HL Deb 22 April 1907 vol 172 cc1344-64
*THE MARQUESS OF BATH

rose to call attention to a memorial presented to the Lord Chancellor in December last year with reference to the appointment of Justices of the Peace, and to the reply of the Lord Chancellor there to. The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I trust that no apology is necessary to your Lordships for drawing your attention to a subject of such importance as that which stands upon the Paper in my name. I desire to elicit the opinion of noble Lords, if I can, on the pressure which it is sought to employ, and which, in fact, is being employed in certain quarters, to compel Lords-Lieutenant to base, or, at all events, to colour, their recommendations for the office of county magistrate on political grounds, and, further, on the effort which is being made to transfer that pressure with the same object to the Lord Chancellor in the case of the Lord-Lieutenant declining to base his recommendations as desired. That is a matter which strikes at the root of the administration of justice, and it is for that reason that I venture to describe it as important and grave and as well worthy of the consideration of your Lordships' House which numbers so many Lords-Lieutenant among its members.

May I make two preliminary observations? Perhaps it may have occurred to some of your Lordships that it is presumptuous on the part of one who has occupied the office I have the honour to hold for so short a period to draw the attention of the House to this subject. I can only plead that it is precisely those who have the least experience who are most in need of guidance. The pressure to which I have referred has been greatly accentuated since the enactment of the measure of last year which abolished the property qualification for county magistrates. I make no complaint of that measure. I think I can confidently claim that I have honestly and frankly carried out its spirit and its intention. The second observation I desire to make is this. I wish to assure the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that I am bringing this subject forward in no partisan spirit, and, least of all, with any antagonistic feeling towards himself. I go further and say that I should be the last person who would desire in the least to embarrass him in the very difficult position he occupies. It would be impertinent if I were to attempt to praise the noble and learned Lord in his conduct of his office. But it would be equally ungracious and ungrateful if I were to fail at once to acknowledge the personal courtesy, the strict impartiality, and, may I venture to go further and say, the extraordinary industry and care which the noble and learned Lord has invariably displayed on every occasion on which I have had to consult him—and I believe that is the experience of others—with regard to appointments to the Commission of the Peace in the county, of which I have the honour to be His Majesty's Lord-lieutenant.

It is a matter of common knowledge that for the last fifteen years an agitation has been on foot to alter the system under which Lords-Lieutenant appoint county magistrates and to substitute their appointment by the Lord Chan- cellor direct without the intervention of Lords-Lieutenant. This agitation has been confined to one political party, and those who have taken part in it have suggested without hesitation that in making his appointments the Liberal Lord Chancellor should seek his sources of information from the Liberal Members of the House of Commons. This agitation took a concrete form in 1893, and I shall have to refer to what occurred then. But its latest and most active eruption took place in December last, when the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was the victim of a torrent of lava. The noble and learned Lord survived the shock, and, although he was threatened with a further display of volcanic violence, he seems, publicly at all events, not to have suffered.

I have no means myself of knowing whether the noble and learned Lord has been warned, by rumblings of a local and scattered character, of the imminence of another eruption, but I myself and others have had indications, which cannot be mistaken, that this volcanic activity is by no means set at rest. In December last a memorial was presented to the noble and learned Lord which complained of the partiality of the Lords-Lieutenant, which desired, as it was expressed, to put the system on a non political basis, and which alleged that the vast disparity between Conservative and Liberal Justices had grown up during the long domination of the Conservative Party. The memorialists then proceeded to explain how the system could be rectified, and they invited the noble and learned Lord to discuss the matter with them. The Lord Chancellor did not consider that much good would come of an interview, and I desire to draw your Lordships' attention to the opening sentence of his courteous and instructive reply. He said— The memorial signed by eighty-eight Members of the House of Commons which you handed me begins by expressing an earnest desire that under some new system the appointment of Justices of the Peace should become non-political. All the remainder of the document takes for granted that the existing system must necessarily be one of appointment under 'political influences,' find in effect aims at making those influences more dominant and effective than hither to while that system lasts. I agree in the initial aspiration, but cannot reconcile it with the remainder of the document. That the recrudescence of this agitation is closely connected with the passing of the measure to which I have referred is shown by the language of the memorial. It states that— The passing of the recent Act of Parliament removing the property qualification indicates a general agreement that the administration of justice should no longer be the prerogative of a single class, and that, particularly in view of the powers which should reside in the justices with regard to the drink trade, it is of the greatest importance to find, within reasonable time, improved means for making the county Benches more truly representative, both of political opinion and of the different social classes of the community. I submit that it is clear from the language of the memorial, from a consideration of the history of the case, and from the pressure which is brought to bear on Lords-Lieutenant, that the aim of those who have combined to exert this pressure is not so much an improvement in the administration of justice, as a political colouring of the Bench, and the extension of political patronage.

For what purpose is it desired to give a political hue to the county Benches? I regret to have to do so, but I am bound to say—it has been forced on my mind by both observation and experience—that in some quarters, at any rate, there is a hope that the political views of intemperate partisans appointed on political grounds may colour the administration of justice in various quarters and in a variety of ways. This movement, I think it will be acknowledged, is manifestly organised. Many of the recommendations that have been sent forward have not been confined to individual cases, but have been in squadrons and platoons. It is a remarkable fact that it is only since the last general election that these lengthy lists of nominations have been forwarded to Lords-Lieutenant, and in those nominations not a line, not a word, is put in to show that the petty sessional divisions which will be affected by them are in want of additional magistrates.

The political views of the nominees invariably coincide with the political opinions of the nominator, and in some cases I have found, after careful inquiry, that on grounds of physical in capacity, and even on personal grounds, some of these nominations are unreliable, and are, I suggest, therefore reckless and ill-considered. I have even been requested, in some cases almost peremptorily, to recommend persons for addition to the Commission of the Peace whom I could not honestly have justified myself in recommending had they been Conservatives or Unionists. I frankly state that I do not consider myself a mere conduit pipe to convey messages—I cannot call them recommendations—to the Lord Chancellor. I consider that I have a duty and a responsibility in satisfying myself as to the fitness and capacity of those whom I recommend to the noble and learned Lord. I recognise that in the last resort the responsibility lies with him to accept or reject the reasons which I may have placed before him for declining to forward any particular name or names, but I say that I have a duty to satisfy myself and to be able to guarantee the personal fitness of those whom I submit for his approval and assent.

The plan of campaign is transparent. The Lords-Lieutenant are to be requested to forward lists of names to the noble and learned Lord, and if they decline to do so, they are to be denounced as partisans, and the Lord Chancellor is then to make his appointments over the heads of the Lords-Lieutenant and without any information to guide him. I ask your Lordships to consider what this means. In these days it not infrequently happens that the representative of a county division has no local connection with the constituency which he represents, and even in some cases has no residence in the county whose Benches he proposes to people and to control. When it is suggested that the Lords-Lieutenant are too much in the hands of the local Benches whom they consult, what must be the case with the nominations of those gentlemen who of necessity are entirely dependent on their political supporters, and on political agents arid wire-pullers for their sources of information?

The suggestions of partisanship on the part of Lords-Lieutenant, and that the political opinion of the magistrates prevents them from doing justice in the administration of the law, were repudiated both by the late Lord Herschell in this House and by Mr. Asquith in the House of Commons. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has himself rejected the first insinuation in terms as gratifying as. they are generous. The Lord Chancellor said— It is bare justice I should say that, with are exceptions, the Lords-Lieutenant, with whom I have been in communication have acted and advised impartially and have taken much pains. And again— Without their help it would be impracticable to transact the Business, and they have often warned against and so prevented most undesirable appointments. I succeeded in the office which I have the honour to hold an eminent and a deservedly respected Member of your Lordships' House—the late Lord Cork. He was a keen Party man and was a Peer who followed Mr. Gladstone in his Irish policy. He was Lord-Lieutenant of Somerset for forty years, and it was stated in 1893 that the proportion of Liberal justices in that county was 20 per cent. I think the proportion now, of those I have nominated, is 34 per cent.

