COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 14 July 1859 vol 154 cc1275-9

Order for Committee read.

MR. CRAUFURD moved as an Instruction to the Committee that they should have power to extend the provisions of the Bill to all persons holding judicial appointments in the United Kingdom. His object was to raise the question generally of the advisability of all persons holding judicial appointments giving up their practice at the bar. The original proposal was, that the Government should pay this additional salary to the Assistant Judge, but now it was provided that it should be paid out of the county rates. It was the magistrates of the county who sought the increase of salary as long as it was paid out of the public funds; but now that it was proposed to pay the sum out of the funds of the county of Middlesex they objected, and sought to strike the clause out of the Bill. If that was done the Assistant Judge would be deprived of his practice, and only have the lower salary. He objected to legislation for this particular case. They ought to at once legislate on some broad and general principle, applicable to all persons holding similar judicial appointments.

Motion made, and Question proposed,— That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to extend the provisions of the Bill to all persons holding judicial appointments in the United Kingdom.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, that no practical benefit would arise from this Amendment. Under the late Judge inconvenience sometimes arose from his being at liberty at the same time to practise at the bar. It was now proposed that if the magistrates granted £300 additional to the salary of Assistant Judge, he should be debarred from private practice. The Bill was limited to the single object, of raising the salary of the Assistant Judge of Middlesex on the condition of his relinquishing his private practice, and the general question of relinquishment of private practice by judicial officers was not raised by it. The hon. and learned Gentleman sought to engraft upon the Bill a wholly new principle. Under such a regulation recorders in England, assistant barristers in Ireland, and sheriffs in Scotland would be prevented from practising as they at present could do. He hoped the House would not adopt the proposition of the hon. Gentleman.

Motion put, and negatived.

MR. CRAUFURD moved, that the Committee be postponed for three months, and, in reply to the observations of the Home Secretary, said, that County Court Judges were prohibited from private practice.

No hon. Member having seconded the Amendment,

House in Committee.

Clause 1. (The Justices of Middlesex may grant £300 a year out of the County Rates as an addition to the Salary of the Assistant Judge.)

MR. BYNG moved the omission of the clause and stated that he did so in accordance with the views of the magistrates of Middlesex, who thought that the additional £300 proposed by the clause to be given to the Assistant Judge ought not to be paid out of the county rates.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

reminded the hon. Gentleman that the clause was permissive not compulsory. If the magistrates believed as they had represented to the Government, that it was an injury to the public that the Assistant Judge should be allowed to retain his private practice they would pay him the £300; but if on the other hand, they did not think so, then they would not pay it. It was for them to consider whether the evil arising from the Judge continuing to practise was or was not equivalent to £300 a year.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he did not oppose the Bill now as the additional salary was not to be charged upon the Consolidated Fund; but whenever any proposal should be made to the magistrates of Middlesex to increase the salary of the Assistant Judge he, as one of them, should oppose it.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

thought the public interest was rather lost sight of. If it was an evil that the Judge should practise at the bar, that evil would continue if the magistrates did not choose to pay £300 a year from the county rates. He thought eligible persons could have been found to fill the office with the present salary and who would consent to give up their private practice.

SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE

observed that the salary of the Assistant Judge had always been paid by the Government. It was admitted that his continuing to practise was a great public inconvenience, and the question was whether a salary of £1,200 a year was sufficient to obtain a competent man; if it was not, the Government ought to pay whatever was sufficient.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, this was not a gratuitous proposition of his. The present holder of the office, Mr. Bodkin, accepted it on a distinct promise from the late Government that if debarred from private practice he should receive a salary of £1,500 a year.

MR. CRAUFURD

opposed the contract because it was entered into without the authority of the House.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 167; Noes 33: Majority 134.

Clause agreed to, as were the remaining clauses.

MR. E. P. BOUVERIE

, on the question that the Preamble he agreed to, moved a Clause. That so soon as the present Assistant Judge shall cease to hold his office as such Judge, the 10th Section of the said Act shall be repealed so far as relates to the salary of any future Assistant Judge; and it shall then be lawful for the said Justices, in Sessions as aforesaid, to resolve that an annual salary of not less than £1,200 and not exceeding £1,500 in the whole, be paid to the Assistant Judge of the said Court; and thereafter such Judge shall not practise as a Barrister nor hold any other office, during his tenure of such Assistant Judgeship; and such salary shall be paid by equal quarterly payments out of the County Rates of the said County, with a due appointment thereof in the case of the death or resignation of the Assistant Judge for the time being during the currency of any quarter.

Clause brought up and read 1°

Question proposed "That the said Clause be read 2°"

MR. BYNG

suggested that if the county paid, the county should have the power of appointing. At present the Government appointed.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

admitted the justice of the proposal, but as the practice had been in existence some years, he felt some difficulty as to the course he should adopt. Middlesex stood in a peculiar position. First this court had a large share of criminal business; and secondly the Court of Quarter Sessions had concurrent jurisdiction with the Central Criminal Court. The Recorder and Common Serjeant received high salaries, and their time was not fully occupied; but if an arrangement between the Judges and the Assistant Judge of the Quarter Sessions for a better division of the business, and economising the time, could be made, it would be desirable. He hoped his right hon. Friend would not press his clause.

MR. EDWIN JAMES

thought it better that the Bill should be withdrawn. The Chairman of the Surrey Quarter Sessions, who had concurrent jurisdiction with the Central Criminal Court, tried almost as many cases as the Chairman of the Middlesex Court of Quarter Sessions, and yet he received no salary at all.

VISCOUNT DUNCAN

hoped his hon. Friend would press the clause.

MR. AYRTON

said, the Bill was presented to the House in an extremely crude form, and he moved that the chairman report progress.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, the Bill proposed by the late Government on this subject was, at any rate, consistent and intelligible, but the present Bill did not seem to find favour with any section of the House. He, therefore, joined in the recommendation that it should be withdrawn.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

observed, that the measure had been deemed so far satisfactory that it had been passed with almost unanimous consent, and the present discussion arose upon a clause proposed by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock, which did not deal precisely with the subject-matter of the Bill, but which would have a prospective effect. If the House thought fit virtually to repeal the Act of 1844, by which the salary of £1,200 a year was charged upon the Consolidated Fund, he could have no objection.

SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE

thought the Bill ought to be withdrawn.

MR. HENLEY

, approving the first portion of the right hon. Gentleman's proposition, the object of which was to remove the charge of the salary from the Consolidated Fund, recommended him to withdraw the latter portion of the clause, and so confine the clause to the prospective repeal of the 10th clause of the Act.

MR. E. P. BOUVERIE

expressed his readiness to assent to the suggestion.

MR. AYRTON

said, as the question was one of great importance, and could not be satisfactorily settled at that hour, he would press the Motion that the Chairman leave the Chair.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 23; Noes 141: Majority 118.

MR. AYRTON

said, the House must either discuss the question or adjourn it. One course or the other must be taken. The question should be considered as one of justice to the whole country, and then it would be seen that it would not be just to transfer the charge from the Consolidated Fund to the county of Middlesex. He objected to this isolated metropolitan question being now determined; and he hoped the other measure connected with the metropolis would be withdrawn for the present, and that the whole broad subject would be fully considered in the next Session. He asked the House, was it a decent thing at that time of the night (past two after midnight) to persist in considering this subject piecemeal?

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported.