HL Deb 15 March 1934 vol 91 cc212-29

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Rankeillour.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Application of future Statutes relating to servants of the Crown to certain, holders of judicial office.

1. No reference in any Statute hereafter enacted to the rights, duties, salaries or emoluments of any persons which arise from the service of His Majesty or from the holding of any commission or office shall, unless expressly stated, be deemed to apply in the case of the holders or past holders of judicial office whose salaries are charged on the Consolidated Fund.

LORD HANWORTH

moved to leave out "No reference". The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is one which really does not make any substantial alteration in the effect of Clause 1. Those who are, however, the most competent to advise on the drafting of a clause have suggested that the word "reference" in Clause 1 is a word of wide meaning and possibly of very loose construction. It appears to me that that observation is well founded, and that it would be much better to use words of greater precision. Therefore I have endeavoured in the Amendments I have suggested, should they be adopted by the Committee, to provide words which may be more definite. The two lines which I refer to are lines 21 and 22, and I propose to leave out certain words and to insert others. If my Amendments are accepted the clause will read in this way: In any Statute hereafter enacted no provision for the alteration or diminution of the rights, duties, salaries or emoluments of any persons which arise from the service of His Majesty or from the holding of any commission or office shall, unless expressly stated, be deemed to apply in the case of the holders or past folders of judicial office whose salaries are charged on the Consolidated Fund". It is quite clear that that provision is a definite and affirmative action. Reference might be a sidewind, and I think that the clause would be improved and made more direct if the words that I have suggested were adopted.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 21, leave out ("No reference").—(Lord Hanworth.)

LORD RANKEILLOUR

I feel the force of the difficulty to which my noble and learned friend has alluded and I certainly will agree to this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HANWORTH

I beg to move the next Amendment on the Paper.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 22, 1eave out (" to ") and insert (" no provision for the alteration or diminution of ").—(Lord Hanworth.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

moved to add to the clause: Any Statute dealing with the salaries of the holders or past holders of judicial office shall be preceded by and founded upon an Address of both Houses of Parliament.

The noble Viscount said: This is a very simple Amendment. The point of this Bill is to free the Judges from any chance of political pressure being exercised upon them. That was the object of the clause in the Act of Settlement, to which in an Amendment of my noble friend Lord Rankeillour reference is made, and was one of the great achievements, no doubt, of the Revolution. At that time the fear was of political pressure being exercised by the Crown, and accordingly those provisions were there made in order to prevent that happening. That is not the danger any longer, happily, in this country. But some of us (I am one of them) feel that under our electoral system, it is conceivable, though I do not think it is very likely, that you might have a House of Commons elected under stress of some considerable feeling—we had an example to some extent in 1931—with a very large majority, and then a revolutionary attempt being made to affect the position and impartiality of Judges. Undoubtedly, the impartiality of Judges has been a great safeguard of liberty both in this country and in other countries, and it is conceivable that under such circumstances you might have pressure of that kind. Indeed, to avoid that is the purpose of my noble friend's Bill, and he has proposed therefore that at any rate it shall not be done by a side-wind: it shall only be done if a definite proposal to alter the salary of a Judge is made in an Act of Parliament.

Well, there is a difficulty which I thought it was right to bring before your Lordships in case you thought there was anything in it. It is this, that an Act of Parliament altering the salaries of Judges might be held to be a Money Bill. Of course, it is not a Money Bill in our sense of the word because it would have great constitutional implications; but the direct and immediate effect would be purely a monetary effect; and it occurred to me that it would be right in a matter of that great importance that both Houses of the Legislature should be consulted before any alterations were made in the salaries of the Judges. My Amendment is designed to give to your Lordships the certainty of being consulted before any such provision is made. I hope that a provision of this kind inserted in this Bill would ensure that no alterations in the salaries of the Judges could he made without two things being done: in the first place either compliance with the provision, and an Address from both Houses, which would give your Lordships the opportunity of being heard, or definite repeal of this provision which could scarcely be treated as purely a Money Bill. In either case there would be an opportunity for the Second Chamber to have its say.