But, my Lords, is it suggested for a moment, to take one or two illustrations, that the late Lord Cork, or, may I say, the noble Marquess the respected Leader of this House, who was His Majesty's Lord-Lieutenant for the North Riding of Yorkshire for thirty-three years, and, I believe, succeeded a Liberal Peer who was appointed in 1838—is it suggested that those noble Lords have deliberately refrained from appointing to the Bench gentlemen of their own political views? I am perfectly certain that they acted with the greatest impartiality, that they based their recommendations on personal fitness irrespective of political opinions, and that they did not pass over their political friends because they were afraid of outside criticism. I am certain that no unworthy and no ulterior motives prompted their action, and the fact that the political complexion of the county Benches is largely of one hue is due to the accident of conditions and not to the design of responsible authorities. The suggestion that the vast disparity in the numbers of Conservative and Liberal justices is due to the long domination of the Conservative Party is proved, after impartial investigation and a study of the facts, to be without foundation.

There is another element to be considered besides merely the personal fitness of those recommended—namely, the requirements of the locality. I cannot help feeling that that considera- tion has been totally ignored by those who have bombarded us with their applications. After careful inquiry I find, so far as my own county is concerned, that most of the petty sessional benches are full, that some of them are even over-manned, and it is no exaggeration to say that if I were to succumb to all the demands made upon me room would have to be found for the overflow of magistrates, I presume, in the dock, and then we should have a demand made for further accommodation for the evicted tenants of that undesirable holding. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, I am glad to say, has not lost sight of that point, and he informed his correspondents that he was not prepared to flood the Benches, and that if he were to accede to all their demands there would be a regular deluge.

May I briefly refer to what occurred in 1893, because history only repeats itself? There was a deputation to the Lord Chancellor of the day, the late Lord Herschell, and then, as now, there was the complaint as to the partiality of Lords-Lieutenant, and even as to the partiality of the magistrates; there was complaint as to the undue proportion of political opinion on the Benches, and then, as now, the suggestion was made that the Lord Chancellor should appoint without the intervention of the Lords-Lieutenant. Lord Herchell, I think rather rashly, as he afterwards found, invitedan expression of opinion from the then House of Commons to justify him in departing from immemorial practice, and a Resolution was passed. But I should be doing an injustice to the memory of that distinguished Member of this House if I did not draw your Lordships' attention to a part of his reply to the deputation. He said— It would not do to take merely the recommendations of the representatives or the chairman of the Liberal association who sends the name to you, because it is not always necessarily those who are the most active politicians who would he the best for the magisterial bench. In the month of June a Resolution was moved in this House by the Duke of Richmond to the following effect— That it has been a long-established custom that the Justices of the Peace should be appoined in counties on the recommendation of the Lords-Lieutenant; and that in the opinion of this House it is highly inexpedient to disturb this usage in any county for the purpose of placing on the Bench justices whose political opinions are in consonnance with those of the Government of the day. Lord Herschell took part in that debate, and the Resolution was carried nemine contradicente. I trust that the terms of that Resolution commend themselves as emphatically to your Lordships to-day. With accurate foresight the late Lord Selborne pointed to the probability of the pressure of which I submit the Lord Chancellor is now the subject. He said— I venture to say that there was no more difficult or unsatisfactory part of the duty of the Lord Chancellor in my time than that which related to the appointment of borough magistrates. There was constant pressure to obtain appointments for every reason except the fitness of the persons recommended for the performance of judicial duties, and most especially for political reasons. One manifest evil is the constant tendency to an undue increase in the number of magistrates. I am thoroughly convinced that there will he pressure brought to bear which the Lord Chancellor will find it most difficult, if not impossible, to resist, on party grounds, for making appointments which are not necessary to be made for the proper administration of justice, and which, when made, will not be conducive to the administration of justice. Lord (then Mr.) Courtney, whom we welcome to this House, also expressed the same apprehension when he referred to— An unconscious confession that in the minds of some there lurked the feeling that magistrates should be appointed, not on the grounds of personal fitness, but as the reward of political support. He was sure that the present Lord Chancellor, and he believed all Lords Chancellors, would beg protection against the pressure that would thus be put upon them. The noble Duke (the Duke of Devonshire) referring in the same debate to his experience as a Lancashire representative, stated that pressure had been frequently brought to bear upon him to make appointments based solely and avowedly on political grounds, and simply as a reward for political services. Lord Herschell, in this debate—and it shows that he had considerably modified his views since he made his suggestion in March—said— I admit at once that the transfer from the Lord-Lieutenant to the Lord Chancellor of the entire responsibility of manning the Bench would not be satisfactory. I am aware that the difficulty of the Lord-Lieutenantin a particular county is great in ascertaining whether the names presented are those of fit persons or not, but the difficulty of the Lord Chancellor in dealing with all the counties of England, Scotland, and Wales is infinitely greater. If, however, he has the assistance of those who know the county thoroughly in such a matter, there would be less liability of making mistakes. The Lord Chancellor would be perfectly mad if he relied entirely on wire-pullers and political agents. If I were to man the Bench solely on the recommendation of the politicians in counties I should make blunder after blunder. Now, when the suggestion is made that there is dissatisfaction with the composition of the county magistracy, I ask, where is the evidence of any dissatisfaction and discontent with the administration of justice? I am almost inclined to think that disappointed ambition and the consequent discontent of some local politicians have been magnified into conclusive evidence of the existence of discontent with the administration of justice.

