*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYasked the Lord Chancellor if he would have any objection to laying on the Table a Return of the Magistrates, with their names and the places of their jurisdiction, appointed by himself and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster within the last six months? He said that, in the recent discussions on the appointment of Magistrates, all who had spoken seemed to have lost sight of the change made by Mr. Ritchie's Local Government Act; when Magistrates exercised administrative functions there was sense in asking that political Parties should, as far as possible, be balanced, but now that Magistrates were restricted to judicial functions only, character and education ought to be the principal, if not the only, elements to be considered in the selection of Magistrates. He was most anxious to avoid making any insinuations against the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, neither would he venture to accuse the last speech on the subject from the Woolsack of being inconsistent and contradictory; but he 44 thought he might call the attention of the noble and learned Lord to what a Justice of the Peace of 25 years' standing had written to The Morning Post in this respect. That letter, after stating the denial of the noble and learned Lord of "having been actuated by any desire to serve any Party end," went on to quote later passages from the same speech in which the noble and learned Lord complained of the very limited number of Liberals having been upon the Bench when he came into Office, and that, in short, he had tried to balance Parties. The noble and learned Lord had put a mechanic on the Bench at Crewe, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster appeared to have put 58 or 59 working men on different Benches, merely because they were working men. He would not go into the question of whether the status and education of these men fitted them for these positions, or whether the placing them there was part of the general attempt by the Government to catch votes at any cost; but it could not be denied that this was a novel experiment, and he, therefore, would make to the noble and learned Lord the request on the Notice Paper, in order that the country might be able to watch and follow the experiment of the Government, and see how these new Magistrates conducted themselves. He did not see how the noble and learned Lord could well object to this without admitting that he had not confidence in his own nominees; it could not be said either that it was invidious to the new occupants of the Bench, since their name and new positions were already known in their own localities, and such a list would have a good effect of an incentive to these new Magistrates to acquit themselves well, and to feel the responsibilities of their new position. He would now put a case before the House which showed how necessary local knowledge and trustworthy information was to prevent the occupants of the Woolsack from being deceived, and that they could not rely upon Chairman of Election Committees. He was not disposed to be very severe upon this dirty Election trick, as such often happened; but it became important when the person who perpetrated it was put upon the Bench. As he had given a local newspaper with full details to his noble and learned Friend upon the Woolsack, he need not 45 give names of persons or places. Last July, just before the Election, a person in a borough got a leaflet printed, which contained a gross libel on the Conservative candidate for the division; and on the 4th November this person was put upon the Bench of the borough by the noble and learned Lord. Before that date, soon after the Election, and before the Long Vacation, the libelled candidate, who had become the Member for the division, discovered who had set the libel going, proceedings were taken against him in the High Court, with the result that this person wrote an abject letter of apology, and paid the costs. This occurrence gave rise to the fear that other persons, equally indiscreet and unfit for the Bench, might have found their way there; and the worst of it was that ignorant persons who knew little of the occupants of the Woolsack might wrongly imagine that this Magistrate had been put upon the Bench as a reward for his partisan services. On this account the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack surely had a solid grievance against the person or persons who recommended to him the appointment of this Magistrate, and who kept the noble and learned Lord in ignorance of the facts which would have prevented such a nomination.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)My Lords, I do not propose at this time of the evening to enter again upon the question of what considerations ought to guide the appointments of Justices, beyond saying that I entirely dissent from the idea that there is more reason for a Return of Magistrates appointed during the last six months than during any other term when anybody else was concerned in the appointments. With regard to the question on the Paper, a Return such as is asked for has been moved for in the House of Commons in continuance of a previous Return, and is now in course of preparation. I have no objection to that Return being laid on the Table of your Lordships' House. As to the case to which the noble Lord alluded, I must decline to take any actiou or accept as a foundation for action a paragraph in any newspaper. The appointment in question having been made, if there were anything in it sufficient to be dealt with, it would have to be considered upon any 46 suggestion that the gentleman was unfit and ought to be removed. That, however, is not a matter for debate in this House. The removal of any name from the Commission is a matter to be dealt with judicially. I think the noble Lord has interpolated something into the statement in the newspaper. The gentleman referred to said that he was not the author of the libellous document referred to, and that when he handed it in to be printed he did not know the contents. The noble Lord has said that that was not believed; but that is only the statement of the noble Lord. What the gentleman had done, no doubt, might technically render him liable to an action in point of law, but it did not indicate any moral fault on his part. Those are all the facts I have before mo, and upon them there seems to be not the slightest ground for interference.