§ On the Question that the House go into Committee on the Small Debts Bill,
§ LORD G. BENTINCKsaid: I think, Sir, this is a Bill of too much importance for us to go into Committee upon, and just now, without hearing some further statements as to its principles and operations, from the promoters of the measure. I am well aware this measure originated with 910 the late Government, and that Her Majesty's present Ministers have, as it were, received it from them as a sort of inheritance. At the same time it is a measure which will, if passed into law, confer more patronage on Her Majesty's Government than any other measure which for many years has been introduced into this House. I think, also, at this late period of the Session, when so few Members are present, we are entitled to a full and complete explanation as to the extent of patronage which the contemplated measure will bestow, and the whole extent of the expense which will be brought on the country by its operation. There is a power given in the second clause of the Bill, to divide every county into as many districts as may seem fit to Her Majesty's Privy Council. We ought then to know the aggregate number of districts into which the counties of England may be divided, for it appears, as the Bill at present stands, each district is to have a separate judge, and each judge is to have a salary of 1,200l. a year. That is, however, at the discretion of the Lord Chancellor of England. Each court is also to have a clerk with a salary of 600l. a year. Each court is also to have a treasurer, but for whom no amount of salary has been as yet defined, that being left to the discretion of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to decide—that is, they are to decide how many treasurers there shall be, and the amount of salary appropriated for the services of each. It has been commonly supposed out of doors that the number of districts will in all probability be not less than 100. I have, however, learned since I entered the House, from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor for the Crown, that the estimated number of courts will not exceed sixty-five. I take sixty-five as the number of courts. Here we have sixty-five judges, with a salary of 1,200l. each, amounting to 78,000l.; we have sixty-five clerks, one for each judge, at a salary of 600l. a year, 39,000l.; these sums make 117,000l.—the amount of patronage which can be bestowed by a Minister of the Crown—and that large sum is totally irrespective of the salaries which will have to be paid to the treasurers, which is entirely left to the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury. There is no other limit; so that taking all these things into consideration, I think we ought to hear, at least, the limit which is intended to be put to the salaries of those treasurers, the power of whose appointment 911 rests with Her Majesty's Ministers. But there are other considerations which will arise out of the proposed measure, and which ought not to be omitted. Many of those officers will be paid by fees in addition to the salaries named; and some of those will have to be paid to the prejudice of those fees which are now paid and brought to the account of the Consolidated Fund, to meet in part the expenses of the High Court of Chancery. And it is one of the provisions of this Bill that the judges of those new courts are to perform many of the duties which now belong to the High Court of Chancery; for, from anything which distinctly appears to the contrary, those judges will have the power to act in the country as masters of Chancery; and for all these services they are to be paid by fees in addition to their regular salaries; and those fees will be paid to the diminishing of the fees—with the exception of about 5,000l. a year to counterbalance the expense of the Court of Chancery—which constitute those sums now paid into the Consolidated Fund. The annual expense of the Court of Chancery now is, in round numbers, say 139,000l.; 134,000l., of this 139,000l. is made up to the Consolidated Fund by fees which it was the practice formerly to have paid to the officers of the Court of Chancery. But this sum arising from fees will be diminished in a very large degree, by the fees which shall hereafter be paid in the country to those officers to whom I have referred. It is right, therefore, that we should know how much those funds from which formerly the officers of the High Court of Chancery were paid, will be lessened by the new arrangement; and how it is proposed to make up that deficiency to the Consolidated Fund? Then, again, there is compensation to be given to the officers of all those courts who may happen to be superseded by the new courts about to be instituted. There are at this moment, I believe, in England, 450 courts of different descriptions, presided over by the respective officers; and for anything we know to the contary, they may all be superseded by the new courts which are to be established under the present Bill. If these 450 courts are abolished, all the officers of those courts who do not choose to undertake the duties of the new courts, or to whom that option may not be given, will be entitled to compensation at the discretion of the Treasury. We ought to hear from the Ministers what the amount of all 912 this compensation will be, that we may have some sort of notion of what the expense really will be to carry into effect the provisions of this Bill. I have no charge to make against Her Majesty's Ministers; they came by the Bill and all its advantages in the course of inheritance. There is, to be sure, this difference—that formerly the patronage as to the appointment of those judges was in the hands of the Custos Rotulorum in each county; but that patronage, for which the former Bill provided, is now transferred to the Lord Chancellor, which greatly augments the patronage of the present Government. I am aware that much has been said on this point; and it may now be alleged that the Custos Rotulorum in each county may not be so fit a person to decide on appointment of a legal character as the Lord Chancellor. I must, however, say, that it is a matter for grave consideration, whether or not there should be placed in the hands of any Government patronage amounting to 117,000l. a-year, to be held out as prizes to the legal profession. Why, of itself, it is sufficient to purchase half the boroughs of England. I think that this patronage is too much to be placed in the bands