But, my Lords, if there were any real, any widespread, any deep-seated or well-grounded dissatisfaction with the administration of justice, I submit that it would be found in the popular voice in the elections to local councils and boards, and not merely in the rumblings and grumblings of disappointed politicians It is because I believe this agitation to be artificial and unreal that I have drawn the attention of the House to it this evening, and I venture to assert that to Americanise our system of administering justice by treating appointments to the magistracy as the legitimate spoil of political victors would be the last and the worst form of dementia Americana. It would open the door to methods of retaliation to which we are at present happily strangers.

Recommendations are one thing, and they are certainly not to be discountenanced. Solicitation is another, and should not be encouraged. But dictation is a third, and it becomes intolerable if it is not stoutly resisted. The principle which I have endeavoured to place before the House this evening may be summed up in sentence. It is this—that appointments a to the county benches should be made because the localities require them and not because politicians desire them; and, further, that in the appiontment of magistrates men should be selected for their personal capacity and character, and not merely for their party zeal or political services. If I have been able at all to carry your Lordships with me in the principle I have endeavoured to give utterance to, I, at all events, shall feel that the trespass I have ventured to make on your Lordships' time is not wholly unpardonable.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN)

My Lords, probably it will be thought most convenient that I should address your Lordships immediately after the noble Marquess. Most of my colleagues will have to leave in a short time for the purpose of attending other important duties, and I therefore hope that if there should be anything said during the debate which I ought to answer, the House will be so indulgent as to allow me the favour of a few words at the conclusion.

I agree with the noble Marquess in one thing. I do not think that there is any foundation whatever for the idea, if such idea be current, that justice is not fairly administered in the main by the justices of the peace in this country. My belief is that they render a public service for which the country ought to be grateful to them; and in the whole of the time that I have been in my present place, although I have had complaints in regard to the vaccination laws, I have not received, and I believe that there has been really no ground for, any complaints in regard to the improper administration of justice by the magistrates of this country. It would be indeed a very ill thing on my part if I gave the slightest countenance to whit I believe to be an unworthy aspersion.

Having said that, I pass to the main subject of the noble Marquess, and I think the simplest way is to begin by stating what it is that I want to see in regard to the bench of justices, and what is the policy in which my friends and colleagues, I believe, heartily concur. I attach the utmost importance to the office. Lord Bacon regarded the appointment of justices as being among the most important duties of the Lord Chancellor, and I think it is perfectly true. They have, in the first place, at the present day to administer the licensing laws—a matter of very great anxiety and difficulty; and, whether in their character of justices at petty sessions or at quarter sessions, or as grand jurymen, nearly all the criminal cases that there are in England and Wales come before them at one stage or another. And therefore I regard the office as one which ought not to be made a reward for political service, and as one which ought not to be distributed except because of the merit and claim of the person to be appointed. That is what I should like to see, and I hope we may attain some day in this country.

I strongly object, of course, to anything like a monopoly of this office on the part of any Party in the State, or of any creed, or of those occupying any particular social status. It is a matter in which no one ought to look beyond the question, Is this person a person respected in his locality and likely to administer justice impartially, with knowledge, and with the sympathy of the population at large? Very well, I believe that will be the opinion of all of your Lordships, and I am bound to say that in the numerous communications that I have had with Lords-Lieutenant I have found that we do not really differ in our objects. I may add also that we have hardly ever differed in regard to the names of the justices who have been placed upon the Bench. The noble Marquess and myself have had more than one interview, and in the end I think we were agreed as to the names of those to be placed on the Bench. So it has been in regard to almost all the other Lords-Lieutenant with whom I have had the honour to communicate.

I wish to describe, simply and without offence, what we found was the case when we first came into office, and I think those who are acquainted with rural England will not dispute the truth of the description that I am going to give. For whatever reason—and I will say a word about the reason presently—there is no doubt that most of the magistrates in many of the counties of England belong to one political side. I am not attributing blame—I am going to speak of the cause presently; but that is a fact, and a fact that was admitted when we were discussing this subject last year. Also they were nearly all gentlemen of the same social status. They were not bad magistrates; they did their duty; but that was the description of their opinions and their social position.

Now, how did this come about? I do not in the least suggest, and I do not suppose that the noble Marquess thinks that I suggested, that this was done by any deliberate action or desire of the Lords-Lieutenant. I do not think so. On the contrary, I know that in many cases that I have discussed they have expressed a desire to find men of other than one particular creed and other than one particular class of opinion; but they stated (what I believe in many cases is perfectly true) that the difficulty is to find them, and that has undoubtedly been one factor. Also there was in existence, as we are aware, a law requiring a property qualification, which has been abolished. It is certainly the case that, by some freak of nature, those who are in bettor financial circumstances incline the more to the Conservative Party than they do unhappily to the Liberal Party, besides which there is this, the Lords-Lieutenant, of course, cannot know all the persons themselves individually, and they necessarily derive their information from other sources.

The Lord-Lieutenant himself is nearly always a person of great rank and distinction, and the petty rivalries and ambitions of his neighbourhood seem to him to be a fragment of the infinitely little. But it is not so among people of humbler degree who live in the locality and advise him. And I think the noble Marquess will admit this much, that the constant influence and the constant prepossession of the local Benches and their chairmen, and those others who have been in the habit of advising Lords-Lieutenant, has beyond doubt been unfavourable to one particular Party in the country, and has been biassed in favour of persons of a particular social status. I am not imputing malevolence. These things are all perfectly natural. It is not at all unnatural that those who have to choose, or to recommend, men who are to sit with them on the Bench should prefer people who move in the same circle, whom they know personally, whom they meet in the hunting field, the cricket field, or wherever else they seek their recreation. These things are not unnatural; but I say these influences have been permanent, and, although operating in a small way and in a small circle in each county, they have had a very great influence in producing the result which I have described.

I do not believe that h is the desire either of this House or of any other responsible body of men that there should be a sense of exclusion on the part of any of our countrymen, or that men should feel that the ways of honour and of distinction are closed to them in the neighbourhood where they live and like to be well regarded. It is not fair play, and it is not policy for this reason—that you ought to have, not merely the fact that justice is well administered in a district, but the general confidence of the community in the administration of justice, and a feeling that they or any of their class may, if they are worthy, be placed there to take part in administering justice.