The second step would be the actual alteration of the salary, upon which I can well understand its being contended that your Lordships would not be entitled to be heard. It seems to me that if we are trying to set up a safeguard against the possible misuse of power in order to bring political pressure to bear upon the Judges, we ought to do our best to see that that provision is effective. To set up a provision to safeguard the Judges which should be absolutely at the mercy of the only source from which such oppression might issue—namely, the lower House of Parliament—does not seem to me to be an altogether effective way of accomplishing the object which my noble friend Lord Rankeillour has in view.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 27, at end insert ("Any Statute dealing with the salaries of the holders or past holders of judicial office shall be preceded by and founded upon an Address of both Houses of Parliament").—(Viscount Cecil of Clelwood.)

LORD RANKEILLOUR

I have the greatest possible sympathy with the object of my noble friend in bringing forward this Amendment, and I wish I could see the possibility of incorporating some such provision in the Bill, but I am bound to say I see very strong objections to it on various grounds. The least of those objections is that it would require an extra stage in each House to reinstate the salaries of the Judges at their former level. That may be an objection of no great substance. But in the second place I cannot myself think of ally precedent whereby the two Houses of Parliament put restrictions on their own actions and powers with regard to legislation by a Statute. There are such restrictions, of course, in the House of Commons, whereby in certain cases, financial cases, His Majesty's consent has to be obtained, or His Majesty puts his interest at the disposal of Parliament and the King's consent is signified to the House before the Bill can proceed. The House of Commons has itself laid down that any request for Supply or charge in Ways and Means has a stage of Committee and Report before the Bill comes in, but that is a very different thing from saying that the two Houses of Parliament, if they proposed to do something by their own legislation, should have to ask preliminary leave from His Majesty to do it.

I confess I feel that before we set a precedent of that kind we should have very carefully to consider the matter. As to the protection that is given, on the face of it, apart from the Money Bill question, to which I will come in a moment, it does not appear to me to afford any extra protection. The Judges at present are protected by a section of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, and before their salaries could be interfered with an Act of Parliament would be necessary. An Act of Parliament was necessary in 1931. My complaint is that the Houses did not fully appreciate what they were doing then; but an Act of Parliament was necessary, and an Act of Parliament will be necessary to reinstate them in their former position or to deal with their salaries in the future. When it came to repeal nothing would be easier than to say that "Notwithstanding anything in the Judiciary (Safeguarding) Act, 1934, the salaries of His Majesty's Judges shall be as set forth in the Schedule. "Therefore, apart from the Money Bill question, do not think this provision would give any extra protection.

With regard to the Money Bill question, I speak with great diffidence, but I am prepared to argue that a Bill to reduce the salaries of the Judges would not be a Money Bill now under the definition contained in the Parliament Act. Under Section 1, subsection (2), of the Parliament Act there is a definition of a Money Bill, and it says: A Money Bill means a Public Bill which in the opinion of the Speaker of the House of Commons contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following subjects, namely, the imposition, repeal, remission, alteration, or regulation of taxation; the imposition for the payment of debt or other financial purposes of charges on the Consolidated Fund, or on money provided by Parliament, or the variation or repeal of any such charges. Now the words "imposition for the payment of debt or other financial purposes" must have some meaning other than merely that a charge is made. Of course every charge on the Consolidated Fund has a financial purpose simply because it is a charge, but the juxtaposition of these words, "for the payment of debt or other financial purposes," means, I submit, that the "other financial purposes" must not be a mere charge by itself but a charge with some object of a financial character like the payment of debt. For instance, if it were a Conversion Bill authorising the conversion of a Statutory Loan and a bonus were to be paid under that Bill, that would be "other financial purposes."