of any Government. I object to going at all into the measure at this period of the Session, when the most of the Members of this House are out of town. We ought therefore to pause—before we consent to pass a measure which will make the Government of the day almost despotic at the next election. There are many other matters in the Bill which require amendment; but to which, perhaps, it will be more fit that attention shall be called when in Committee. I am bound to say, that I do not think that the measure will have the desired effect, of bringing justice home, as it is stated, to every man's door. There are also other points to which I shall refer in Committee the despotic power which the Bill will give to the judges of those courts, as from their decisions there will be no redress except in their own courts. Of this principle I cannot approve; but it maybe better to defer details for the Committee. My object in rising was, to endeavour to elicit from Her Majesty's Ministers a full and distinct declaration of the whole extent of the power and patronage which the Bill will confer; at the same time I cannot refrain from expressing my strong opinion, that it is a measure of too great importance to be hurried through this House now in the 913 latter part of August. Whether we look at the patronage which the measure confers on the Government, or at the great revolution which it effects in our system of jurisprudence, it ought to be deferred until the majority of this House are present next year, when the whole subject can be entered into in all its details, with that energy and discrimination which it really demands.
§ SIR G. GREYsaid, that when the Bill was read a second time, he had been prepared to enter more fully into a statement of the details and objects of it, but that he had been prevented by the fact of there being no objection raised to the principle of the Bill; that it had not been presented to Parliament then for the first time, but had been discussed in three or four different Sessions. The noble Lord said the Bill came to Her Majesty's present Ministers as an inheritance from their predecessors. But though the Bill had been left to them by the late Government, and some alterations had been made in it in its progress through the other House of Parliament—alterations which did not affect the principle or important details of the measure—still it was the same identical Bill that had been brought into Parliament by the Government with which he (Sir G. Grey) had himself been connected previously, in 1841. It had been presented to Parliament in succeeding years during the existence of the late Government; and he remembered that a Select Committee, to whom the subject had been referred, had confirmed all its most important provisions; and of that Committee the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for the Home Department had been a Member, and it was only owing to the late period of the Session at which it came before the House that it had not been passed into law. The present Bill had undergone the fullest consideration in the country, particularly in those parts which were most likely to be affected by its operations; and of the numerous suggestions and representations which had been received with regard to the Bill, he must say that as far as his knowledge went, not one single representation had reached the Government asking them to postpone it. Then all those representations with respect to its details had been entertained; and in every case where any suggestion seemed entitled to consideration, and where any objection appeared reasonable, and the alteration recommended could be made without departing from 914 the principle of the measure the Government had adopted the suggestion. He had received numerous representations from parties who thought that important benefits were likely to be conferred upon the country by the passing of the Bill, earnestly praying that it might not be postponed beyond the present Session. Petitions had been presented to the House to the same effect. When the present Government had come first into office, this Bill was considered amongst others at the time pending before Parliament respecting which there was an impression that, considering their importance, it would be impossible to obtain full consideration for them at the present time. But finding a strong opinion in the House in favour of this measure, and having the best evidence that it was perfectly known in the country, and could take no one by surprise, the Government had yielded to the representations made to them, asking them to proceed with it; and in consequence he now asked the House to go on with the Bill. The noble Lord would recollect that during the present Session a great many local courts Bills had been stopped at the instance of the Government, because this Bill was before Parliament, on the distinct assurance to the House that a general measure having the same object in view would be passed, if possible, during the present Session. The noble Lord had asked for some distinct statement as to the expense the Bill would create, the number of districts into which the country would be divided by it, and the amount of patronage which it placed in the hands of the Government. With regard to the expense, it was impossible for him to say what amount of expense would be thrown on the Consolidated Fund by the Bill; because it was proposed that, according to a table contained in the schedule of the Bill, moderate fees would be taken for all the proceedings under and in it; and those fees would go to defray the expenses. Then there was a provision that, after a time, the Queen in Council should convert payment by fees into payment of salaries; and when that would take effect, the fees would be carried to the Consolidated Fund, and the salaries be paid out of that fund. The whole amount of expenditure would depend entirely upon the amount of business in the county, the business producing the fees. It was only then, after some experience with respect to the business, that the expense could be correctly estimated, and that the amount 915 of the judges' salaries was to be fixed; whereas the noble Lord had assumed that each judge was to have a salary of 1,200l. a year. With respect to the districts, they might be of great extent. It was not necessary to divide the counties into districts in every instance. But in Middlesex or Lancashire, for instance, it would be necessary to divide the county into