APPOINTMENT OF MAGISTRATES.

HL Deb 15 July 1931 vol 81 cc858-84

THE DUKE OF MONTROSE rose to ask His Majesty's Government to define how far they considered it proper for Party politics to govern the. appointment of Justices of the Peace: and to move for Papers. The noble Duke said: My Lords, may I, in rising to ask the Question standing in my name, express the hope that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will believe me when I say that I have not taken this action in any pin-pricking spirit. I ask the Question because I want to ventilate a matter that has been causing a good deal of uneasiness to a number of people. What we feel is that Party politics are entering more and more into the qualifications for the appointment of magistrates; that Party politics are entering more than they should into the appointment of magistrates and more than was ever intended by the Royal Commission of 1910. I will not trouble your Lordships with the whole history of the appointment of justices of the peace nor will I quote at length from the Report of the Royal Commission. I would simply remark in passing that with the abolition of the property qualification in 1906, with the admission of women to the bench and the appointment of advisory committees to the Lord Chancellor all barriers to the bench have been swept away. The door is now wide open to all Parties, all creeds, and all opinions, or as Kipling would have said to Dukes' sons, cooks' sons, gardeners' sons, baronets' sons and sons of millionaires. The field is a wide selection. We feel, therefore, that it was the intention of the Royal Commission, having swept away all barriers and opened the door wide, that the appointment of magistrates should be made from the point of view of merit and public respect.

In their recommendations the Royal Commission said that the criteria by which appointments to the magistracy should be made were moral and personal character, general ability, business habits, independence of judgment, and common sense. There was no mention of politics. They said, however, that it was desirable that there should be a more equal representation of political opinion on the bench. I hold that that was an ideal—an ideal which you might apply to varying opinions on every conceivable topic. The criterion, I hold, was that of personal merit and public respect. But is that the criterion to-day? I do not think it is. If it is, how is it that whenever there are vacancies on the advisory committee or the bench, the Lord-Lieutenant receives almost invariably a letter from the Lord Chancellor of the day in which he asks for information concerning the gentlemen to be appointed? The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is perfectly entitled to that information, but then he asks further to what political Party do the people belong. If it stopped there, that would be all right, but it does not stop there. I have evidence that the information which is supplied to the Lord Chancellor by the advisory committee is passed on to a third party, and very often the third party is a local Member of Parliament or the political Party agent, and he scrutinises the list, and, I suppose, makes some remarks to the learned Lord on the Woolsack. At any rate, the Lord-Lieutenant receives back a letter from the Lord Chancellor in which he says that certain names are disapproved. And why? Because of their politics.

The advisory committee is then instructed to put forward other names of gentlemen of an opposite political opinion. So how can one say the appointments to the bench are not governed by politics? I know that there is supposed to be a preponderance of Conservative opinion on many benches, but I hold that that is due to the failure of successive Lord Chancellors to deal adequately with justices who are non-resident in a county, and with justices who are too old to perform their duties. In my own County, Stirlingshire, we have twenty per cent. of non-resident magistrates unable to perform their duties. It was the same in Buteshire, and I feel that if we could jettison all that dead weight about us the ship would float on a more even keel. I feel the position to be very like that referred to by the late Lord Lansdowne in your Lordships' House in 1907. He said that he regretted extremely that there should be a political preponderance in some counties on the bench. It was a political misfortune, but he considered it would be even a greater political misfortune if the disparity was redressed by the wholesale and reckless appointment of a number of magistrates.

I do not charge the noble and learned Lord with appointing magistrates recklessly or wholesale, but I hold that he is attaching undue importance to political opinion in the appointment of magistrates. I say the noble and learned Lord is disapproving of the appointment of some good men because of their political opinions, and that other men less qualified are being appointed because of their political opinions. I feel that the unanimous recommendations of the advisory committees appointed by the Lord Chancellor are not being given the due weight that they should have and I also feel that the Lord-Lieutenant is being placed in a most difficult, a. most unpleasant, a most undesirable and most undignified position, when you consider the non-political character of the high office he has the honour to hold. I beg to move.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, with your permission, I should like to say just one or two words on this matter, which is one of great interest to me. I have been a magistrate now for some twenty-five years, and I have been a member of a county advisory committee for sometime. I cannot, of course, say anything about what happens on the advisory committee, because everything that passes there is confidential. All I will say about the one that I have the honour of serving upon is that it is a very good committee indeed. I quite agree with what the noble Duke behind me has said with regard to the appointment of magistrates. I cannot conceive anything more undesirable than that the appointments should be governed by political considerations. I must say I listened with some surprise when the noble Duke was giving his experience that political considerations had governed the appointment of magistrates for some time. All I can say is I have not come across that myself, but I entirely agree that political considerations should not govern the appointment of magistrates, because a man may be a most excellent justice of the peace although he may hold the most pestilential political opinions. Conversely, he may be a bad justice of the peace and be quite orthodox in his political opinions.