Therefore, unless you bring the Bill under these words, I do not think that any Bill dealing with the Judge's salaries would be a Money Bill. If it is not a Money Bill this particular Amendment would give no further protection than the present law gives. Finally, I feel that, whether I am right or wrong in this and other arguments, acceptance of this Amendment would make the passage of this Bill considerably more difficult in another place, and, even if I cannot get all that I should like in this Bill, I do want to ensure if possible that the essence of it should be passed, and passed by agreement. On all these grounds put together I am afraid I cannot accept my noble friend's Amendment.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

If my noble friend will forgive me, I was not very much moved by his earlier argument, but I agree that the whole thing depends on whether a reduction of the salaries of the Judges can be carried through by a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act. I think it is a rather delicate point, but I should have thought it was more probable that the Speaker would feel bound to certify that it was a Money Bill. I do not know whether it is possible to be told at this moment what happened in 1931. Was the Bill on which the Order-in-Council was founded treated as a Money Bill or not? I suspect it was treated as a Money Bill. The Bill was designed merely for the saving and reduction of expenses, and therefore I imagine it would be a Money Bill, but I do not know whether I am right on that point. If it were so, that would seem a conclusive argument on the point put forward by my noble friend. I am very anxious not to impede the passage of this Bill, but I confess I should have been very grateful if the Lord Chancellor had felt able to enlighten us as to the legal aspect of this matter—namely, whether a Bill to reduce the salaries of Judges might be so framed as to be treated as a Money Bill.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY)

I had not intended to speak on this particular Amendment, and it would be idle for me to tell the noble Viscount whether the 1931 Act was treated as a Money Bill or not. I do not know. But I would put it to the noble Viscount that he is rather on the horns of a dilemma, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, when he says that if we are to get this Bill through the House of Commons—as to which I say nothing at all—we should get it as a non-controversial Bill here. The horns of the dilemma are these. I dare say sometimes one misses some point or other, but it is either a Money Bill or it is not. If it is a Money Bill, you are going to have very great controversy in the other House if this is left in this way—if the Amendment passes. On the other hand, supposing it is not a Money Bill, I do not think you want this Amendment. Therefore it is either otiose or it is dangerous to insist upon it. Without pledging myself on the point of whether it is or is not a Money Bill, I would appeal to the noble Viscount to consider whether or not he should press his Amendment.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

I shall not press the Amendment at the present stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:

Meaning of "judicial office."

2. The expression "judicial office" in this Act includes the office of a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, of a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, of a Judge of the Supreme Court of Judicature, of the Judge of a County Court and of a Metropolitan Police Magistrate; in Scotland of a Judge of the Court of Session or of the Land Court, and of a Sheriff or Sheriff Substitute; and in Northern Ireland of a Lord Justice of the Court of Appeal, of a Judge of the King's Bench Division, of a Chairman of Quarter Sessions, and of Recorder of Belfast and Londonderry.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

moved to leave out "includes" and insert "means". The noble Marquess said: The Amendments that stand in my name on Clause 2 all cover the same point, and I hope it will be possible for the noble Lord to accept them, because the proposals I am making are not in the slightest degree intended to reduce the effect of this Bill, but rather to give more effect to the purpose he has in mind. As I understand the noble Lord's proposal—and he has framed the measure with great thought and care—he desires to secure for the Judges their position as already safeguarded by the Act of Settlement, so that no change shall be made in their salaries or emoluments save as expressed in the Bill. In the clause defining those to whom the Bill will apply he has included a number of Judges who do not come within the Act of Settlement and whose tenure is of a different character. I suggest that in introducing them he has introduced complications, and I suggest to the noble Lord that it will make the Bill more difficult to pass, because it does change the position of Stipendiary Magistrates, County Court Judges, Sheriffs Substitute, and so forth.

