§ Order for Committee read,
§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. NAPIERsaid, he wished to express his disapproval of the Bill. Under its provisions the right of appointing revising barristers for Dublin would be vested henceforward exclusively in the Irish Executive. By that arrangement Mr. Shaw and the two other gentlemen who had since the year 1853 discharged that duty, and discharged it in an unexceptionable manner, would find their claims to a continuance of their office wholly set aside. He denied the justice and expediency of such a 802 mode of proceeding; and he believed that the House ought not to invest the Irish Government with a power bearing so directly on the purity and freedom of election in the city of Dublin, where party spirit came into such strong and frequent operation, and where it was natural to suppose that the Government would desire the registration to be as favourable to them as possible, especially as a, son of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had been an unsuccessful candidate at the last election. He therefore begged to move that the House should resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill on that day month.
§
Amendment proposed,—
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "this House will, upon this day month, resolve itself into the said Committee," instead thereof.
§ MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, that he must complain of personal considerations being introduced into the discussion. He denied that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland or his son had anything to do with the Bill; and said it originated exclusively with himself and his learned colleague, the Solicitor General for Ireland, and the Chief Secretary, who determined, as a matter of law, that it was necessary to propose such a measure. The present question was merely a question as to the construction of an Act of Parliament, and it was absolutely necessary that some measure should be passed on the subject. Under the Reform Act the duty of revising the electoral lists for the city of Dublin were to be discharged by the chairman of the county of Dublin; but as that functionary had too much to do to perform that duty, Parliament had empowered him to appoint a deputy, and he had accordingly appointed Mr. Dobbs as his deputy in 1834. The duties of revision for the city of Dublin became very much augmented, and it became necessary to appoint three deputies. Accordingly, Mr. Dobbs (who performed the duties since 1834), Mr. Shaw, and Mr. Kemmis, were appointed. His right hon. and learned Friend seemed to throw Mr. Dobbs and Mr. Kemmis overboard altogether. In March last the chairman of the county of Dublin, who had appointed the three gentlemen, died, and he contended that with the death of the chairman the office, and consequently the duties, of the deputies ceased. In 1851 an Act of Parliament was passed which gave the Lord Lieutenant the power of appointing a revising barrister in the event of the death of the 803 then chairman of the county of Dublin. The Government appointed Mr. O'Hara, a gentleman of twenty years' standing at the bar, under that Act, and as he could not perform the duties single handed, it was necessary to come to Parliament to give the Lord Lieutenant the power of appointing another. It was absolutely necessary that the Government should bring in this Bill in order that the electors of the city of Dublin might not be defrauded of their rights. The Solicitor General for Ireland took exactly the same view of the Acts of Parliament as he did. He denied that the Government were liable to blame for delaying the Bill, because when it was before the House on a former occasion hon. and learned Gentlemen objected to proceeding with it.
§ MR. HARDYsaid, that it appeared to him doubtful whether the three gentlemen referred to were the deputies or substitutes of the late chairman. But he wished to call the attention of the House to the fact that in England these offices were annual, and selected by the Judges from non-political persons; while in Ireland there was a different system. It was essential, above all things, that revising barristers should be free from political bias, and yet the result in Ireland was shown by there being 17,000 disputed claims before the revising barristers. The Lord Lieutenant had the power of appointing one revising barrister by the Act of 1851. This was a false position, as his name was necessarily much mixed up with party conflicts, and one from which the Government should heave taken the opportunity afforded them by present circumstances of retracing their steps. There were great difficulties connected with the law on this matter, and it behoved the House seriously to consider how it ought to act. The best course to pursue would be to bring in a Bill to continue in office the three gentlemen who had hitherto discharged the functions of revising barristers in Dublin, and to vest the appointment afterwards in the Judges.
§ MR. BUTTsaid, that he entirely concurred in the remark of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken, that these appointments should be made by non-political functionaries, such as the Judges, which was the course followed in England, and he thought that, for the sake of the dignity of the Lord Lieutenant, and the confidence of the citizens of Dublin in his administration of the law, nothing could be more objectionable than to give such 804 power to him. That principle, however, had been sanctioned by the House in 1851, and the real question before them now was, whether they should go into Committee upon the Bill. In point of law, he was clearly of opinion that the jurisdiction of the three barristers appointed by the late chairman of the county of Dublin, to superintend the revision of the electoral lists, had ceased on the occasion of the death of that gentleman, whose deputies they had been. Still, when the House went into Committee he would be ready to support an Amendment which, while respecting the rights of the gentleman who had recently been appointed revising barrister by the Lord Lieutenant, would, in future place in the hands of the Judges the right of making these appointments.
§ MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he could not but designate the Bill as a little job got up between the resignation of the right hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman), and the appointment of the right hon. Member for the county of Kerry (Mr. Herbert). The real objects of the Bill were, that the Government of Ireland should be enabled to remove any doubts that might be entertained with respect to the validity of the appointment of Mr. O'Hara to the office of revising barrister in the city of Dublin, and that they should have a right to bestow on some other gentleman a similar piece of patronage. Mr. Shaw was, it seemed, to be got rid of; but that gentleman, irrespective of any absolute right he might have to a continuance of his office, was entitled to the highest consideration for his character, his professional attainments, and the perfectly unexceptionable manner in which he had for many years discharged the duties with which he had been entrusted; and he (Mr. Whiteside) could not help feeling that if the Irish Government were to take every posible opportunity of ousting from public situations their political opponents, and appointing their partisans to the vacant offices, it would be impossible to defend the continuance of that Government in its present form. Several of the official appointments made in Ireland of late years had given great offence to no inconsiderable portion of the people of that country; and he might mention that two of the number had been considered so objectionable, that he had been asked to bring them under the notice of the House; but he had declined to accede to the request lest he should thereby subject 805 himself to a charge of acting under the influence of a feeling of personal hostility. He thought it was not too much to ask the Government that when they find in offices men who were known to be respectable, they should not, merely because those men did not belong to their party, turn them off before they died. Being desirous that justice should be done, he should vote for the Amendment.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he must express his regret that all measures relating to Ireland, whether of trifling or great importance, could not be brought forward without the introduction into the debate of personal questions, with which it was impossible the House could deal. The hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Whiteside) impugned the appointments made by the Lord Lieutenant, under the powers of Acts of Parliament. He insinuated that they had been made, not from corrupt motives, but without regard to the merits of the different candidates, and that men had been placed in those offices who were unfit for them. He was content to meet that assertion with a general denial. He believed that in making the appointments the Lord Lieutenant and the present Irish Secretary had been actuated by the single desire of promoting the interests of the public service. The hon. and learned Gentleman moreover had alluded to two appointments of which he seemed specially to disapprove, but which he had not brought under the notice of the House, from a fear of rendering himself liable to be charged with yielding to a feeling of personal hostility. But it appeard to him (Sir George Grey) that it would have been better for the hon. and learned Gentleman to have run that risk than to have indulged in sweeping accusations, which might extend to any person in office. Formerly the chairman of the sessions of the peace for the county of Dublin was the officer appointed by law to revise the register of voters for the city, but he had power to appoint deputies to assist him in the discharge of that duty. The Act of 1851 recognised the tenure of the chairman to this office of revising barrister, but it expressly enacted that on his death or resignation the Lord Lieutenant should appoint persons to perform the duties of the office during good behaviour. The chairman was now dead, and the ordinary rule of law was, that a deputy holding an appointment under a principal ceased to have an authority to act on the resignation or decease 806 of his principal. Under the terms of that Act the Lord Lieutenant appointed Mr. O'Hara—an appointment to which he believed there was no objection—but the Attorney General for Ireland being persuaded that the whole work of revision could not be satisfactorily performed by one individual within the time prescribed by the statute, proposed that the Lord Lieutenant should be empowered to appoint a second person to act in conjunction with Mr. O'Hara. If the hon. and learned Gentleman thought the Lord Lieutenant should make one appointment and the House another, let him say so; but that course would be utterly inconsistent with any precedent. If the House should think that the appointment should be placed in the hands of the Lord Chief Jnstice of Ireland instead of the Lord Lieutenant, that was a matter to be decided in Committee, but such a course of proceeding would be inconsistent with the principle established in Ireland, where the Lord Lieutenant appointed the assistant barristers by whom the electoral lists were revised. For himself, he could see no reason why they should distrust the Lord Lieutenant in such a case.
§ MR. M'MAHONsaid, he could state that nepotism prevailed to a very considerable extent in the appointments of revising barristers made by the English Judges; and he believed that a great majority of the bar of England would rather that power should be placed in the hands of a responsible public officer, such as the Secretary for the Home Department, than that it should be left in the hands of the Judges.
§ MR. GREERsaid, that the case of the gentleman under discussion was rather put forward as an appeal than as a claim. Under any circumstances, power should be given to the Lord Lieutenant to appoint a sufficient number of barristers to revise the lists.
§ COLONEL FRENCHsaid, that he was very much opposed to giving the appointment to the Lord Lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. It should be recollected that the son of the Lord Chancellor had stood for the City of Dublin at the late election, and was defeated. The gentlemen at present holding these offices had always discharged their duties satisfactorily, and it would be in accordance with the practice of the House that a selection should be made from them of the persons by whom the duties of the office were to be first discharged.
§ SIR BROOKE BRIDGESobserved, that he thought that such a power ought not to be entrusted to a man filling a political position, and liable to be influenced by party considerations.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 90; Noes 57: Majority 33.
§ Main Question put and agreed to.
§ House in Committee.
§ Clause 1 (Lord Lieutenant may appoint two barristers under Civil Bill Act).
MR. NAPIERproposed that the additional barristers to be appointed under the Bill should be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice, instead of the Lord Lieutenant.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 3, to leave out the words "instead of the," and to insert the words, "in addition to the," instead thereof.