Noble Lords sitting in different parts of the House will construe my words in different ways, but the meaning is the same for all. I think the only possible consideration on which the advisory committee or the Lord-Lieutenant should advise, in the appointment of magis- trates, is whether or not the person to be appointed will perform his or her judicial functions properly and well. I feel it is a great mistake to overload your benches with magistrates. You put too many people on the bench, not because you want people to sit as magistrates, but because it is regarded as desirable that so-and-so should be a magistrate. That is perfectly fair in one sense and does not necessarily mean that there is political influence, but a person whose father before him has been a magistrate and has been accustomend to sit on the bench thinks that he also ought to sit on the bench. I do not think you ought to increase the numbers on petty sessional benches beyond what is necessary for the administration of justice. I do not say you should put the number down too low. You cannot expect every magistrate to sit on the bench every week. You must have a certain margin, but I think care should be taken not to increase the numbers on the petty sessional benches more than is necessary for the judicial work.

The noble Duke told your Lordships that there were people in his experience who are on the list of justices who are too old for their work, or who are absent from the county, are non-resident. I have seen that in my experience, too. There are a certain number of people who never put in an appearance in court and who never sit as magistrates. There are others who do not live in the county. In my own County, the County of Surrey, we have a list of names of non-resident justices, and they are not borne on any petty sessional list. I think that is a satisfactory system, and I would like to see it extended to those who do not actually attend court. I do not suggest that you should remove the names of these gentlemen from the Commission, because there is no reason why they should not still have the powers of a magistrate. It is a very useful thing for people to be able to get hold of a magistrate now and again to sign papers and so forth, and I hardly think it is worth the trouble of taking the names of these non-functioning gentlemen off the Commission of the Peace. I think they may just as well be allowed to remain there, but it ought to be shown that they are supernumeraries and not active members of the various benches.

Now I come to the next question, the question of women. I personally do not think women are likely to be better or worse justices than men. I do not think there is any great advantage in insisting that you should have a certain number of women on every bench to sit qua women; but other people think this is desirable, and I certainly have no objection to it, although I do not attach any great importance to it. There is this difficulty in regard to women. There is a difficulty in getting the best choice of the women who are prepared and suitable for service on the bench, because there is a ruling, not of the present noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack but of a predecessor of his, that husband and wife should not serve together on the same petty sessional bench. I do not really see that that is necessary. After all, supposing they did happen to sit together, they are not likely to combine to defeat the ends of justice, and I am inclined to think it would be desirable, if possible, to relax that rule. What happens is this. A man is a magistrate, and it is thought desirable to appoint a woman, and very likely, in a great many cases, the lady who is suggested, or would be suggested, is the wife of a magistrate already, and, therefore, is debarred.

The next point I would like to mention is the question of the chairman of the bench. In some cases, although the chairman is elected every year, it is an understood thing that he goes on for an indefinite number of years. I do not like to suggest that a chairman should be appointed for one year only—that I think would be far too little—but I think it would be desirable to introduce some sort of limit, say five or seven years, not because I think that chairmen become doddering and incompetent, but for another reason. I think your Lordships who have had experience of local government will agree with me when I say that very often the functions of local government are apt to get into the hands of a few people in a county or a county borough as the case may be. There are some people who devote themselves whole heartedly to all forms of county work. They do the work admirably. They have every sort of experience, and they are encouraged and are very anxious to undertake the greatest responsibility in county affairs. I do not think that militates against good administration—in fact I think that probably it tends to good administration—but it has one drawback. It tends to curtail the number of people who take an interest in local government. If you have one man or a set of men combining the offices of chairman of a rural district council, chairman of the petty sessional bench, commander of. a territorial battalion, chairman of important county committees, that does not leave much scope for other people and you rather damp down the ardour of young men. If you had a limit to the time during which a man might serve as chairman of a petty sessional bench, you would open the door to other people who wished to take part in the local business of the county. And, of course, the more people you get with experience on the bench the better it is and the more helpful it is to the Chairman of Quarter Sessions in the work of Quarter Sessions.

There is one other point which is cognate to the question raised by the noble Duke and that is the question of the Quarter Sessions of a borough and the appointment of justices in a borough. In those cases, of course, the bench is a very small one, and because people in a borough who take part in public affairs are generally members of the town council the borough bench is largely recruited from members of the borough council. Admirable people they are, and most admirable as magistrates, but I think it should be very carefully laid down that there should be a certain proportion of magistrates as members of the borough bench who are not connected with the municipality. I say that for this reason. The municipality is often interested—as prosecutor for example—in cases which come before the bench, and unless you have a sufficient proportion of substantial people who are not connected with the municipality it is difficult to get magistrates to try these cases. I think it will be agreed that whoever is responsible in these cases ought to see always that there is a certain number of people available as magistrates who are not connected with the municipality, in order that they may be able to deal with these particular cases in which municipalities are in- volved. Perhaps I have strayed a little from the point at issue, but I thought it well to put these points before your Lordships. If I may say so, I entirely agree with the noble Duke in deprecating the influence of politics—if it exists in any degree—on the appointment of magistrates.

