JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.

HL Deb 14 November 1918 vol 32 cc104-14

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE rose to call attention to the recommendations in the Report of the Royal Commission on the Selection of Justices of the Peace in 1911, regarding political pressure exercised in favour of particular candidates; and to ask His Majesty's Government whether these recommendations may be taken to cover the practice of canvassing the members of Advisory Committees.

The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I hope I need not detain your Lordships at any length in putting this Question to His Majesty's Government, and in particular to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, although I must go back for a moment to what happened some years ago with reference to the appointment of magistrates. About nine years ago, as your Lordships will remember, a considerable stir was created, both in this House and in the country, with reference to the method and the practices actually pursued in the appointment of justices of the peace. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Loreburn, who I think is not now in the House, was at that time Lord Chancellor, and was greatly concerned with the matter. The result was that an important and strongly-manned Royal Commission was appointed, just nine years ago, to consider the whole question. The difficulties which were alleged were that strong political pressure used to be applied to Lords Lieutenant, by members of Parliament and others, for the appointment of particular gentlemen to the Commission of the Peace, and that in submitting names to the Lord Chancellor for appointment Lords Lieutenant were placed in considerable difficulty, with the result that the appointments tended to be more political in their character than they ought to be, and that in certain parts of England practically all the magistrates that were appointed were of one political persuasion.

There is no need now to go at length into the whole matter, but I may remind your Lordships that when the Royal Commission reported it expressed itself strongly on this point, and it recommended the setting up of Advisory Committees, appointed by the Lord Chancellor and advisory to him but presided over by the Lord Lieutenant, so that when the Lord Lieutenant submitted a list of names to the occupant of the Woolsack he would have the support of much local authority and knowledge in suggesting the persons to be appointed. The Royal Commission expressed themselves in these terms. They said— We seek to enforce these views by recording an opinion, formed after full inquiry, that appointments influenced by considerations of political opinion and services are highly detrimental to public interests, and tend to lower the authority of the Magisterial Benches in the country. We hold also that any one who takes share or part in giving effect to such influence is playing an injurious part in the citizenship of the country, and is therefore deserving of much censure. They went on to say— Both the Lord Chancellor and the Lords Lieutenant must often be greatly embarrassed by the receipt of political demands they cannot with propriety accede to. Their refusal to do so produces complaint and criticism, injurious to all interests. We therefore strongly urge those who may be the Lord Chancellor or Lords Lieutenant or members of an Advisory Committee that they should firmly refuse to receive any applications, or unasked-for advice to appoint Justices from Members of Parliament or candidates in their own constituencies, or from political agents or representatives of political associations. If such a rule be made and acted on, all concerned, especially Members of Parliament and candidates, will be able to escape from a position they must deplore. This last recommendation was not quite unanimously made. Two or three members of the Royal Commission thought that this went a little too far; that after all both Members of Parliament and members of local political associations were in many cases able to form a good opinion, from personal knowledge, of the merits of a possible candidate for the Bench, and that to condemn them to complete silence was not a useful course to take.

The findings of this Commission were generally applauded. Advisory Committees were appointed to assist Lords Lieutenant, and I think it may be safely said—and I should appeal with confidence to any noble friend of mine in this House who also is one of His Majesty's Lieutenants—that the services, which are of course quite unremunerated, are most ungrudgingly given, and are of great value and assistance to the Lords Lieutenant in making submissions to the noble and learned Lord. But excellent sentiments are sometimes apt to wear rather thin. Eight or nine years ago it was generally agreed that influence of this kind, brought to bear for the purpose of appointing magistrates, was mistaken and wrong, but I am inclined to think that that has been to a certain extent forgotten, and that there is something of a renewed tendency now to fall into the mistake which was so prevalent before, of regarding appointment to the Bench, not as the undertaking of an important and sometimes tedious public duty, but rather as a mark of distinction which can be conferred upon a locally popular or influential gentleman. I have seen some signs of a recrudescence of that view in my own correspondence.

But my real purpose in putting this Question and securing a statement from the Government on the subject is that members of my Advisory Committee have complained to me that they have become the subjects of a great number of personal requests from individuals, political associations, and in some cases from the representatives of local authorities, themselves, as we know, largely framed on political lines, with a view to their bringing particular names before the Advisory Committee and myself. I brought the matter before an association which we have of Lieutenants of counties, and informed my colleagues there that I proposed to put a Question of this kind. I think any of my noble friends who were present at that meeting will bear me out in saying that my intention was universally approved. No voice was raised in contradiction of it.