As I understand the purpose of the Bill, it is to meet the difficulty created by the Act which was passed in 1931 and in order to safeguard that no reduction shall be made in the salaries of His Majesty's Judges save by express reference. By extending the meaning of the words "judicial office," the noble Lord has gone considerably further. I agree that the salaries of these other Judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund—and I suppose it was because of this that he has included them—but I venture to put it to him that that does not change the position of County Court Judges, Stipendiary Magistrates and others so as to bring them within the terms of the Act of Settlement, which only applies to His Majesty's Judges in the sense in which it is usually applied. What I am proposing by this Amendment is to confine the Bill entirely to those holding high judicial office, and those are the very Judges whose position is sought to be protected by the noble Lord. I would refer especially to the recital: Whereas it is provided by the Act of Settlement, 1700, that His Majesty's Judges and so forth. That is really the purpose the noble Lord has had in view, and the one which, so much to our advantage, he has put into a Bill introduced to your Lordships. My proposal is to leave out those who are not His Majesty's Judges, and to confine the words "judicial office" entirely to those who are His Majesty's Judges.

There is no necessity for me to deal with each of my Amendments, but if your Lordships pass the Amendments the clause will then read: The expression 'judicial office' in this Act"— I have substituted the word "means" for "includes" which I am quite sure the noble Lord would not object to. I think it is a better word for the purpose, as it is purely interpretative— means the office of a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, of a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, of a Judge of the Supreme Court of Judicature… I leave out the words "of the Judge of a County Court and of a Metropolitan Police Magistrate" and proceed: in Scotland of a Judge of the Court of Session or of the Land Court … Here I leave out the words "and of a Sheriff or Sheriff Substitute" and go on: and in Northern Ireland of a Lord Justice of the Court of Appeal and of a Judge of the Kings Bench Division. Again, I leave out the words "of a Chairman of Quarter Session and of Recorder of Belfast and Londonderry."

The only reason there could be for introducing some of these offices is that they are charged on the Consolidated Fund. I gather particularly that is why the Recorders of Belfast and Londonderry are mentioned and the Chairman of Quarter Sessions. Notwithstanding that they are charged to the Consolidated Fund, they are not within the Act of Settlement. I would suggest to the noble Lord that it is better for the purposes of his Bill, if he will allow me to say so, that he should confine it to his Majesty's Judges in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, in order that he may give the protection which he is seeking to give. He is seeking to make it more difficult to pass any Act which would reduce the salary of a Judge who comes within the Act of Settlement. That is in accordance with the Preamble. I cannot but think, therefore, he would carry out more effectively what he has in mind by not introducing these other officers. May I point out also that it will be rather difficult to get a Bill passed if these Magistrates and County Court Judges are included, because it would give a protection which hitherto has never been applied to them? There has always been a difference between Judges of the High Court, using a compendious term—that is those holding high judicial office—and Judges who hold offices of an inferior character, however important they may be. I am not suggesting that there should be any difference in the way in which they are treated ordinarily; nevertheless it would be introducing them to the protection of the Act of Settlement which has never been given to them and which, if given to them, would, I think, lead to difficulties. Consequently my suggestion is that they should be left out, and that we should deal only with the High Court Judges.

I will make one observation with reference to the words applying to Scotland. I do this for the purpose of an explanation. If your Lordships approve of the Amendments the clause would read: in Scotland of a Judge of the Court of Session or of the Land Court. Either now, or on the Report stage—if your Lordships are agreeable it may be convenient to do it now—I would move an Amendment to make it read: or of the Chairman of the Land Court. It is only the Chairman of the Land Court who has the special position of a High Court Judge. There are four members of the Land Court, but it is only the Chairman to whom the tenure of a Judge applies. The other three have not the same tenure. Therefore the words ought to be: in Scotland of a Judge of the Court of Session or of the Chairman of the Land Court. If your Lordships agree, I would insert between "or" and "of" the words "of the Chairman" of the Land Court. It is merely introducing three words "of the Chairman." In the case of Northern Ireland after the words "Lord Justice of the Court of Appeal" there should be inserted the word "and" before the words "of a Judge of the King's Bench Division." I hope the noble Lord will see his way to accept the Amendments as I suggest them.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 2, leave out ("includes") and insert ("means").—(The Marquess of Reading.)