LORD STRACHIE

My Lords, I. regret to say that I cannot agree with the noble Earl that political considerations do not enter into this matter.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I did not say they did not come in. I said I had not personal experience of it myself.

LORD STRACHIE

Certainly in my experience political considerations do come in, and I have always been opposed to anything of the sort. If I may give my own personal experience, when these advisory committees were set up I and Sir Alexander Acland-Hood both sat in another place for constituencies in the same county. The Lord Chancellor of the day asked us to go on the advisory committee of the county because he said he wished to have people from both sides. Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and I agreed that we, sitting one as Liberal and one as Conservative, should have nothing to do with the appointment of magistrates and that such appointments should be outside political considerations. For that reason we both objected to being upon the advisory committee. Some years ago, when I had the honour of coming to your Lordships' House, it was again suggested that I should be put upon the advisory committee in my county. The Lord Chancellor, who was a Conservative, was quite ready to put me on and in fact wished to do so, but it was pointed that I could not go on the committee because if I did there would be one Liberal too many.

It was said to be desirable that we should have exact proportional representation—say, for the sake of example, two Labour, two Conservatives and two Liberals. In my opinion that is wrong. You ought to have on these committees men well known in the county who would simply look upon this question of appointing justices from the point of view of whether those proposed to be appointed are fit men, not caring whether they are Liberals, or Conservatives or Labour. I am sorry to say that I have reason to know that not only in my own county but elsewhere that principle is not acted upon. Both in the appointment of members of advisory committees and in the appointment of justices it is often said when a certain man is put forward: "Oh, yes, he is a very proper man to put on, but it will upset the proportion and there will be too many of one Party." There would be too many Conservatives, or too many Liberals, or too many Labour. To my mind that is absolutely wrong.

I must also say that I agree with the noble Earl in what he says about over-loading. There is a great deal of over-loading and sometimes a bench of magistrates is more like a jury. We have to retire on every trifling case to find out the opinion of the whole or of the majority. It is most undesirable to get that overloading, simply because of the principle that you must have Conservatives and Liberals and Labour on the bench, instead of acting entirely from the point of view of who are the right men to administer justice. I am quite certain that that is the right thing to do—to look upon these appointments only from the point of view, as the noble Earl himself said, whether the men proposed to be appointed as magistrates are the best men to administer justice, and in the same way to appoint advisory committees without regard to whether there are more Conservative or more Labour or more Liberal Members upon them. I know quite well that in the area in which I sit people who come before the justices do not care what their politics are. They want men of position in the county who will do justice without fear or favour, who have no political feelings, no friends and no axe to grind.

THE MARQUESS OF BATH

My Lords, I should like to say a few words upon this subject because I have had a good deal to do with it for some years. I should like to come straight to the point of the question raised by the noble Duke. Of course we should all prefer that politics should not be the one determining factor in the appointment of magistrates, but I am not sure, in view of the Report of the Royal Commission and in view of what was quoted, I think by the noble Duke, whether it is not sometimes forgotten that these advisory committees were appointed for the purpose of deal- ing with the complaint that at that time there were on the magisterial bench too many men from one Party. At that time, I would remind the House, there were only two Parties. In view of the intentions of the Lord Chancellor of the day I am not sure myself whether the best way to keep politics out, or rather to alleviate political considerations, is not by doing as is now being done to most advisory committees—to appoint an equal number of representatives from each of the Parties. From all that I have been able to gather from those of my friends whom I have consulted in similar positions, they all agree that very good work has been done by these advisory committees. They are as prepared to accept the appointment of members of one Party as of any other.

As is so often the case in this House the debate has wandered rather from the point of political influence, and my noble friend Lord Onslow, as indeed did Lord Strachie, alluded to the overcrowded numbers on some of the benches. That is perfectly true. That has been brought about by the pressure that has been put upon advisory committees, not merely to see that representatives of one Party or another are put on, but also representatives of different interests, and when, in addition, we were pressed by the Lord Chancellor of the day to include women, that still added to that tendency. So far as I am concerned, with my advisory committee, we are bearing very strictly in mind the over-crowded state of the benches. There is another reason for that overcrowding which I do not think has been mentioned, and that is the pressure that has been brought to bear upon the committees to appoint magistrates residing within areas, not so much for the purpose of sitting at sessions as of attesting various documents. Vaccination papers are one thing. and another, I believe, though I have not had experience of this personally, is the signing of pension papers, which is a very important duty.

I venture to throw out this suggestion to the noble and learned Lord, that it might be advisable to consider whether the people who can sign these papers and carry out these extra-judicial functions might not be increased in number. The county council representative and the chairman of the district council should be fully competent to sign these papers, and that would absolve us from the difficulty we meet with at every one of our meetings, which is the plaint from isolated districts that they have no magistrate to go to for these purposes. My noble friend alluded to the magistrates who are past work or who have left the county. I think the experience of most of us is that there is a non-resident list on which both those who no longer live in the county and those who are willing to retire will be placed, and who do not lose their character as justices, but who are still, as I am glad to say is the case with so many, especially those who have served the county for a long time, willing to continue to do those small extra-judicial duties to which I have alluded.

