On 22nd November, in response to requests from the hon. Members for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), I undertook to examine any submissions that were made to me about the procedures available to Members who wished to make charges against, or examine the conduct of, judges of the High Court.

I have looked carefully at the precedents which have since been drawn to my attention and have consulted my advisers. I am drawn to a simple conclusion, which is this. Whereas there is very little restriction on the form of motion which can be considered by the House in this context there is no way by which I could give such a motion precedence over the Orders of the Day.

As to the presentation of articles of charge referred to by the hon. Members, such a proceeding has been so long out of use that I am in some doubt as to whether it is still available. But in any case it would have to be part of a proceeding initiated by a motion and is therefore governed by the same consideration that all the time of the House is now appropriated according to the provisions of Standing Order No. 6. Standing Order No. 9 could not apply to these cases since the form of debate under that Standing Order is a motion for the Adjournment.

I thank you for your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I wish to thank you on behalf of my colleagues and myself who have made representations to your legal advisers and to the Clerks. We have received nothing but help and consideration in presenting what we consider to be a very serious and important constitutional issue. I do not take issue with you, Mr. Speaker, about your ruling. I accept it fully and recognise that because of the change of procedure in the House it is not possible, unfortunately, for private Members to use the time of the House in a way possible in the past.

As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the last time that articles of charge were laid was in 1845 in the Lord Abinger case and in 1867 with regard to Sir Fitzroy Kelly. We represented to you, Sir, that the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 re-embodied Section 12(1) of the 1711 Act of Settlement 1970 which allows Members of Parliament to raise on certain occasions the conduct of High Court judges with a view to considering whether they should be dismissed. We believe, therefore, that the 1925 Act brought the matter up to date, but we accept your point, Mr. Speaker, that, because of the lack of time, you have not the right to give this matter precedence over the Orders of the Day.

However, 187 Members signed the motion because we believed that this matter should be debated in the House. We shall not remove the motion from the Order Paper. I should like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to advise us whether there is any other means whereby we can bring the matter before the House. In the interests of common justice, having made charges against a High Court judge and knowing the seriousness of that, we believe that Sir John Donaldson and other people who have opinions should be allowed to defend themselves and to make their own representations. This is the high court of Parliament; this is the highest court of the land in this regard. I therefore ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, whether there is some other manner by which we can bring this matter before the House.

I have two observations to make. First, I thank the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for the care which they took in presenting their case and for the way in which they put their submissions to my advisers and to myself.

I am not sure whether the second part of what the hon. Gentleman said is a matter for me. As one of my predecessors said, if the Chair starts to give hon. Members guidance it may find itself in all sorts of trouble. I have nothing to add to my ruling, but I have noted that there are others present who no doubt heard what the hon. Gentleman said.