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I do not know whether noble Lords would like me to read out the clause as it will be if the Amendments suggested by the noble Marquess are agreed to. Really it is only one Amendment and the clause would read: The expression 'judicial office' in this Act means the office of a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, of a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, of a Judge of the Court of Judicature, in Scotland of a Judge of the Court of Session or of the Chairman of the Land Court, and in Northern Ireland of a Lord Justice of the Court of Appeal and of a Judge of the King's Bench Division. There have been two manuscript Amendments.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I should like to join in the appeal of my noble and learned friend to Lord Rankeillour, to accept these Amendments for this reason. This very unhappy and very unfortunate controversy, which has now been going on for over two years, arose out of the fact that many people thought that in the hurry of the crisis of 1931 a mistake had been made, and that the result of that mistake was to depreciate the authority of the Judges and to interfere with their independence. I do not propose to comment upon that, but that that is so I think appears from the proposed Preamble to this Bill. It begins by saying—although there is going to be a slight Amendment to it— Whereas it is provided by the Act of Settlement, 1700, that His Majesty's Judges shall not be removed from their offices… and the whole of the controversy has been with regard to the position of His Majesty's Judges.

The County Court Judges have never been introduced into the controversy, the Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrates have never been introduced into the controversy, and I hope very much an endeavour will be made to keep them out of a controversy which does not affect them at all. They are not within the terms of the Act of Settlement. No difference was made in the year 1931 to their tenure or to their salary. In the result the object of this Bill is simply to deal with the mistake which it is thought had been made with regard to the High Court Judges, and it is rather unfortunate now if an opportunity is taken on this occasion to introduce into the controversy a different class of Judges, altogether who were not affected by what happened in 1931 and who do not come within the terms of the Act of Settlement. I really very much hope that this Amendment will be accepted.

May I say one other thing? One of the main difficulties of the controversy has been that the Judges, the High Court Judges, His Majesty's Judges, have always contended, and in my view have rightly contended, that they stand in a position quite apart from all other subjects of His Majesty and from all other Judges. I think it will not make for peace among the Judges if the Amendments are not accepted because then the Judges, instead of being in the separate class in which they are entitled to remain and which is their real position, are put into a class with a great number of other judicial officials who, no doubt, have extremely high qualifications but who are not His Majesty's Judges, who are not affected by the Act of Settlement and who are not affected by the mischief, if it was a mischief, of the 1931 Act. I therefore appeal with all the strength I possibly can to the noble Lord to let these Amendments go through.

LORD RANKEILLOUR

I said on the Second Reading that the proposal to include these other descriptions of holders of judicial office was not of the essence of the Bill and should your Lordships see fit to accept the Amendments I certainly shall not withdraw the Bill. But I do submit that there is substance and logic in including them. Although ultimately and historically this Bill is based on the Act of Settlement, immediately it has not been drawn on the basis of the Act of Settlement and, indeed, it could not be for very good reasons. At the time of the Act of Settlement there was no union with Scotland. Therefore, Scottish Judges could not be brought in. There was no union with Ireland. Therefore, Irish Judges could not be brought in. There was no Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, there were no County Court Judges, and I may add that there was no Consolidated Fund.

This Bill was not drawn on tenure and it does not affect tenure at all. Perhaps I ought not to say that it does not affect tenure, but it was not based on tenure. If it were based on tenure in the sense that the noble and learned Marquess, Lord Reading, desires, then I suggest that he should also move to strike out the two salaried members of the Judicial Committee because they have not the tenure of Judges of the High Court. His Majesty could strike them out of the Privy Council at any moment and if they were struck out of the Privy Council their salaries as judicial members would cease and determine. I do not want them to be struck out, but if the question of tenure as it existed at the time of the passing of the Act of Settlement is the basis of the Bill, then they ought to go, too.