There is no doubt at all that a very strong feeling has arisen and been existing for some time in reference to this subject. The noble Marquess thinks it is rather fictitious. I do not deny that there are fictitious elements in almost every agitation in this country upon every side in public life. We are all too familiar with the fictitious side of these things. But there is a genuine and a real side as well as a fictitious side; and I can assure the noble Marquess that if he had access—and for that matter he is heartily welcome to it—to the communications that come to me from different parts he would not think that it was merely the local wire-pullers or the person fired with the ambition of being made a magistrate—a very curious ambition, I must say it often appears to me, for it is a most laborious duty if properly discharged—he would not think this feeling was confined to so narrow and so unworthy an element as that. There is, I can assure him, and there has been for some time a very real feeling that men who otherwise would be placed upon the Bench have been prevented from being so placed because of the partiality shown to Conservatives and to others in a particular social status. That is true. It may be exaggerated, if you will, but there is a very real and true feeling to that effect; and I certainly have had, and Lords Lieutenant have remedied on my representation, repeated instances of men of very high standing who have been unaccountably passed over, not by the fault of the Lord-Lieutenant, as I have learned whenever I have made representation to him, but by reason of the influences and bias to which I have referred.

I admit in the fullest manner that there is another side to it. The noble Marquess has referred to a communication that I had to make to Members of the House of Commons last December. I stand by every word that I said, and I shall not be shaken, under any circumstances. But may I remind him of this? I said then—and it is perfectly true —that the great bulk of the communications that have been made to me by Members of Parliament have been of names, carefully prepared and thought over, honourably put forward by men who have as much repugnance as he or I have to the prostitution of the Bench of justices for any base purpose, but put forward really and truly because those who did not themselves want to be magistrates, but did wish to see fair play, felt that in their own locality something ought to be done to redress what was amiss. I must certainly say that I think the great bulk of those recommendations that have been made to me have been made in that spirit. I will not say that everyone knows, but I think it is the case that, whenever a new Government comes in, I do not care which side it is, there is apt to be an ugly rush for the purpose of getting some sort of political reward in the form of appointments to the Bench of justices. I do not want to say much about that, except that, if it has been complied with by some Chancellors, it will not be by me.

I have this feeling, that whatever may be said about the distribution of decorations, or titles, or other marks and badges of honour, under no circumstances ought any position of trust, as the position of a justice is, to be given to any person who is not quite fit for it in the opinion of those most competent to judge. Under these circumstances what have I done, what has the course been that I have adopted? What I have done in each case is, when any complaint or any representation was made in regard to the political complexion of the Bench that any persons were being excluded or had been excluded because of their opinions, or not equally treated, I have always forwarded anything that has been said to the Lords-Lieutenant, whenever I thought it was worthy of attention. There are many names and cases which I have not forwarded at all, because I did not think them to be worthy of attention.

I have no doubt the noble Marquess is perfectly right—in fact, I am sorry to say, from my own knowledge, that it is true—that some names sent forward in that way have not been the names of suitable persons. I am sure everyone will feel that it is impossible for me to be responsible for that being the case; but I can say that I have really tried to know, before sending these names forward, whether they were fit and worthy names. I have taken a good deal of pains to do that, and, when I have done so, I have met the Lords-Lieutenant. Our interviews have neither been long nor stormy. They have been, I think, always of a very pleasant character, and, with hardly any exception at all, the names that have been placed on the list have been placed with the concurrence of the Lords-Lieutenant. That has been the case with the noble Marquess, when certain names were placed on the list with the approval of the noble Marquess himself. So it is in the case of others. If, for example, a class of persons like workmen have not been placed on the Bench, or it was a case of the representatives of Roman Catholics not being admitted to the Bench, I have done exactly the same. I have communicated with the Lords-Lieutenant, and any remedy that has been applied has been applied with their approval, I believe almost without exception.

For my part, may I say that I think it is not a question of appointing simply on political considerations? I think you ought to get the best men, and see that no one is excluded either by reason of his political or religious opinions or by reason of his status; and I am glad to say that many working men, who have had the highest record, have been placed on different Benches in this country during the time I have had the honour of being Chancellor. That is what has been done and now, having said that, I want to indicate, in one sense, concurrence with something that has been said by the noble Marquess.