LORD TREOWEN

My Lords, with the leave of the House I would venture to intervene in this debate for a very few minutes. I think it is a very useful debate, as showing the difficulties in which we as Lords-Lieutenant and members of advisory committees are at present placed. I happen to have some knowledge of the existing advisory committees, because I think I was the first to suggest such a thing to Lord Lore-burn. The complaint in the county which I then represented was that it was impossible for one person to know all the people in his county who were suitable candidates for the Commission of the Peace, and that with the abolition of the property qualification it would become still more impossible. I ventured also to point out that if the function of selecting candidates were taken by the Lord Chancellor it would become a matter of still greater difficulty, because at. any rate the Lord-Lieutenant had probably a larger knowledge of the people in his county than anybody else, and you must have some such local knowledge before you are in a position to say whether a person is qualified or not.

Lord Loreburn told me that he thought it was a very good idea. The matter was ventilated in the Press, it came up before the Commission appointed in 1909, and the Report of that Commission contained a most important recommendation for the establishment of these advisory committees, which have developed into their present condition. Later, I think it was in the time of the late Lord Haldane, when he was Lord Chancellor, the advisory committee was reconstituted in three sections, one representing each political Party. It seemed to me at the time that there was nothing anyone could possibly object to in that, the object of the advisory committee being to watch the interests of those of a particular Party who were qualified, and to see that their claim was not overlooked. It was evident that if you wished to deal equally with all Parties you must have a committee which would consist of responsible people of each Party, who would meet together and put forward those whom they, partly from political association, might know better than anyone else. I can only say from my own experience that it has worked admirably.

I cannot say that I have ever found the smallest difficulty in the county to which I belong, except on one unfortunate occasion, when a person was appointed without my having ever heard of the appointment until I saw it in the newspapers, who had had the misfortune of serving a term of imprisonment in the local gaol. Of course, those are cases which will happen if persons who have no local knowledge at all will insist upon making appointments without consulting those who have that knowledge. I think it was an exceptional and probably a unique case. However, the person still remains on the Commission of the Peace, but I believe he does not exercise the functions. I think that the best guarantee that we can have against an undue and improper application of political Party influence is to have a good committee to which the various sections are nominated by their own political Party. Then it is in the interests of everybody to get the best they can. They cannot have somebody forced upon them from above. Secondly, they should be allowed to act without any influence from above, interference which is instigated generally by Members of Parliament.

Of course, the Lord Chancellor has a discretion in making selections when they are put before him, and every Lord Chancellor has exercised his function judicially, but his position must be a difficult one, being a Party man, when the members of his Party from another place bombard him with requests to make this or that person a magistrate. I do not wish to make any complaints. I have had referred to me by various Lord Chancellors recommendations sent to them of that kind and that is the usual practice, but there is a danger that a noble Lord, exercising the function of Lord Chancellor, may make an appointment solely on the recommendations of one or two persons who are Party men. Under those conditions of a sound advisory committee, with all sections elected on purely Party lines, thus making each Party responsible for the selection of the best men, combined with the absence of interference from above, we shall select and get the best men who are to be had in any county.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SANKEY)

My Lords, I hope I may be forgiven for beginning my reply on a personal note. I have followed the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down and I observe that to-day he celebrates his eightieth birthday and I wish him many happy returns. I am much obliged to the noble Duke for setting down this Motion, for it gives me an opportunity of endeavouring to correct a misapprehension which exists in the minds of some people as to the method of appointing justices of the peace. I would ask your Lordships to bear with me for a longer time than I usually take because of the importance of the matter. The noble Duke takes an interest in this matter and not long ago entered into a newspaper controversy on this subject with one of my predecessors. I gather from a perusal of his letters that he did not quite see eye to eye with Lord Cave and, where a Conservative Lord Chancellor failed to earn his approval, I am afraid that a Labour Lord Chancellor can hardly hope to escape his censure.

I must, however, make it plain at once that neither the present Government, nor any Government as a whole, has anything at all to do with the appointment of justices of the peace. They are, and have been for centuries, appointed by the Crown on the advice of the Lord Chancellor. I assume, therefore, that the noble Duke's inquiry is directed to the principles upon which I, as Lord Chancellor and, of course, a member of the Government, act. I am ready to tell the House what the principles are which guide me in what is probably the most difficult and most delicate part of my duty. I doubt, as the noble Lord, Lord Treowen, has said, if it was ever possible for a Lord Chancellor personally to get to know the persons qualified to become justices of the peace. Certainly it is quite impossible for a modern Lord Chancellor to find suitable men and women for the office unless he has assistance. It would mean that he would have to know proper candidates and the local needs in every county in England, Scotland and Wales, from Land's End to John o'Groats, and from Anglesey to East Anglia. In order to assist him, advisory committees have been appointed in each county and borough in the kingdom. Altogether there are 319 of such advisory committees, and the initiative in finding suitable persons for appointment and recommending them to the Lord Chancellor rests with these advisory committees. The Chancellor must rely—and I do rely—upon their recommendations. It is the duty of the advisory committees no less than it is the duty of the Lord Chancellor to see that suitable persons are made justices of the peace.