districts, for it would be impossible for one judge to get through all the business that would be thrown upon him in such counties. But there were parts of England where two or three counties might be thrown into one district; and there was a distinct power given in the Bill to include any part of a neighbouring county in the adjoining district; and if there were not enough of business to occupy the judge, it was provided this district might be consolidated so as to occupy the judges. With regard to the salaries, it was impossible to say now what precise number of judges were necessary, or what salaries the judges should receive; and the present proposal was that the judges should receive fees in the first instance, and if the amount of those fees should be excessive, there was a power given to the Secretary of State to diminish that amount, and fix the maximum beyond which they should not go to the judge, but should be carried to the Consolidated Fund. The maximum would be fixed at 1,200l.; but it by no means followed, as some of the judges would have more business than others, that the intention was that each judge should receive 1,200l. That was only the maximum, beyond which the Government could not go. As to the patronage, the question had been discussed in the Select Committee to which he had alluded, and it was a question which more than any other embarrassed those Bills. But if the placing of the patronage in the hands of the Government was to be a bar to the passing of the Bill, the public would forfeit the great advantages that must be derived from the measure; for after the fullest consideration the Ministers of the Crown had come to the conclusion, that in order to obtain efficient men the patronage should be placed, subject to the control of public opinion and the responsibility which attached to a Minister, in the hands of the Lord Chancellor. Besides, from the very nature of the business to be transacted in those courts, it must be evident that the lieutenants of counties could not be the best judges of the legal qualities of the parties who were to preside in them. The 916 noble Lord had, however, admitted that it was better to discuss those matters in Committee; and when the House had resolved itself into Committee, he (Sir G. Grey) should be prepared to give any explanation to hon. Members which they might demand. With respect to the patronage, he might observe that, by a return which he held in his hand, of the course of legislation with regard to local Bills for the establishment of small debts courts, which would be merged in those under the present Bill, it appeared that of forty-two courts recently established, with the exception of two, the Lord Chancellor had the patronage of all. He might add that the gentlemen who held the office of judge in the present local courts would be eligible under the Bill; and with regard to compensation, the matter would be placed in the hands of the Treasury, according to the usual rule in such cases.
MR. M. SUTTONsaid, that the late Government had hesitated with respect to taking into their hands appointments which would give so large an amount of patronage to the Government of the day. He admitted the general abstract principle that the patronage in such cases should be placed in the hands of the Crown; but the practical difficulty in this case lay in the circumstance of so great a number of appointments to be made at once; and he therefore thought that, in this particular case, there was some danger in placing the patronage in the Crown. According to the plan of the late Government, the appointments in the first instance were placed in the hands of the lieutenants of counties, the Government reserving to itself the right of filling up vacancies as they subsequently occurred. To the change now introduced in the Bill he objected, as also to the alteration in that provision of the Bill which declared that the judges of existing courts should be first judges in the new courts. He must say that on the questions of patronage and compensation, he much preferred the Bill as it had been brought in by the late Government. However, he did not feel justified in impeding its progress, as he believed it was earnestly sought for by the country.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it seemed to him the questions of patronage and compensation would be better argued upon the clauses relating to them respectively. But in reference to what had fallen from the noble Lord and the hon. Gentleman who had spoken last he 917 would offer a few words in explanation of the alterations that had been made in the Bill. He might observe, in the first place, that the alteration giving the patronage to the Lord Chancellor, had met with the entire concurrence of the late Solicitor General (Sir F. Kelly). It had been said that the Bill as it originally stood had vested the patronage in the lieutenants of counties. It certainly professed to do so, but in reality it did no such thing. There were at present eighty judges of local courts, and the Bill gave a right to those eighty judges to take office under the new Bill if they choose. But there were to be only sixty courts established under the Bill, so that there were to be eighty persons who would have a right to sixty places. Then the lieutenants of counties were to appoint to the vacancies; but there would be no vacancies whatever, there being twenty persons more than there were offices. The present Government then had done nothing to take the matter into their own hands; they only placed in plain language that which had been mystified by the late Government, and did in a straightforward manner that which would have been done indirectly by that Government. Every one of the offices touched by this Bill were constituted under Acts of Parliament, which provided that if there should be a general measure passed, their rights under the local courts should cease. Those parties then having taken office on the understanding that they were to have no vested rights, all they could fairly expect was, that if they were qualified for office they should be considered as eligible. There was no cause of complaint then on that score; nor was there on the ground of compensation. Those judges had no claim to compensation, because they had no vested interest. With respect to the new courts, it was expected the business would be so large as to give fees sufficient to defray the expenses of salaries, and also leave a large margin for compensation.
§ MR. S. WORTLEYwished to ask why, if the Lord Chancellor intended to appoint those now in office to be judges in the new courts, a provision to that effect was not introduced into the Bill? The late Government had voluntarily deprived themselves of the patronage; and when so many of the appointments of the existing courts had been made by the Lord Chancellor, or under special Acts of Parliament, the best course appeared to be to give the first appointments 918 to those who had been nominated under such circumstances.
§ MR. ROMILLYbore testimony to the importance of the Bill. He wished the Government would take into consideration the propriety of extending the jurisdiction of the courts established by this Bill to other matters, and of combining a variety of duties, ministerial as well as judicial, now performed by a number of different officers. He thought payment by salary preferable to payment by foes.
MR. H. BERKELEYobserved, that this measure was looked upon with the deepest interest throughout the country. From communications he had received from Bath as well as from Bristol, he learned that the measure was regarded as perfectly satisfactory.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that if the Government had proposed to pass the Bill with such views and for such purposes as the hon. Member for Bridport had indicated, he (Mr. Newdegate) should have felt bound to oppose it, instead of supporting it, as he intended. The questions the hon. Member had raised were matters of the deepest importance, which the House ought not to be called upon to consider for the first time in the last days of a Session; but he (Mr. Newdegate) did not consider them involved in the Bill before the House. He certainly was not prepared to vote for or promote a series of extensive changes in our system of criminal jurisprudence, because an Act for the recovery of small debts was required. The appointment of an officer of justice to superintend all criminal proceedings, as proposed by the hon. Member, involved a departure from the system and practice of the English Constitution, and an assimilation to those of foreign countries, for which he (Mr. Newdegate) was not prepared. With respect to the other proposal of the hon. Member, namely, the entrusting the revision of the electoral registers to the judges to be appointed over the courts which were to be established under the Bill before the House, he would only observe, that there was abundant evidence appended to the Report on Votes of Electors, lately laid before the House by the Committee, for which he (Mr. Newdegate) had moved, that amply proved how little advisable it would be to place the revision of the electoral registers in the hands of local authorities. He would conclude by saying, that the trade and inhabitants of Birmingham, and those of other large towns, stood much in need of some better means than at 919 present existed for the recovery of small debts; a necessity which had been aggravated by the abolition of imprisonment for debt. The hon. Member for Birmingham was unavoidably prevented attending in his place by the death of his brother-in-law, Sir Charles Wetherell, or he would have supported the Bill, as he (Mr. Newdegate) intended to do, for the purposes specified in its title.
§ MR. HENLEYconsidered the question of patronage involved in this Bill as a very serious one. He was one of those who did not think that had the patronage been entrusted to the lord lieutenants it would have been in good hands. But it was not quite clear that it was wise to place so large an amount of patronage at once in the hands of the Crown. A very large proportion of the existing judges were attorneys, who if they retained their appointments must give up their practice. As they might be expected to prefer continuing their practice, a vast number of appointments would necessarily fall to the Crown under the operation of the Bill. He believed that if this Bill were confined to its professed object—the recovery of small debts, without any reference to damages and wrongs—it might be a very beneficial measure.
§ House went into Committee.
§ On Clause 9,
§ MR. NEWDEGATEobserved that he understood, from the statements which had been made by Members of the Government, that they were disposed to give legal gentlemen who filled existing judicial offices a preference in the appointments under this measure; and he wished to know whether there would be any objection to insert words in the Bill for carrying out that object?
