HC Deb 19 July 1858 vol 151 cc1770-2

Order for Committee read. House in Committee.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2.

MR. J. D. FITZGERALD

said, he wished to move an Amendment, the effect of which was to prevent assistant barristers being removed by an Order in Council. Superior Judges could be only removed by an Address from both Houses of Parliament, and he proposed to place the inferior Judges in the same position.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that the Amendment was out of order. They were dealing not with the superior Judges, but the assistant barristers.

MR. J. D. FITZGERALD

said, he would, of course, take the law from the Chairman.

MR. BERNAL OSBORNE

said, he wished to know what was meant by the words "permanent infirmity."

MR. WHITESIDE

said, that the Act provided a retiring allowance to assistant barristers in the case of permanent infirmity; and the meaning of these words was incapacity to discharge the duties of the office personally. The phrase occurred in an existing Act; but he would alter the clause, so as to give the Lord Chancellor the power of certifying to the Privy Council that an assistant barrister was incompetent to perform his duties on account of a permanent infirmity; and to make the Lord Lieutenant in Council, after hearing counsel for the barrister, to decide on the question of his removal.

MR. BRADY

said, that he still feared that there might be vague and uncertain decisions, under the clause, of what constituted permanent infirmity.

MR. WALPOLE

said, he thought that the definition was well understood, and that no difficulty would arise.

MR. P. O'BRIEN

observed, that he preferred the constitutional remedy of removal by an Address.

MR. BUTT

remarked, that it was much more humane to the individual for the Lord Chancellor to certify that an assistant barrister was incapacitated by permanent infirmity, than that his physical and mental incapacity should be brought before both Houses of Parliament. Moreover, the penalty held over the head of the assistant barrister was, after all, not a very terrible one. At the worst a man could only be sent into retirement with two-thirds of his salary.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, that the Bill only gave the Lord Chancellor the power of certifying to the Privy Council that an assistant barrister was incapable of performing his duties, and the Privy Council was then empowered to take steps for the removal of the individual in question. Now, there might be an unscrupulous Lord Chancellor in Ireland, and as the Privy Council was summoned at will by the Government of the day, there was no sufficient provision for the independence of the Judge. He did not think, therefore, that this was a tribunal that Would conciliate the confidence of the public.

MR. WALPOLE

observed, that the case put was worthy of consideration. He had no objection, in such a case, that the clause should be so amended as to require that on such an occasion all the members of the Privy Council should be summoned.

COLONEL FRENCH

said, as the opinion of the people of Ireland was opposed to this change, he hoped that this provision would not be insisted upon. At present, no Bill was necessary to remove incapable Judges, as the Government already possessed the power to do so.

MR. COGAN

saw no reason why this power of removal should not be extended, so as to include the superior Judges. He wished to have an instruction given to the Committee to that effect. And in order to effect his object, he moved that the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that such an instruction could not be given to the Committee.

MR. MAGUIRE

said, the Government ought to be satisfied with carrying the Bill with one clause; and in a short time there would be no danger of having incapable men sitting upon the bench in Ireland. Give a man the certainty of retiring with two-thirds of his salary, and there would be no danger of any man in a state of infirmity remaining on the bench.

MR. BERNAL OSBORNE

said, he regarded the office of assistant barrister as altogether an anomaly, and on that ground he was wholly opposed to the Bill, as well as for the reason that the House was increasing the pensions of the old and effete as a bribe to get rid of them.

SIR, WILLIAM SOMERVILLE

said, he must oppose the clause, as he believed that there was scarcely a single argument having reference to the assistant barristers which had not equal reference to the Judges.

Motion for reporting progress negatived.

MR. COGAN

said, he would move an Amendment to the effect that seven days' notice of meeting should be given to the members of the Privy Council.

Amendment agreed to.

Question put, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:— Ayes 98; Noes 50: Majority 48.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 struck out.

The House resumed.

MR. COGAN

proposed a clause to allow the Lord Chancellor to make the appointments from barristers of seven years' standing, instead of ten years. This would assimilate the law to that of England.

MR. WHITESIDE

said, the Government could not accept the clause.

MR. J. D. FITZGERALD

advised that the clause should be withdrawn and brought up again on the Report.

Clause negatived.

MR. FITZGERALD

said, that on the bringing up of the Report he should move the recommittal of the Bill, in order that it might be extended to the Judges of the Superior Courts.

House resumed.

Bill reported, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.