It is not possible for me, nor do I desire, to place my own nominees upon the bench, and I propose to follow the advice of those advisory committees unless I can see upon the face of their recommendations, which I shall deal with in a moment or two, that they appear to have misinterpreted their function, in which event I refer the matter back to them and ask them to be good enough to reconsider their advice. I do not wish, by making additions to benches at present numerically sufficient for the convenient administration of justice, to take drastic steps towards curing or mitigating one evil at the risk of creating another; namely, overcrowding the bench.

The influence of political considerations in affecting the appointment of magistrates is to be deplored if persons are to be appointed solely on political considerations. It is, however, too late in the day to say that no consideration must be given to political sympathies. It would be hypocrisy to assert that politics are not a factor: at the same time, it must be remembered that the influence of politics is not an evil of modern growth. So far back as 1702 Sir Nathan Wright, who was then Lord Keeper, was urged by his Party, the high Tories, summarily to dismiss all magistrates of Whig sympathies in the country. There is an interesting reminiscence of that in a book, which I dare say your Lordships have all been reading lately, "Blenheim" by Professor Trevelyan: In an evil hour for her own peace of mind she (the Queen) had delivered the Great Seal into the charge of Sir Nathan Wright, as Lord Keeper. He was a poor lawyer"— I hope that does not apply to me— but a keen partisan. He used his position to dismiss Whig justices and to substitute Tories wholesale. But the Queen, urged by Godolphin, was perpetually moderating his zeal, greatly to the annoyance of the extremists. Coming to more recent times, your Lordships will remember the discussions that led up to the appointment of a Royal Commission in November, 1909. Complaint had been made that Liberals were not appointed justices of the peace to the extent that they should have been, and I should like to quote the words, already referred to by the noble Duke, of Lord Lansdowne when he was speaking in this House on April 22, 1907. He said: 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"— With that I agree, if I may respectfully say so. And he adds: 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. With that I also agree. The then Lord Chancellor, Lord Loreburn, refused to redress this disparity by wholesale appointments, and the Royal Commission was set up, of which, as your Lordships may recollect, the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Arthur Henderson, was one of the members.

They were unanimous in their recommendations, except for the solitary dissent of Mr. Verney. They expressed the opinion 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. They said: It is also in the public interest that they 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 of all shades of creed and political opinion. Finally, the Royal Commission considered the great disparity that existed in the political views of the benches throughout the country. They added: Those who appoint justices or make recommendations for appointment ought not to be indifferent to the existence of this inequality"— that is, the inequality of Labour representation— and should endeavour to redress the balance so far as public interests will permit. Now, that disparity, I regret to say, still exists. Recommendations for appointments submitted by advisory committees cannot, until such time as the balance is redressed, be accepted as satisfactory unless, besides according in other respects with the Report of the Royal Commission and, in particular, in that the personal fitness of the candidate must remain the first consideration, such recommendations also recognise the existence of the present inequality by making a substantial advance towards curing it. It is, however, impossible to make wholesale appointments and to create hundreds of magistrates all over the country, for the number made in this way would be far beyond the needs of the population. I am satisfied that there are not sufficient magistrates holding Labour views at present on the bench, but this injustice will be remedied as the years go on.

It is being remedied now, and I am sure that my noble and learned predecessors who are still members of this House, Lord Buckmaster and Lord Hailsham, were just as anxious to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission and just as anxious to do the proper thing as I am. An endeavour is being made to include on the benches men and women of different points of view, of different grades of society, and to seek to remove the evil, wherever it may exist, of having magistrates of one class or of one political view in the country. Further, a sufficient number of women justices should be appointed. It is not only in children's courts that the State needs their presence and advice. I appreciate and gratefully acknowledge the assistance I have had from many Lords-Lieutenant who are members of your Lordships' House.

As to the office of a justice of the peace, it is an ancient and honourable one. Lord Coke, a famous Lord Chief Justice, gives it as his opinion that the whole Christian world has not the like office as justice of the peace, if duly executed. And Mr. Justice Blackstone, another famous Judge, said: The country is greatly obliged to any worthy magistrate who, without sinister views of his own, will engage in this troublesome service. We all know the pleasing picture drawn by Addison of Sir Roger de Coverley as a justice of the peace, but should Sir Roger ever come to life again he would be astonished to receive a copy of Stone's Justices' Manual, with its pages over 2,000, and referring to 7,000 decided cases, and to be told to make himself familiar with its contents.

There are many good men and good women in all Parties capable of administering justice to their fellow countrymen. Patience, common sense, sympathy and ability to see both sides of the question are the primary qualifications necessary. It is not desirable to have cranks and partisans upon the bench. I should never allow—and I am sure my noble and learned predecessors would never have allowed—so ancient and honourable an office, which places in men's hands the liberty and reputation of their humblest neighbours, to become the subject of political traffic. In no circumstances ought a person to be appointed to this office merely as a reward for political services, but it must be remembered that persons who have had experience of public life and have given their services in the interests of the public are naturally better known, and have given some indication of their fitness in the public eye for the duties of a magistrate.