§ SIR G. GREYcould not assent to the suggestion of the hon. Member; but, without giving a pledge that existing officers would in all cases be appointed to judicial offices under this Bill, he might state that a preference would be given to those existing officers who were considered competent for the situations.
§ MR. WAKLEYwished to know why the appointments to judicial offices under this Bill should be confined to one branch of the legal profession—why the judges should be selected from members of the bar only, to the exclusion of attorneys? It might not be very agreeable to gentlemen at the bar to hear it said that attorneys were quite as competent as they were for 920 these situations; but he considered it most unjust that gentlemen in that department of the profession should be debarred from these judicial appointments. The attorneys had just as much capacity, as much legal knowledge, and possessed as much love of justice as any gentleman at the bar; and in his opinion their exclusion from these offices was in principle most unjust, and in practice most injurious. If they left to the Lord Chancellor the discretion of appointing fit persons from the bar, why could not they also entrust him with the direction of appointing fit persons from the attorneys? He considered that great injustice was done to a most respectable and honourable branch of the legal profession by excluding them from these appointments; and he would hereafter move an Amendment which would have the effect of rendering them eligible for such offices.
§ LORD G. SOMERSETconsidered that the discretion of making these appointments ought to be entrusted to the Lord Chancellor, who would, no doubt, take care to appoint properly-qualified persons. With regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley), he certainly thought that that class of the legal profession commonly called solicitors were rather hardly used by this Bill. This measure, he understood, contained a provision which rendered the present holders of judicial offices eligible for appointment as judges of county courts under this Bill; but if any of the existing officers should cease to hold their appointments, they could not hereafter be succeeded by solicitors. He must say that, under these circumstances, he thought their fair share in these appointments was withheld from the attorneys. He saw no reason why eminent solicitors, who had acquitted themselves creditably in their profession, should not be eligible as judges of these courts, and he thought the appointments ought to be open to them. At the same time, he did not mean to assume that the education of a solicitor was generally such as to render him equally well fitted for judicial office with a barrister. He thought that all persons who now held judicial offices in courts of this kind had a strong claim upon the Government for reappointment under the present Bill, unless some good reason to the contrary could be shown; and he understood that the right hon. Home Secretary concurred in this opinion.
§ Sir G. GREYsaid, that the words "barristers of seven years' standing," though 921 they scarcely gave any adequate security for the appointment of efficient persons, still afforded some check, as they prevented the appointment of a man as judge to-day who had only been called to the bar yesterday. With regard to the fitness of attorneys to occupy judicial situations in these courts, he was quite ready to admit that there were some most learned men in that branch of the profession, who possessed very high qualifications for many important offices. But he wished it to be understood that no new provision had been introduced into this Bill. Indeed, if the attorneys were treated with hardship by this Bill, they were treated with equal hardship under a measure which had been introduced by the noble Lord opposite. He could assure the House, that there was not the least intention to throw any slight upon the attorneys; but, if the argument of the hon. Member for Finsbury were carried out, why should not attorneys be allowed to plead as advocates? and why should they not be eligible for seats on the bench in Westminster-hall? He considered that the best course was to adhere to the distinction which had been held between the two branches of the profession for a very long period; but he hoped it would not be supposed that there was any intention to slight that branch to which the hon. Member for Finsbury had referred—the attorneys.
§ MR. HENLEYthought it would be much better if there were no definition with respect to the judges in the Bill, and that it should be left to the Lord Chancellor to appoint, on his responsibility, fit and proper persons. With respect to attorneys, they were either fit or unfit to be judges under this Bill. Now there was a provision in the Bill, that all attorneys who were at present judges in certain named courts for the recovery of small debts might be judges under the present Bill; and yet, in the same breath, the Bill declared that all future attorneys should be disqualified. Both these arrangements could not be right, and, therefore, he should be better pleased to see it left entirely to the Lord Chancellor to appoint fit and proper persons as judges.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the office of clerks of the courts to be created by the Bill had been set aside exclusively for attorneys. But as to their appointment to judgeships, he asked how it would be possible for the Lord Chancellor to judge of the fitness of any solicitor or 922 attorney for such an office? Their profession did not bring their acquirements prominently before the public, or give that opportunity for a display of the talents peculiarly necessary for the judicial office which would be necessary to enable the public to form an opinion upon them. The education given to barristers and attorneys differed most materially. The attention of attorneys was not directed to those branches of the legal profession that would qualify them for the judicial bench; whilst the education of barristers, on the contrary, was of a nature peculiarly to suit them for it.