I say quite frankly that I do not think it is possible entirely to dispense with recommendations made either by Members of Parliament or, in some cases, by political associations. I think it is going too far to say that the chance of a man being appointed to the Bench would be entirely destroyed if he is recommended by a local Member of Parliament or by a local political association. But I am prepared on my own account to say this—that, other things being equal, a recommendation of that kind would rather go against a man than for him, although it may be that in some cases the candidates are put forward as thoroughly worthy of the honour, and in these cases the recommendation ought not to be allowed to stand in their way; yet of itself it ought not to be regarded as assisting a man to have his name put forward. It ought to be on general grounds of fitness and public service that a man's name is put forward, and not of political service of any kind. I hope, therefore, that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will be able to express an opinion in the same sense—that is to say, deprecating interference of this kind, whether it is applied directly to the Lord Lieutenant, who after all is perhaps in a stronger position in resisting it, or to the members of the Advisory Committees, known as being the people responsible in the immediate locality for bringing recommendations before the whole Committee and who may be greatly inconvenienced by receiving personal pressure of this kind.

It is very hard, indeed, to eradicate the public feeling that almost everything can be done by influence. All of us who have held public positions know very well how hard it is to persuade people that one cannot get a man appointed to any regiment in the Service, or to any branch of the Service, or to any position in any of His Majesty's Dominions, or in India or elsewhere. All of us who have held public positions know how deep-seated this belief is, and in such a matter as the appointment of magistrates it is very difficult to persuade people that pressure and representations do not have their way.

There is nothing positive to be done except to make declarations of the kind which I have just made, and I sincerely hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able on his own account, as the person ultimately responsible who actually appoints the magistrates, to make a general declaration which can be recorded in the same sense, deprecating the use of influence of this kind, or indeed of all kinds, beyond the supplying to the appointing body of information regarding the fitness of persons whom it is desired to appoint.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD FINLAY)

My Lords, I desire in the first instance to express my entire concurrence with what the noble Marquess has said as to the value of the services rendered by the Advisory Committees. They have been most useful. I have now had nearly two years' experience of the work of appointing magistrates and I can say from that experience that the Advisory Committees afford very great assistance in selecting men who are fit for the duties and qualified to discharge them to the public advantage in the particular locality.

The observations made in the Report, to which the noble Marquess has referred, as to the undesirability of anything in the nature of political pressure, in my judgment are right. I should deprecate anything like political pressure being attempted in the case of members of the Advisory Committees. The Advisory Committees are there to afford assistance to the Lord Lieutenant, and ultimately to the Lord Chancellor, in the appointment of justices, and political pressure is really an invitation to them to disregard their primary duty which is that of selecting men who are fit in every respect for the discharge of the duties of the office in their locality. By the word "canvassing," which is employed in the Question of the noble Marquess, I understand solicitation of votes, and I think canvassing of votes, the votes of members of the Advisory Committee, is very much to be deprecated, and particularly political canvassing. But I must not be misunderstood. It is extremely difficult to draw the line, and the noble Marquess himself indicated that.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

Hear, hear.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It would be the greatest possible mistake to cut off the local Advisory Committee from sources of information, as to the fitness of particular candidates, which are reasonably open to them, and nothing I may say or that the noble Marquess has said will, I hope, ever be quoted as tending to show that reasonable and proper statements as to the qualifications of particular men for the office would be in any way contrary to what was said in those Reports as to the application of pressure.

It is highly necessary, if the Advisory Committee are to discharge their duties properly, that they should inform themselves, and it is highly proper that all persons who have the means of knowledge should, in a right and reasonable way, assist the Advisory Committee with such information as may enable them to arrive at a right conclusion. I am perfectly sensible, and no one can ignore the fact, that it is extremely difficult to draw the line between what is right in this direction and what would overstep the bounds of what is desirable and become what, for convenience, I call canvassing or solicitation of votes. It is extremely difficult to draw the line. That must be left to the good sense of the public and to the attitude to be taken up by the members of the Advisory Committees themselves. While they will welcome any information given to them, they are quite able to discourage the pestering for votes in the way of canvassing.