Modern legislation has added to the responsibilities of the office by extending the jurisdiction of magistrates in criminal matters, and adding to their ministerial and administrative duties in the attesting of statutory documents. I was very glad to hear the noble Marquess, Lord Bath, refer to that, because I think it would be a great advantage if the number of that class of magistrate were increased, but it is a subject on which I do not like to express a hasty opinion. It is, therefore, vital that only men and women of the highest character, whose temperament and training fit them for these responsibilities should be considered for appointment. It is unfortunate that there is not some way of recognising and honouring public political and municipal services in our social life, both in London and in the provinces, but it cannot be too often repeated, either here or outside, that the idea that such services should be rewarded by a seat on the bench would, if acted upon, be harmful to the administration of British justice, the prestige of which is one of our proudest possessions.

Another matter to which it is desirable to draw attention, and to which I am glad that several of your Lordships have referred, is the number of absentee justices. There are up and down the country a number of magistrates who either have ceased to reside in the county for which they were appointed, or who never take a share in the work at petty sessions. No one would wish that a gentleman who, still resident in the district, finds himself, after many years' active service, unable to attend as frequently as he once did, should resign or be removed from the bench; but those who have left the county for years ought not, in my view, to remain on the Commission of the Peace for that county.

As I have already said, the responsibility for finding suitable persons and recommending them to the Lord Chancellor rests with the advisory committees. I think we ought to be grateful to the noble Lord who preceded me for the advice he gave to Lord Loreburn. With regard to the composition of the advisory committees, complaint is sometimes made that too much consideration is paid to the political character of their members. It is impossible to give them that representative character which the Royal Commission so strongly recommended unless some regard is given to the different political views of the people living in the district concerned. Complaints from Lords-Lieutenant have reached me—I do not say all Lords- Lieutenant, but complaints from some Lords-Lieutenant—that they do not know any members of the Labour Party qualified for appointment as justices. In several such cases I have, at the request of the Lord-Lieutenant himself, added Labour representatives to the advisory committee, and these new Labour members have been able to suggest justices holding Labour views for appointment—may I add, to the satisfaction of the Lords-Lieutenant themselves. It has been my special care to see that all Parties are adequately represented on these committees. Everything depends upon their functioning properly.

Let me put a hypothetical case. It would not be, in my opinion, good advice if an advisory committee sent me a list of, say for example, sixteen appointments all of whom they said were Labour any more than it would be good advice if all sixteen were Conservatives, and I should ask any advisory committee giving me such advice to reconsider it. Fortunately, it is rare for me to have to disagree with the advice given by the advisory committees; nevertheless, I wish to make it quite plain that the decision as to the persons to be appointed to the bench must in the final resort rest with the Lord Chancellor. Most of these committees are very good about holding meetings regularly. But my attention has been drawn to one or two where too great an interval of time has been allowed to elapse between one meeting and another; but, in general as to the work of these committees, I desire to place on record the great help and courtesy I have received from them in the discharge of a duty which I have no doubt is no less difficult for them than it is for me. In many cases I have had the advantage of personal interviews with Lords-Lieutenant and, if I may be allowed to say so, I have found this method more satisfactory than lengthy and critical correspondence. I have not, perhaps, always seen eye to eye with them, but my fifteen years on the Bench as one of His Majesty's Judges has at least taught me that there are two sides to every question, and I do not resent criticism—I welcome it.

The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, drew attention first of all to the fact that it is not the practice to appoint man and wife to the same bench. He was quite right in saying one thing—that although I am a trustee to the nation for the appointment of magistrates, I am also a legatee of my predecessors in many of the practices. This, he is quite right in thinking, is the legacy of my noble friend Lord Cave. I do not quite know what the reason was though I think I can imagine it. I hardly think it was that there might be some devastating difference between husband and spouse in public. Personally I rather incline to the opinion that those appointments should be made. I am glad the noble Earl has raised the point again, and I should like further consideration in regard to it. With regard to the point raised by the noble Earl as to the chairman of the justices, I think that is hardly a matter for me but, with all deference to him, I sometimes find that experience on the bench is a good thing, and very often the chairman is the gentleman who has had most experience.