The way I tried to proceed in drawing this Bill was as follows: It was evident that if the Judges of the High Court had to be included, then the Lords of Appeal had to be included, and wondered what others should be included in the same position and where to draw the line. I could only draw it at the point at which Parliament had drawn it in the past by the many Acts of Parliament by which, at different times—particularly the Supreme Court of Judicature Act of 1925—certain classes of Judges and others holding judicial office were placed upon the Consolidated Fund. The effect of placing them on the Consolidated Fund is rather far-reaching because when they are on the Consolidated Fund their salaries are absolutely safe apart from the convention and tradition of both Houses of Parliament. In any case their administration cannot be questioned. But, more than that, as they are put on the Consolidated Fund and not on Estimates, their salaries are absolutely safe without an Act of Parliament to take them away or diminish them. As Parliament has chosen to segregate these various classes from His Majesty's Civil and Military Service and make their salaries safe, it seemed to me that in a Bill dealing with salaries it was right that they should all be included. As I have said, it is not of the essence of the Bill and if your Lordships see fit to accept the Amendment, that, as far as this House goes, I presume will end the matter, but I submit that a decision should not be taken without it being borne in mind that Parliament has for the purpose of their salaries given them all an equal security.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I think many of your Lordships will be extremely grateful to the noble Lord who is promoting this Bill for his resistance to the Amendment which has just been moved. With the greatest possible respect for the two noble and learned Lords who have sponsored this Amendment I think it would not be unfair to say that they approached the question rather from the point of view of the legal profession as distinct from the point of view of the ordinary layman and the point of view of the ordinary citizen of the country. For them the different strata in the legal profession are extraordinarily important and the emphasis they lay on the distinction between a Judge of one of the High Courts and a Stipendary Magistrate or a County Court Judge is sufficient to warrant the exemption of these lower dignitaries from the guarantee that is being afforded by this measure to the more eminent members of the legal profession

But may I try to put what I think is the reaction of the ordinary layman? Surely it would require a very forcible reason to deprive Stipendiary Magistrates and County Court Judges of a security that is being afforded to the higher and more eminent dignitaries of the legal profession. I do not hesitate to say flat the work of County Court Judges and Stipendiary Magistrates is even more important from the point of view of the people as a whole than the work of the Judges in the High Courts, because they consider a far greater number of cases and their decisions therefore affect the lives of a far greater number of people. The real distinction is that. the higher type of Courts deals with cases where a larger sum of money is in question and therefore with a richer clientele, whereas the lower Court deals with the great majority of people whose means are not so substantial as those of people who are able to go to the High Court or to the Court of Appeal or to your Lordships' House. I therefore beg your Lordships to consider this Amendment from the perhaps wider point of view, and to reject it in order that Stipendiary Magistrates and County Court. Judges may have the same security and the same guarantee that they will he free from political pressure, which is one of the greatest features of our English legal system. That is the guarantee that the noble Lord has provided in this measure and it is one which I myself believe should be extended as widely as possible.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

In reply to the noble Earl who has just spoken, I would remind him that nothing in this Bill, if it were confined to the judicial officers mentioned in the proposed Amendment, would affect in the slightest degree the position of either Country Court Judges or Stipendiary Magistrates. It has already been pointed out by my noble friend the Lord Chancellor that they were not affected by the original Act which has led to the introduction of this Bill. The position which they hold, I agree—and I thought I took special care to state it when I was moving the Amendment—is naturally of great importance, and I would agree that it is of especial importance when they are dealing with what I may call the poorer classes of litigants. If there were anything in the Bill which would at all affect their position if my Amendment were carried, I would see much greater force in the proposal; but what I am anxious to have understood is that it does not affect them at all. The independence which they have at present is maintained, and there is no necessity to deal with their case because the Act of 1931 never did affect them or touch them.

The reason for the introduction of this Bill is to resolve doubts which were introduced as to the meaning of certain terms used in the Act of 1931, and because the Judges who were affected by that Act—that is, the Judges of the Supreme Court, whom we may for convenience term His Majesty's Judges—were the Judges whose salaries were reduced by that Act. What was intended was to prevent any Act being passed hereafter which would leave it doubtful as to whether or not there was to be a reduction in the salaries of those Judges, and consequently this Bill, if passed, would have the effect of preventing any implication which was not clear on the face of it as affecting His Majesty's Judges. I cannot but think that it would be a great pity to extend the Bill to something which is far more important in this sense, that it would extend the protection given by the Act of Settlement. That protection has been repeated, or rather re-enacted in other language, in later Acts, after the Union of Scotland and of Ireland, but it has always proceeded upon that particular independence in the Act of Settlement, which has never been held to apply to County Court Judges, Stipendiary Magistrates, Recorders, Sheriffs, Sheriffs Substitute or other Judges.