§ MR. J. D. FITZGERALDremarked, that he thought it much safer to leave the appointment in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant, who was a stranger to the country, and not mixed up in feeling with the local politics of Dublin, as the Lord Chief Justice might be. In England he knew there were many complaints that young and incompetent barristers were appointed to revise the list of voters, and in Ireland the Judges were less under the influence of public opinion. On grounds of policy and principle, he thought the appointment would be much better left in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant.
§ MR. WHITESIDEsaid he would support the Amendment. He contended that nothing could be more reasonable than the demand that the English practice in that case should be extended to Ireland. As he had remarked before, the object of the Bill was to create a new place.
§ MR. H. A. HERBERTsaid, when he first saw the Bill the objection he entertained to it was, that it created a new office, but on subsequent consideration he was convinced that another revising barrister was required. He had been long enough in his present position to know the inconveniences attending the creation of new offices in Ireland, and he could assure the Committee that it was the desire of the Government to create none for which there was not some absolute necessity.
§ COLONEL FRENCHcould not understand why a second appointment should be made; but, if it must be made, he saw no reason for transferring the patronage from the Lord Lieutenant to the Chief Justice.
§ MR. BUTTsaid, he should feel bound to support the Amendment if it should be pressed to a division. But he should rather see it so altered that the power of appointing the new revising barrister should be given to the three Chief Judges in Ireland instead of the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench. It appeared to him that by such an alteration additional security would be obtained against any abuse of the power.
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, it had never fallen to his lot to hear that in appointing revising barristers the English Judges had been actuated by political considerations. The Attorney General for Ireland said the Judges were more under the influence of public opinion in England than in Ireland. Did he mean to infer that the Judges in his own country would not do right except under the influence of public opinion? If he did, such an expression of opinion on the part of the highest officer of the Crown in that country was entitled to considerable weight. Everybody knew these appointments did not, in fact, rest with the Lord Lieutenant, but with the Irish Secretary or some other person, who might be mixed up in the electioneering in the city of Dublin for the time being. These were offices which ought to be kept free from political partisanship. He thought that an important principle was involved in the Bill, and that the Amendment was entitled to the serious consideration of the Government. If the appointments were to rest with the Government, it would be impossible, even if the best men were selected, to convince the public that they had been made for any other but for political reasons. He therefore trusted the Government would allow the appointments to be placed in the hands of some independent functionary.
§ MR. GREERobserved, that it seemed to be left out of consideration altogether that the decisions of the revising barrister were subject to appeal. There was no pretence for saying that the appointments of the Lord Lieutenant had been partisan appointments. That of Mr. O'Hara was not a partisan appointment. They would not find the Judges in Ireland always impartial. The appointment would be as well made by the Lord Lieutenant as any one else, under public opinion. But if there was to be a change, he did not see how the Lord Chancellor could be passed over.
MR. NAPIERsaid, that he was willing to give the appointment to such of the Judges as the House should decide, so long 809 as it was taken from the hands of the Lord Lieutenant.
§ MR. HILDYARDexpressed his regret that neither the Home Secretary nor any other Minister was present, because he should have liked to know the opinion of the Government upon the important point now raised. No portion of the Reform Bill had given greater satisfaction than that which took the appointment of the revising barristers out of the hands of the Government; and notwithstanding what had been stated respecting the feeling which led to the appointment of revising barristers in this country, he maintained that a proof that these gentlemen had performed their duty well was to be found in the insignificant number of appeals brought against their decision.
§ MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, that he wished to explain that he had no intention to cast any imputation upon the Judges in either country. He had merely said he had heard complaints as to some of the appointments made by the English Judges. After all, those Judges were but men liable to all the feelings and affections arising from relationship and connection, and who performed their duties better than other persons because they were operated upon by the coercive influence of public opinion, which had not so great an effect upon the Irish Judges.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 88; Noes 63: Majority 25.
MR. NAPIERsaid, if the Government would agree to place the appointments in the hands of the Judges, he would not press the other Amendment, of which he had given notice, and he believed the Bill would pass without further opposition. If not, as he considered the principle to be a very important one, he should wish to take the sense of a fuller House upon it, and he should therefore raise the question upon the bringing up of the Report. He moved that the Chairman report progress.
§ MR. BUTTinquired if his hon. and learned Friend would adopt his suggestion for placing the appointment in the hands of the three Chief Justices in Ireland?
§ MR. J. D. FITZGERALDexpressed a hope that as the hon. and learned Member intented to divide the House on bringing up the Report, he would not object to the Bill passing through Committee.
§ COLONEL FRENCHthought that, in the 810 absence of any Cabinet Minister, the debate should be adjourned.
§ MR. HORSMANhoped hon. Members would allow the Bill to go through Committee.
§ MR. HENLEYrepeated that the Bill involved an important principle, and said he thought there was a better chance of having it fully discussed in Committee than upon the Motion for bringing up the Report.
§ COLONEL FRENCHbelieved that if the noble Lord at the head of the Government was present, he would not have disregarded the suggestions which had been made by the opponents of the Bill in its present form.
§ House resumed.
§ Committee report progress; to sit again on Friday next.