§ MR. ROMILLYwas of opinion, that the judges under this Bill ought not to be allowed to practice at all as barristers. Concurrent practice as a barrister unfitted a man's mind for the judicial capacity. If these judges were allowed to practise as barristers, it might be possible for interested parties to obtain an opinion from one of them in his character of barrister having reference to a case which he would afterwards have to decide on as a judge. He would therefore make these judges judicial officers and nothing else; he would take up their whole time in that way, pay them handsomely and liberally, and thus the country would really get cheap and good justice brought home to everybody's door.
§ MR. J. S. WORTLEYthought the Government was right in not proposing to exclude the judges under this Bill from practising as barristers. How else could they hope to get good judges? Did they think a man fitted for the situation would abandon all the prospects of his profession for such a salary? He differed from the hon. and learned Member, who thought concurrent practice as a barrister unfitted a man for a judge. He knew three gentlemen on the northern circuit eminent as barristers and distinguished as judges; and of these he might mention the recorders of Hull and Leeds. The hon. and learned Member had said, that it might be possible to entrap a barrister in giving an opinion in reference to a case which he would afterwards have to decide on as a judge; but if he were a right sort of man, with a candid and strong mind, that circumstance would not prevent him from giving a proper decision on the case submitted to him as a judge. These courts would not take up all the time of their judges, and by attending Westminster-hall they would keep their weapons polished.
LORD J. RUSSELLconsidered that there were two ways of obtaining good judges. One was by giving very considerable salaries, and, as in Westminster-hall, separating them altogether from practice at the bar, to be wholly devoted to judicial questions in every kind of form. There was another mode in regard to less important judicial functions and more limited spheres, namely, by appointing persons who at the same time practised at the bar. In justification of this latter course, the instance of Mr. Baines, the recorder of Leeds, and other cases, had been mentioned; in support of the contrary view no instances were given, but it was simply said that persons practising at the bar could not exercise judicial functions as well. This last view, however, was not borne out by the fact; and every one must allow that the minds of such persons were likely to be constantly exercised, and to be in full vigour, upon legal questions. With regard to the plan of giving moderate salaries to persons to be placed in certain districts, to which they should be required to confine themselves, he (Lord J. Russell) thought that a mode which would fail of securing good judges. Those who did not very well succeed at the bar would be anxious to have these appointments; but men of talent, who knew they were likely to rise at the bar, would refuse them; and thus the country would be excluded from getting men of the greatest vigour of mind and the highest talent. No doubt there were men of good legal knowledge, who did not much practise at the bar; but the party who had this patronage would have great difficulty in saying who they were. When a man had risen to eminence at the bar, and had argued with ability, he had been subjected to a test; but in appointing these other persons there must be great uncertainty whether they were not men of very inferior talent. In Scotland, the judicial decisions of local judges had never given satisfaction; and all difficult cases were sent to the superior Judge, who was an advocate in the highest practice in the courts at Edinburgh; and by Act of Parliament the sheriffs were actually required to be habitually attending the Court of Session. Unless the House were disposed to go to a much greater expense than was contemplated, in prohibiting practice, they would be in danger of having men of very second-rate abilities and knowledge of law, and who in the course of a few years, would forget what they had known when practising. 924 The objection, however, just made seemed valid, that a barrister ought not to practise in the district for which he was judge; and words should be proposed to obviate that.
§ MR. WAKLEYmoved, as an Amendment to the Clause, that attorneys be eligible for the office of judge in these courts. He did not propose that they should be appointed; but that the Lord Chancellor, if he found fit men acting as attorneys, should have the power of appointing them. He was sure that attorneys, if eligible for this office, would find no fault on the score of salary. For 1,200l. a year they would find men of great legal learning who would most readily accept the office. By the Bill of last year attorneys were made eligible for judgeships after ten years' practice.