I am not fully satisfied with the present working of the system of appointing magistrates. I have pointed out that a certain stream of information came to the Lords-Lieutenant, and that I thought that stream was charged with prepossession to a certain extent and with bias. A stream of information comes, also, to me, which is equally charged with prepossession and with bias. I do not think that that is a satisfactory condition of things on either side. I do not think it is desirable that a Lord-Lieutenant, with his great responsibility, should be dependent upon sources which are in any degree prejudiced, nor do I think it is desirable that I should be dependent upon such sources. I have thought a good deal as to whether it would be possible to make any suggestion by which, not during the tenure of office of one Government or of another, but permanently, some machinery should be set up by which we could get simply and solely the best men without hearing of the political side or the social side, by which an unbiassed choice should be made of the very best men for the purpose without the slighest regard to their opinions on any subject.

I have found it a matter of extreme difficulty to think out any such project. The other day I was sent a letter by a friend of mine written in the year 1745, from which it appeared that the great Lord Hardwicke, who was then Chancellor, had asked the Members for Norfolk their advice with regard to the appointment of magistrates, and they went to the assizes and consulted the grand jury as to what names they should send up to the Lord Chancellor in compliance with that request. I do not know whether the grand jury might be invoked, or whether, what would perhaps be more suitable, the county council might be asked to assist. I think it is most desirable that the ultimate responsibility should remain where it is, with the Lord Chancellor and the Lords-Lieutenant and that they should themselves act cordially together in trying to get the best men under considerable difficulties. But I do not know whether it is possible. As I say, I really have not made up my mind, I cannot make up my mind definitely, on the subject of whether it is possible that a committee should be selected in each county, a committee of perfectly impartial men, with full local knowledge, who should be consulted in respect of all appointments that were to be made. Whether that is practicable or not, I really do not know; perhaps in the course of the debate some other plan may be suggested. If that course cannot be adopted, I can see nothing for it but to go on in the way in which we are going on now, and I hope that if we do we shall escape undue censure on any hand.

One other alteration which I should like to see, if possible, was referred to by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition last year. The noble Marquess asked whether anything could be done for the purpose of preventing gentlemen from continuing to hold the office of justice of the peace without discharging any of its duties. There is not the least doubt that a number of justices are merely nominal justices, and that they have no excuse for not discharging their duties. There are many of us in this House who, though we happen to be justices, have something else to do, and may well be excused, or at least hope for consideration, but if a man has nothing else to do, or has plenty of leisure, and systematically neglects to attend on the Bench, I think that I and the Lords-Lieutenant between us might arrange some method of asking such a person whether, in the interests of the county, he should not make place for someone who would discharge the duties. I agree with the noble Marquess that it would be most wrong to over man the Bench, and I have no intention of doing anything of the kind. But it is a different thing that gentlemen should remain justices or accept office when they have no intention of discharging the duties. I have stated what I have tried to do, and the spirit and object with which I have tried to do it; and I have also suggested the different amendments which do not require legislation, but which might be arranged between the Lords-Lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor. I hope this debate will be fruitful in suggestions by which these difficulties may be overcome.

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

My Lords, the House is indebted to my noble friend for having been the means of inducing the noble and learned Lord to make the important statement to which we have just listened. It is a statement which I for one, and I think many of your Lordships must have listened to with the utmost satisfaction. That speech, following as it does the statement made by the noble and learned Lord last year, and following the remarkable letter published not long ago in The Time newspaper by the noble and learned Lord, seems to me to dispose once and for all of all the statements which have been freely made—statements in my belief entirely unfounded and unjustified—that these appointments to the Bench have in the past been usually given as the reward of political service; and it disposes also of the still more mischievous suggestion that, in order to redress the balance, future appointments should be made on the same grounds.

I gather from the noble and learned Lord's statement that he, at any rate, is satisfied that the manner in which the county magistrates of this country have administered justice has been satisfactory and beyond suspicion. I gather that he is determined that, for the future, appointments to the Bench will be made solely with reference to the merit and fitness of the individual concerned; that he is entirely opposed to the idea of flooding the county Benches with new magistrates in order to redress the disparity which now exists between the numbers in which the two political Parties are represented; and that, on the other hand, it is his desire that no person fit for one of these appointments should have the feeling that he is excluded on account of the particular political or religious tenets which he happens to observe. If that correctly represents the creed of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, I take leave to say that that is my creed also, and I believe the creed of every reasonable man in the country.

