reduction in the salaries of His Majesty's judges nor anything otherwise prejudicial to their status or emoluments shall be made except upon an Address by both Houses of Parliament.
§ The House divided: Ayes, 125; Noes, 46.
351| Division No. 116.] | AYES. | [3.52 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Goodman, Colonel Albert W. | Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n) |
| Anstruther-Gray, W. J. | Gower, Sir Robert | Pownall, Sir Assheton |
| Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) | Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.) | Radford, E. A. |
| Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar | Granville, Edgar | Raikes, Henry V. A. M. |
| Bonn, Sir Arthur Shirley | Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas | Rea, Walter Russell |
| Boulton, W. W. | Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham- |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Guy, J. C. Morrison | Reid, William Allan (Derby) |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | Rickards, George William |
| Buchan, John | Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd) | Roberts, Aled (Wrexham) |
| Cadogan, Hon. Edward | Hanley, Dennis A. | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) |
| Caporn, Arthur Cecil | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Ross, Ronald D. |
| Carver, Major William H. | Harbord, Arthur | Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) |
| Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City) | Hartland, George A. | Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A. |
| Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) | Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) | Runge, Norah Cecil |
| Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham) | Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. | Rutherford, John (Edmonton) |
| Christie, James Archibald | Holdsworth, Herbert | Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l) |
| Clarry, Reginald George | Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston) | Salmon, Sir Isidore |
| Clayton, Sir Christopher | Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. | Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Hume, Sir George Hopwood | Savery, Samuel Servington |
| Cook, Thomas A. | James, Wing-Com. A. W. H. | Scone, Lord |
| Cooke, Douglas | Jesson, Major Thomas E. | Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell) |
| Courthope, Colonel Sir George L. | Leech, Dr. J. W. | Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D. |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Leigh, Sir John | Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) |
| Crooke, J. Smedley | Liddall, Walter S. | Stourton, Hon. John J. |
| Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard | Loftus, Plerce C. | Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (Pd'gt'n, S.) |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Lyons, Abraham Montagu | Thorp, Linton Theodore |
| Doran, Edward | MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick) | Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.) |
| Duckworth, George A. V. | McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) | Train, John |
| Duggan, Hubert John | Macquisten, Frederick Alexander | Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L. |
| Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) | Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest | Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend) |
| Eady, George H. | Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. | Watt, Captain George Steven H. |
| Eales, John Frederick | Marsden, Commander Arthur | Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour |
| Emmott, Charles E. G. C. | Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John | White, Henry Graham |
| Emrys-Evans, P. V. | Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) | Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.) |
| Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.) | Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Fleming, Edward Lascelles | Moss, Captain H. J. | Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd) |
| Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin) | Munro, Patrick | Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth) |
| Ford, Sir Patrick J. | Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) | Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount |
| Fox, Sir Gifford | North, Edward T. | Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff) |
| George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | Nunn, William | |
| George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea) | Owen, Major Goronwy | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Glossop, C. W. H. | Patrick, Colin M. | Sir William Davison and Sir Henry |
| Goff, Sir Park | Peters, Dr. Sidney John | Cautley. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) | Edwards, Charles | Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton |
| Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) | Elmley, Viscount | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) |
| Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.) | Fuller, Captain A. G. | Mainwaring, William Henry |
| Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent) | Gledhill, Gilbert | Maxton, James. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Milner, Major James |
| Banfield, John William | Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) | Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. |
| Batey, Joseph | Grundy, Thomas W. | Paling, Wilfred |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) | Jenkins, Sir William | Parkinson, John Allen |
| Buchanan, George | John, William | Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles) |
| Cape, Thomas | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Rathbone, Eleanor |
| Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Smith, Tom (Normanton) |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Kirkwood, David | Spencer, Captain Richard A. |
| Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) | Leonard, William | Wallace, John (Dunfermline) |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Lunn, William | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Mabane, William | |
| Edge, Sir William | McEntee, Valentine L. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Mr. Tinker and Mr. Groves. |
§ Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir William Davison, Sir Arthur Shirley Benn, Sir Reginald Banks, Mr. Cadogan, Sir Henry Cautley, Mr. Raikes, Sir Arnold Wilson, and Sir John Withers.
-
c351
- STATUS OF JUDGES BILL, 58 words