In conclusion, I can assure your Lordships that the duties of a Lord Chancellor in appointing justices of the peace are the most arduous and the most difficult of the many tasks entrusted to him. It involves almost as much anxiety and thought as the rest of his work put together. It requires the reading of short biographies of everybody recommended to the bench. It means the perusal of hundreds of letters in the course of the year, and a great number of personal interviews at which an effort has to be made to smooth over the very real difficulties which exist. If it is supposed to be part of the patronage of a Lord Chancellor, it is a patronage which I personally would willingly surrender. If it is put upon the ground of being one of the duties of my office, it is a duty that I must endeavour to discharge, but. with the uncomfortable feeling that in its exercise I must at least cause disappointment, if not something more, to a very large number of my fellow citizens. I do not claim to be infallible, but I shall be content if it is thought that I have tried to do my duty in a difficult situation and to the best of my ability. I can assure the noble Duke that there are no Papers to lay, but. let me thank him again in conclusion as I did at the beginning for allowing me to make this explanation.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, I think the debate to which we have listened is one of the most interesting to which it has been my privilege to listen in this House, not only because of the importance of the subject matter, but because in your Lordships' House there are as members a very great number of Lords-Lieutenant who are, of course, primarily charged with the duty of conveying to the Lord Chancellor recommendations for the counties over which they are presiding. I think the debate has been valuable, in the first place because it has helped to clear up a very wide misconception as to the nature of the qualifications which are required for justices of the peace, and as to the considerations which should at least actuate the Lord Chancellor in making his recommendations to the Crown. With a great many, indeed with the great bulk of the observations which fell from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack I find myself in very hearty agreement. Especially I was glad to welcome his description of the numerous and high qualities which are required to fit a man or a woman to fill the office of justice of the peace, and his indignant disclaimer of the view that this office is one which should be bestowed as a reward for political or even for purely civic service. It is not a reward for service, but an opportunity for service which is afforded to certain people on whom their fellow citizens think they can rely for the tact, the discretion, the impartiality, and the judgment which are required to administer justice between man and man.

There are, if the noble and learned Lord will forgive me saying so, just two matters as to which I do not find myself in complete agreement with what he said. He described quite accurately the fact that the recommendation for filling the office of justice of the peace is a responsibility of the Lord Chancellor to His Majesty the King, and I speak from experience when I testify to the fact that it is, as the noble and learned Lord says, a very anxious and delicate duty. I think it was only an inadvertence, but I do not think it is quite accurate to say that the Lord Chancellor in making those recommendations acts normally on the advice of the advisory committees. As I see the position, advisory com- mittees are appointed in order to consult together under the presidency or chairmanship of the Lord-Lieutenant at any rate in the counties, and the recommendations when they come are the recommendations of the Lord-Lieutenant after consultation with the advisory committee and after obtaining from the advisory committee their view.

Normally no doubt the Lord-Lieutenant would be guided very largely by the advice tendered to him, but also to some extent by his own knowledge of the persons and of the local conditions. I have known instances where I have had reason to believe that the Lord-Lieutenant's advice has not always been exactly that which his advisory committee has tendered to him. I think, therefore—if the noble and learned Lord will forgive my saying so—that it is not quite accurate to say that the Lord Chancellor normally acts in the case of the county on the advice of the advisory committee. The true position is that the advisory committees are appointed by the Lord Chancellor for the purpose of enabling the Lord-Lieutenant to be assured that he has got before him the names and qualifications of all suitable people, and in order that he may be able, out of those names, after consultation with the advisory committee, to submit what he, the Lord-Lieutenant, regards as the most suitable list for his particular area.

There was one other observation with which I could not find myself in complete agreement. It is quite true that, as the Royal Commission pointed out in 1910, and as is the case to-day, it is of the first importance that in the various areas up and down the country every section of the community should find representation among those who are appointed to the bench, so that there may be instilled in the minds of those who come before the bench a feeling of confidence in fits character and in its personnel. It is unfortunately true that in some areas there is a disproportion of one political Party, which I deplore, not. because I think that representation of every political Party is in the least necessary, or that representation of any political Party is in the least necessary, to ensure that justice is done, but became I think it is important that each political Party should be repre- sented in order that the people may be satisfied that justice is going to be done. But the noble and learned Lord went on to say that, believing as he did that that disparity still existed, he would not regard any list put forward by any advisory committee as a satisfactory one unless it made a substantial advance towards redressing that disparity. That, translated into simpler language, if literally interpreted must mean that for the future for some time to come nobody but Socialists need apply to be justices of the peace. I am quite sure that is not what the noble and learned Lord meant., because he went on to say that a list consisting exclusively of Socialists was not one which he would regard as satisfactory.

But I think it would be a mistake if it. was allowed to be thought that every advisory committee has got to go on recommending nobody but Socialists until they get something like an equality of political opinion on the bench. I do not regard equality of political opinion on the bench as in the least necessary. I regard representation of every political Party on the bench as desirable for the reason which I have given. Equally, I regard representation of every section of the community, whether it be divided by political or by other distinctions, as important for the same reasons, in order that the people at large may be confident that their point of view is being fairly considered and that they are being judged by an unbiased tribunal. But I think it would be a great mistake if we were to set to work to try to apportion the benches equally between political Parties, because then I think inevitably it must happen that the people who are appointed will be primarily the active politicians, and I do not in the least believe that either in my Party or in that of noble Lords opposite the most active politician is naturally the most unbiased nail impartial person. I think it would be a great pity if we made politics the primary test of suitability for the bench.

I have offered these words of caution not because I differ in the least from the view that all political Parties have to be considered and represented but because I should deplore the view that politics should be the determining factor, and that equality between the parties was an ideal to be aimed at either in the country as a whole or in any particular section of it. So far as I personally am concerned, I think the only recommendation which I made without the advice of the Lord-Lieutenant or of the chairman of the advisory committee happened to be a Socialist member of this House, so that at any rate I did not unduly strain the privilege which I possessed by submitting a list to His Majesty for approval in favour of any own side. It was my practice—I have no doubt it is that of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack—whenever a list was submitted to me, first of all to ascertain how many justices there were in the area in respect of which an addition to the list was put forward, and what proportion they bore to the population at large, in order to be satisfied that there was a real need for additional appointments, because I hold very strongly, as indeed has been said by one or two of your Lordships already, that it is a great pity to overcrowd the bench or unnecessarily to create justices where there is no real need for working justices to exist.

Of course, in doing that you have to bear in mind that the sitting in court is not the only work which a justice has to perform, and that in areas where there are scattered populations spread over a wide extent of country it is necessary to have a much larger proportion of justices in order that they may do the work of attestation and so on, to which attention has already been called. But the first requirement I do say is to see that there is a. need for some further justices. When that had been ascertained—again I have no doubt the noble and learned Lord who now occupies the Woolsack takes the same line—I used then to go over each name I had from the Lord-Lieutenant or the advisory committee and a statement with regard to each name, and the services, political, public and civic which had been rendered by the individual, and the reasons why that particular name was put forward. It very often happened that when the information was not forthcoming I would ask for further particulars, and sometimes even, I would say:" I do not think that particular name is altogether a suitable one," or that "possibly a better qualified person might be found". I did take into account the fact that it was necessary to have all sides of politics represented. At the same time, I never attempted to create an equality between the political Parties either in those counties in which my own side was preponderant, or in those in which the preponderance was either of Liberal or of Socialist electors.

I am very glad that this debate has taken place, in order that the position may be cleared up. I am very glad indeed to be able to endorse what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has said as to the importance of getting the right type of person, whether man or woman, to occupy the bench. I should like also to be allowed in conclusion to testify from my own experience to the very valuable services which are rendered by justices of the peace up and down the country for very little recognition except the bare privilege of writing J.P. after their names. I should like also to testify, as the noble and learned Lord has done, to the great help which has been given by advisory committees, and to the tact and impartiality with which they seem to have addressed themselves to the task of seeing that the right people are chosen. I should like, finally, to say how invaluable I found the assistance of the Lords-Lieutenant of the counties, and how ready I found them in every case to consider my difficulties, to sympathise with them even if they did not altogether agree with them, and to do their best to fall in with those wishes which I felt myself compelled to entertain.

LORD GAINFORD

My Lords, if I may be allowed I should like to say a word or two in connection with the question raised in this debate. I remember that during the latter part of the last century it was almost universally the habit for the Member of Parliament representing a division to make the recommendations in regard to appointments to the bench. The result was that whatever Government was in power the candidates put forward for nomination as justices of the peace were nearly all of the complexion of the Party then in power. That was a system, I think, very much to be deprecated, and I remember very well that in 1892, when Lord Herschell was Lord Chancellor, he found in many districts something like 90 per cent. of Conservative representatives on the bench. That did not promote a feeling amongst the population that the bench was properly constituted.

When the late Lord Loreburn appointed advisory committees that was a real step forward, and I think it was of immense benefit. At the time that Lord Loreburn was serving as Lord Chancellor I had some experience with regard to the appointment of magistrates, as I held the position of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and had exactly similar duties to perform in connection with a County of which I had no particular knowledge. These advisory committees were able to give advice with regard to those who should be appointed which I found most valuable. They sifted an enormous number of names of aspirants to that position and afterwards, by consulting the Lords-Lieutenant, it was always possible to revise the recommendations of the advisory committees.

I believe that the desire to-day of so many people in the country to become magistrates is due to the selection which has been made by the various Lord Chancellors, and in the case of Lancashire by the Chancellors of the Duchy of Lancaster. We have secured an administration of justice in this country which I believe is second to none in the world, and the very fact that there are so many individuals still longing to be magistrates does show that it is a legitimate ambition and that justice is done. Finally, I want to say how much I sympathise with the Lord Chancellor in connection with the task which he has to perform, with the Lords-Lieutenant and with the advisory committees. On the whole I feel that their selections are very well made. With the selections, speaking generally, I have no fault to find, and I do not see how the system could be improved.

THE DUKE OF MONTROSE

My Lords, I do not think anything more can usefully be said on this question. I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for the very full reply he made to my question, but I would like to see the Lord Chancellor put full confidence in his advisory committees. After all they are the Lord Chancellor's own creation and it is rather disconcerting to find, when names are sent up unanimously, that the list is upset by somebody else. After all, I do not know that when Judges take up their appointments their political opinions are weighed. Surely what is right for the great heavenly bodies ought to be good enough for the lesser luminaries. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.