When I speak of selecting magistrates with reference to their fitness for a seat on the Bench, I ask myself what is it that we mean when we speak of a person being fit for magisterial work. In the first place, we intend that he shall be a person possessing, if I may use the words of the noble Lord in charge of last year's Bill, "education and intelligence." I do not suggest that a knowledge of the dead languages or anything of that kind is indispensable; but I do mean that a person should have that kind of education which, at any rate, will enable him to sift evidence in a reasonable manner, and to distinguish between statements based upon mere assertion and matters of proved fact.

What is the next qualification upon which we should insist? It is that the individual should occupy a position of independence. I do not mean independence in the sense of social rank or connection, but a position which places him beyond the reach or beyond the suspicion of improper influence. And that is the view of His Majesty's Government, because the House will remember that in the Act of last year there was a clause which made it illegal for a solicitor to sit upon the Bench before which he is in the habit of practising.

I think it is impossible to deny that in the past persons possessing qualifications of this kind have been more numerous and easier to find in the ranks of the Party represented on this side of the House than on the other side. That is a consequence which is inherent in the circumstances of the case; and in the past appointments to the Bench have been made, not because the individual has been a member of a particular Party, but because the particular attributes for which the Lords-Lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor had to look have been more usually found among persons possessing that territorial qualification of which we got rid last year. It was for that reason that I for one was ready to welcome the legislation of last year, because it seemed to me to extend the area within which the Lord-Lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor could look for suitable magistrates, and there by break down what was, in appearance at any rate, the monopoly of one political Party.

I regret as much as the noble and learned Lord regrets that in the result it should prove to be the case that so enormous a preponderance of magistrates in some counties should be drawn from one political Party rather than the other. That is a political misfortune; but it would be a still greater misfortune if, in order to redress the disparity, incompetent persons were appointed recklessly and in a wholesale manner. But the declaration of the noble and learned Lord on that point appears to me entirely satisfactory, and I have not a word to say against it. I may say that the doctrine of the noble and learned Lord seemed to me more satisfactory than that propounded a few days ago by the Prime Minister in another place. The Prime Minister made a statement which, to those who read it, appeared to suggest that magistrates might be appointed as a reward, I will do him the justice to say, not of political service, but of local service, and with the object of redressing the inequality of which I spoke a moment ago.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am sure the noble Marquess will understand that I should be the last man in England to say anything inconsistent with the declarations of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister. I am sure that if the noble Marquess reads the Prime Minister's statement carefully he will find that there was nothing inconsistent with what I have said.

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

There may not have been a difference in intention, but there certainly is a difference in the manner in which the case was put. The Prime Minister used these words— We are engaged in redressing the inequality of the present position of things. My point is that that is not the object, or, at any rate, the main object, with which appointments should be made to the Bench; but that they should be made solely with regard to other considerations—first, whether the Bench stands in need of additional magistrates; and, secondly, whether the person put forward is in all respects a competent person. But I do not believe that, so far as the Lords-Lieutenants are concerned, there will be found to be any difference of opinion with regard to the principles on which we ought to proceed; and I for one should look forward, so long as these principles are observed, to there being not only no friction, but very loyal and useful co-operation between the Lords-Lieutenant and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in the selection of magistrates. Whether it is possible that the machinery of selection can be permanently improved on the lines suggested by the noble and learned Lord, I do not like to say at this moment. I understood him to hint at the possibility of establishing a committee of what he described as perfectly impartial men to whom might be entrusted the duty of selecting these gentleman.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Advising.

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I am afraid there might be some initial difficulty in satisfying everybody of the strict impartiality of every one placed on that distinguished body. With regard to the other proposal, which I think the noble and learned Lord attributed to me, but the credit of which I cannot help thinking is due to my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn—that a magistrate who habitually shirks his work and absents himself from the Bench should by some means or other be relieved of hisduties—that seems to me an admirable suggestion, and if the noble and learned Lord carries the matter further, I believe he will receive a great deal of support.