There is one aspect of the case to which I should like to refer, which the noble Marquess has touched upon, and that relates to the question of political opinions. This matter was touched upon by the Committee to which the noble Marquess has referred, and is dealt with in a sense which they consider, and I think rightly consider—namely, that political considerations should not be altogether excluded. For this reason it is most desirable that the men should not only be as efficient as possible; it is also most desirable that they should command the confidence of the community. And however fit the Bench might be for its work, if it were the case that members of a particular party were consistently excluded from it, the impression would grow up that the composition was one-sided and unfair. And from that point of view it seems to me that the question of political opinion cannot be properly altogether excluded. It should not interfere with fitness for the office; but it is an element in determining whether the Bench shall be so constituted as to enjoy the confidence of the community. I should like to quote, as expressing what I think on this point, three very short passages from the Report of the Commission. At page 8 this passage will be found— This preponderance of justices drawn from one political party has been described as a 'political misfortune.' … The impression that persons of one set of political opinions were in practice being excluded from appointment has engendered a sense of dissatisfaction which it is of the highest importance to dissociate from the administration of justice. In Earl Loreburn's words—I think in the evidence he gave before the Commission—"it is contrary to the public interest that the authority of the Bench of Justices should be weakened by any widespread suspicion that the members of it are not fairly selected." That is question 243, at page 11 of the evidence.

Then on page 9 the Commission go on thus— Those who appoint justices or make recommendations for appointment ought not to be indifferent to the existence of this inequality, and should endeavour to redress the balance, so far as public interest will permit. Then on page 10— It is also in the public interest that they" [the Justices] "should be men who command general confidence. And for this reason also it is desirable that the area of selection should be wide and the choice comprehensive, so that the Bench may include men of all social classes and all shades and creeds and political opinion. It is obvious that, in order to carry out what in the opinion of the Commission should be done in these cases, political considerations cannot be altogether ignored, and I agree in a general sense with the passages that I have read, which, I think, express the views which the noble Marquess indicated in putting this Question. I hope I have answered fully the question put to me, and I have endeavoured to indicate my own views on the subject, as well as to explain what the recommendations of the Commission were.

VISCOUNT HALDANE

My Lords, I wish to say a very few words on this question. I do so because I, perhaps, have had more to do with this system and for a longer period than any of your Lordships now present. For nearly three years I occupied the Woolsack, against the two years of my noble friend, and I was keenly conscious of the difficulties with which he had to deal. I entirely agree with what was said by my noble friend beside me, and by the Lord Chancellor, and what I wish to say a word or two about is the reason why this difficulty has grown up, and the principle which I think proceeds from it.

I agree that you must lock to something more than merely the selecting of the most perfect people, from a judicial point of view, upon the Bench; you must try to get the interests of the community. For instance, it is not merely ordinary questions which a magistrate has to deal with. He has to deal with persons who have conscientious objection on vaccination, and topics of that kind. Anti-vaccinators have feelings, and they must be considered. It would be very wrong to appoint an anti-vaccinator to the Bench. It is also desirable not to appoint somebody who has by his utterances and by his way of going on produced a feeling in the minds of anti-vaccinators that they will not get justice. That is the kind of man you must exclude as a magistrate. Why has this difficulty grown up? I think I understand it. First of all, let it be remembered that the person who appoints a magistrate is not the Lord Lieutenant, but the Lord Chancellor, as has already been said. Secondly, the Lord Lieutenant by custom is the person who recommends to the Lord Chancellor for these appointments to the Bench. That was the practice before the Royal Commission reported, and the Royal Commission has not really modified it in prin- ciple. It is true that appointments are made irrespective of the Lord Lieutenant by the Lord Chancellor, and sometimes made in the last stage. That was always so. It was so, in my experience, before the Royal Commission was put into operation and Advisory Committees were appointed.

But the meaning of the Report of the Royal Commission and the difference in machinery which it introduced was this—that the Lord Chancellor has now somebody else to whom he is to refer questions of the fitness of those names besides the Lord Lieutenant. He has the Advisory Committee to refer to. The notion has got into people's heads that the Advisory Committee is the Lord Lieutenant's Committee, but that is not so. The Committee is set aside for advising the Lord Chancellor. When a recommendation comes from the Lord Lieutenant, naturally the Lord Lieutenant does not want to make a recommendation which the Committee will reject when the name is referred to it, and consequently—and this is the real difficulty—a system of short-circuiting is produced, by which the Lord Lieutenant goes to the Committee straight away. This does not matter so long as it is not thought that the Committee is the Lord Lieutenant's. That being so, it is plain what the standard of the Committee should be. They should consider that they are there to advise the Lord Chancellor and him alone, consequently to bring to bear upon their recommendation those considerations, and only those, which the Lord Chancellor might legitimately entertain. They are there to give him any advice he may desire. It is therefore right that they should both take these general considerations into account. It is wrong that they should regard themselves merely as bodies who may be approached by anybody and for any reason, and should send up names to the Lord Chancellor without very searching prime consideration as to whether these are names of persons taken according to the standard which the Lord Chancellor himself would apply.