Therefore in the interests of the Bill, because I want to see the Bill passed—I am anxious to support the noble Lord and I do want to see a provision introduced which will prevent in the future any such doubts as have arisen before—I have moved this Amendment. It is not because I am against the County Court Judges or Stipendiary Magistrates—quite the contrary—but because I want to give effect to removing the doubt which has been introduced by confining the Bill as I suggest, and consequently, I think, going much further towards securing its passage than by introducing wide extensions of it as regards those who are not affected. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will pass the Amendment, which does in terms do all that your Lordships intended when you passed the Second Reading of the Bill—namely, preserve the independence of those Judges who thought that their position was affected by what had taken place, and make it impossible for that to happen except by express enactment.

LORD RANKEILLOUR

I confess that I am not moved by any of the arguments which I have heard, but purely for tactical reasons I consent to the immolation of the lower judiciary.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 4, leave out ("of the Judge of a County Court and of a Metropolitan Police Magistrate").—(The Marquess of Reading.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 7, after ("the") insert ("Chairman of the").—(The Marquess of Reading.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 7, leave out ("and of a Sheriff or Sheriff Substitute").—(The Marquess of Reading.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 9, after ("Court of Appeal") insert ("and").—(The Marquess of Reading.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 10, leave out from ("Division") to end of line 11.—(The Marquess of Reading.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to.

Preamble: Whereas it is provided by the Act of Settlement, 1700, that His Majesty's Judges shall not be removed from their offices save in pursuance of a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament; and that their salaries shall be ascertained and established; And whereas it is provided by the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1925, and previous Acts that their salaries shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund;

LORD RANKEILLOURmoved, in the first paragraph, to leave out "is" and insert "was". The noble Lord said: This is really a drafting Amendment. I am told that where a section has been repealed and re-enacted in another Act, you should use the past tense, and therefore that "was" should be substituted for "is". I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 1, leave out ("is") and insert ("was").—(Lord Rankeillour.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD RANKEILLOUR

moved to omit all words in the first paragraph after "His Majesty's" and insert "Judge's commissions be made during good behaviour and that their salaries be ascertained and established, but upon the Address of both Houses of Parliament it might be lawful to remove them". The noble Lord said: I am advised that when in a Preamble there is a recital of the provisions of a former Act it is of importance to use the exact words, and I therefore use the exact words in the Act of Settlement, except for the common translation of "quamdiu se bene gesserint" into "during good behaviour". Otherwise the words are identical. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 2, leave out from ("Majesty's") to end of line 5 and insert ("Judge's commissions be made during good behaviour and that their salaries be ascertained and established. but upon the Address of both Houses of Parliament it might be lawful to remove them").—(Lord Rankeillour.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

had given Notice that he would move, in the first paragraph, to leave out "a Resolution" and insert "an Address." The noble Viscount said: I do not propose to move this Amendment; it is covered by the Amendment already passed.

LORD RANKEILLOUR

moved, in the second paragraph, to leave out "it is provided by the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1925," and insert "these provisions have been repealed and are now replaced by the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, and it is provided by that Act." The noble Lord said: This is really consequential, or partly consequential, on the substitution of "was" for "is." The provisions alluded to in the Act of Settlement are replaced by the provisions in the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, and it is by that Act, confirming other Acts, that their salaries are charged on the Consolidated Fund. There is no difference in substance between those words and the words of the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 6, leave out from ("whereas") to ("and") in line 7 and insert, ("these provisions have been repealed and are now replaced by the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, and it is provided by that Act").—(Lord Rankeillour.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Preamble, as amended, agreed to.