§ The Committee divided on the Question, that the words, "or as an attorney at law," be inserted:—Ayes 16; Noes 53: Majority 37.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Bentinck, Lord G. | Hume, J. |
| Borthwick, P. | Muntz, G. F. |
| Brocklehurst, J. | Newdegate, C. N. |
| Brown, W. | Pechell, Capt. |
| Collett, J. | Waddington, H. S. |
| Dickinson, F. H. | Williams, W. |
| Escott, B. | |
| Evans, Sir De L. | TELLERS. |
| Gore, M. | Sibthorp, Col. |
| Henley, J. W. | Wakley, T. |
| List of the NOES. | |
| Arundel and Surrey, Earl of | Macaulay, rt. hon. T. B. |
| M'Donnell, J. M. | |
| Berkeley, hon. Capt. | Maule, rt. hon. F. |
| Bernal, R. | Morpeth, Visct. |
| Bodkin, W. H. | O'Connell, M. J. |
| Bridgeman, H. | O'Conor Don |
| Brotherton, J. | Oswald, J. |
| Buller, C. | Owen, Sir J. |
| Byng, rt. hon. G. S. | Palmerston, Visct. |
| Cabbell, B. B. | Parker, J. |
| Craig, W. G. | Pigott, rt. hon. D. |
| Dundas, Adm. | Plumridge, Capt. |
| Dundas, D. | Rich, H. |
| Ebrington, Visct. | Romilly, J. |
| Estcourt, T. G. B. | Russell, Lord J. |
| Etwall, R. | Seymour, Lord |
| Ferguson, Sir R. A. | Sheil, rt. hon. R. L. |
| Fleetwood, Sir P. H. | Somers, J. P. |
| Fox, C. R. | Somerville, Sir W. M. |
| Gibson, rt. hon. T. M. | Stewart, P. M. |
| Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. | Turner, E. |
| Hawes, B. | Warburton, H. |
| Hindley, C. | Wood, rt. hon. C. |
| Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J. | Wood, Col. T. |
| Horsman, E. | Wortley, hon. J. S. |
| Howard, P. H. | Wyse, T. |
| Jervis, Sir J. | TELLERS. |
| Labouchere, rt. hon. H. | Hill, Lord M. |
| Layard, Capt. | Tufnell, H. |
COLONEL T. WOODmoved as an Amendment, that the judges shall cease to practise as barristers when they accept office.
§ The Committee divided on the Question, that the words be inserted:—Ayes 12; Noes 57: Majority 45.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Bernal, R. | Romilly, J. |
| Bridgman, H. | Waddington, H. S. |
| Cabbell, B. B. | Wakley, T. |
| Collett, J. | Willliams, W. |
| Estcourt, T. G. B. | |
| Horsman, E. | TELLERS: |
| Hume, J. | Wood, Col. T. |
| Oswald, J. | Warburton, H. |
| List of the NOES. | |
| Arundel and Surrey, Earl of | Layard, Capt. |
| Macaulay, rt. hon. T. B. | |
| Bentinck, Lord G. | M'Donnell, J. M. |
| Berkeley, hon. Capt. | Maule, rt. hon. F. |
| Bodkin, W. H. | Morpeth, Visct. |
| Borthwick, P. | Muntz, G. F. |
| Brotherton, J. | O'Connell, M. J. |
| Brown, W. | O'Conor Don |
| Buller, C. | Owen, Sir J. |
| Byng, rt. hon. G. S. | Palmerston, Visct. |
| Craig, W. G. | Parker, J. |
| Dickinson, F. H. | Pechell, Capt. |
| Dundas, Adm. | Pigott, rt. hon. D. |
| Dundas, D. | Plumridge, Capt. |
| Ebrington, Visct. | Pryse, P. |
| Escott, B. | Rich, H. |
| Etwall, R. | Russell, Lord J. |
| Evans, Sir De L. | Seymour, Lord |
| Ferguson, Sir R. A. | Sheil, rt. hon. R. L. |
| Fleetwood, Sir P. H. | Sibthorp, Col. |
| Fox, C. R. | Somers, J. P. |
| Gibson, rt. hon. T. M. | Stewart, P. M. |
| Gore, M. | Turner, E. |
| Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. | Wood, rt. hon. C. |
| Hawes, B. | Wortley, hon. J. S. |
| Henley, J. W. | Wrightson, W. B. |
| Hindley, C. | Wyse, T. |
| Hobhouse rt. hon. Sir J. | |
| Howard, P. H. | TELLERS. |
| Jervis, Sir J. | Hill, Lord M. |
| Labouchere, rt. hon. H. | Tufnell, H. |
§ Clause agreed to.
§ House resumed. Committee to sit again.
§ House adjourned at Ten o'clock.