I am sure that much of the difficulty about the Advisory Committees has arisen from this idea of short-circuiting, this idea that you can go to the Committee just as if it were to the Lord Lieutenant, and apply the same kind of considerations as you would in a county where the Lord Lieutenant is a great local personage representing the Sovereign and approachable by everybody in a way that the Lord Chancellor is not. The function of the Committee is to apply the standard which the Lord Chancellor himself applies. It is not merely local. They are there to pronounce upon the facts, and their duty is consequently measured. I think my noble friend has put it pretty accurately. It comes to this. You must take all the considerations which are legitimate into account. In doing so, you must remember that the advice you are tendering to the Lord Chancellor is advice tendered upon those principles which have been enunciated during the course of this debate. I am very glad that the question has been discussed, because there has been a great deal of obscurity about what these Advisory Committees are, and as to their responsibility and for what they are to act. I think that this debate will do much to clear that up.

LORD HARRIS

My Lords, I should like to add one word from my own experience regarding the original appointment of these Advisory Committees and their working. Not a word has been said about it to-night. The main object of appointing Advisory Committees was to equalise on the Benches Party political opinion. That possibly does not appear in the Report referred to, but, as I was responsible for the selection of the Advisory Committee in my county, I have a very clear recollection of what I was told. I was told by a very high legal authority that this had to be done in order to assist him in another place. We had, therefore, to set to work and find a suitable Advisory Committee with the deliberate object of selecting as many Liberal justices of the peace as possible in order to equalise the Benches. For myself, I can say that in almost every case where I have been asked to support the name of a candidate for the Bench, I have always asked—and for two years I was Acting-Lord Lieutenant, so I had to act in every case—"What is the Party political opinion of this gentleman?"

Your Lordships must remember that it is the duty of the Advisory Committee to advise the Lord Chancellor of the political opinions of each candidate, and that practice, so far as I know, has been carried out since I resigned the exalted office of Lord Lieutenant. As regards pressure or the difficulties referred to by the noble Viscount and by the noble Marquess, I am happy to say that I have had no experience whatever of any pressure or difficulties. A number of applications came in. I should not say that they came necessarily from political parties. A great majority came from working men's associations asking that the name of Mr. So and So should be considered. Judging from the results of my request for information regarding the public services of the persons named, I should say, from my experience, that it is a very great advantage to the Advisory Committee that these names should be put before them with the records of the public services of the gentlemen in question. It would be a much more difficult proceeding for an individual to go round to the various places and ask somebody for that information. I do not know whom he could ask. It does not follow that the Chairman of the Petty Sessional Bench would know any better than any member of the Advisory Committee who are the most trusted persons in a particular neighbourhood.

I think that these requests which came to us, not in large but in very limited numbers, were distinctly useful, because they did indicate that in a particular neighbourhood there was a gentleman who had done a lot of public work and who had won the confidence of his comrades in a particular circle. I cannot say that I have had any experience of any real pressure or of any difficulty. It is not my experience that we were asked to put a man on the Bench regardless of what his public service was, but merely because he was Mr. So and So and had come into the county and had bought a piece of land. I think that my noble friend Lord Weardale, who is a colleague of mine on the Advisory Committee, will bear me out when I say that we have had no experience such as that described by the noble Marquess opposite, or similar to that referred to by the noble Viscount opposite. As far as I know the system has worked very smoothly, and I am sure that it has been a very great assistance, and I gather from what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said just now that it has been of great assistance to the Lord Chancellor.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

My Lords perhaps, by leave of the House, I may be allowed to thank the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for the tenor of his reply, which exactly fulfils my hopes in supplying an authoritative declaration on this point. It undoubtedly is the case, to use the words of the noble and learned Lord, that members of the Advisory Committee with which I am concerned have in some cases been unduly pestered in support of particular individuals, and so far as they can be saved from solicitations of that kind it is obviously our duty to attempt to preserve them from it. I was particularly glad to hear what the noble and learned Lord said of the general value of the Advisory Committee in London. It naturally is a very important body, and I am proud to say that the present Lord Mayor has been a member of it ever since its foundation, and several distinguished members of Parliament and others also sit on it. It is perfectly true, as the noble and learned Lord said that you cannot leave political considerations out altogether. It is hardly too much to say, as my noble friend opposite stated, that one of the purposes of appointing these Advisory Committees was to some extent to redress the balance in the appointments as between the different Parties, and I frankly say that in London we always draw some kind of general balance as between Conservative, Liberal, and Labour, bearing of course especially in mind the claims of Labour. I take it that probably something of the same kind is done in all the counties.