§ Order for Committee read.
§ House in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 1 agreed to.
§ Clause 2 (Constitution of High Courts),
§ MR. VINCENT SCULLYproposed to limit the Judges in Bengal to a number not exceeding twelve. As the Bill stood the Secretary for India would have an unlimited power of appointing Judges at salaries from £3,000 to £8,000 a year, a state of things which he deprecated.
§ MR. VANSITTARTasked the right 1677 hon. Gentleman in what manner vacancies in the number of the Judges were to be filled up?
§ SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that the Judges would be appointed by Her Majesty. With respect to the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Cork, he could assure the Committee that there would be no desire on the part of the Government to have more Judges than were necessary. There were at present at Calcutta three of the Superior Court, and ten—five regular and five additional—of the Sudder Court; therefore, he did not wish to limit himself to twelve as he could not now state the precise number which would be necessary. There were at present thirteen; and he would not object to have the limit fifteen, but it did not follow that that number would be appointed.
§ MR. VINCENT SCULLYwas willing to make the limit fifteen, but he must certainly object to an unlimited power of appointment.
§ Amendment withdrawn; clause amended by the insertion of the word "fifteen" and agreed to.
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYobjected to the power proposed to be given to the Secretary of State to appoint as many Judges as he might think proper.
§ MR. VANSITTARTwanted to know how the Judges were to be paid and appointed?
§ SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, the object was to make such arrangements under the Bill as would ensure speedy justice in India. He hoped the Committee would not tie him down to a certain number of Judges until he had seen how the new system worked.
§ MR. HADFIELDmoved to insert the words "or attorneys" after the word "barristers," his object being to give the right hon. Gentleman a wider choice in appointments.
§ SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he should be sorry to enter into a discussion on the comparative merits of the two classes of lawyers. He saw no reasons for departing from the qualifications imposed by the present law, and be must, therefore, object to the Amendment.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. VANSITTARTmoved an Amendment mating it necessary that a barrister shall be of ten years' standing before being eligible for a Judgeship, instead of five, as proposed by the clause. Ten years was the standing required from the members of 1678 the covenanted Service, and they passed through a much more severe and complete preparation than barristers.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 3, to leave out the word "five," and insert the word "ten."
§ SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that five years was the present qualification, and, having been found sufficient to secure competent persons for the office, he was not disposed to alter it.
§ Question put, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 99; Noes 41: Majority 58.
§ MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, the effect of the Bill would be to swamp the Courts by the admission of untrained Civil Servants, who ought to be barristers. He would propose that a moiety of the Court should be barristers, and he would, therefore, move to leave out "one-third" and insert "one-half."
§ SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, the object he had in view was to insure a due proportion both of lawyers and civilians. The Government wanted the legal knowledge of the lawyers with the local knowledge of the Civil Servants. The Bill, therefore, provided that one-third of the Judges should be barristers and one-third Civil Servants, leaving it to the Government to choose the remaining third from either one class or the other, or from Natives or other qualified persons. To insist on one-half of the Judges being barristers would give the lawyers an undue proportion.
MR. J. B. SMITHquoted the opinion of an eminent Sudder Judge to show that a previous knowledge of the principles of law was most desirable as regarded the Judges, and he thought the Motion of his hon. Friend was a very reasonable one.
§ MR. VINCENT SCULLYdenied that he had brought forward this Motion in any legal sense. He submitted it in the public interest.
§ MR. KINNAIRDsupported the Government proposition.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. ADAM, in line 16, moved to leave out the words "including the Chief Justice," the effect of which would be to leave the office of Chief Justice open to other than banisters. He contended that it was extremely probable that civilians who had acted as Judges, having to deal with questions of Mahommedan and Hindoo law, might be more qualified to act as supreme Judges than barristers. He trusted 1679 this "rag of exclusion" would not be kept up at a time when throwing open these offices was the general principle of legislation.
§ SIR CHARLES WOODhad endeavoured to constitute the Court as fairly as he could between the two professions. The courts in which justice was administered by English lawyers had given great satisfaction. He thought it essential that the Chief Justice should be a trained lawyer.
§ Amendment negatived.
MR. J. B. SMITHmoved as an Amendment to insert in line 18, after "service," the words "Provided also that hereafter no member of the Civil Service shall be appointed a Judge of such High Court who shall not have previously undergone a legal training." He had known men in India who had never decided a case nominated to the S udder Bench. Suppose, instead of the eminent lawyer who had just been made Lord Chancellor, the Government had appointed a Commissioner of Inland Revenue or a Receiver of Customs, what would have been said? This class of officers were appointed Judges in India; yet it was not a court of first instance, but a high court of appeal.
§ Amendment proposed, in line 18, after the word "service," to insert the words "and provided also, that hereafter no member of the Civil Service shall be appointed a Judge of such High Court who shall not have previously undergone a legal training."
§ SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, the members of the Civil Service had considerable legal training. By the proposed constitution of the Court their knowledge of the country would be combined with the regular legal training of the other Judges.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 5; Noes 120: Majority, 115.
§ Clause 3 (Existing Judges of Supreme Court, and Court of Sudder Dewanny Adawlut to be the First Judges of the High Court),
§ MR. VINCENT SCULLYmoved the insertion of words in the clause to the effect that any Judge of the Supreme Court at present in office should be allowed to resign at any time with the same retiring pension that he would be entitled to if he had served ten years at the time of the passing of this Bill. The Bill, he said, proposed to impose upon the Judges much more onerous and aborious duties than they had hitherto been 1680 called upon to perform, and they ought, therefore, to have the option of continuing in office, or retiring under the circumstances suggested by his Amendment.
§ SIR CHARLES WOODopposed the Amendment. No Judges earned their retiring pensions so easily as the Judges of India. No less than £22,000 a year was at present paid in the shape of retiring pensions to such Judges. The effect of the Amendment, if agreed to, would be to enable any existing Judge, no matter how short his term of service, to retire with a full pension.
§ MR. VINCENT SCULLYconsidered the right hon. Gentleman's reply unsatisfactory, and, therefore, said he should divide the Committee upon the point.
THE CHAIRMANruled that the Amendment could not be put, inasmuch as its operation would be to impose a charge on revenue which must, in the first instance, be sanctioned by a Committee of the Whole House.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 4 (Tenure of Office of High Court),
§ MR. VINCENT SCULLYmoved the insertion of the words "their good behaviour respectively," in lieu of the words, "Her Majesty's pleasure," his object being to make the practice in India correspond with that in this country, where Judges were independent of the Crown, so long as they continued properly to discharge the duties of their office.
§ SIR CHARLES WOODopposed the Amendment. It was not desirable to make any more change in the existing system than was absolutely necessary; and the clause as it stood simply went to maintain a system which had hitherto been found to work satisfactorily in India.
§ Amendment negatived; Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 5 (Precedence of Judges of High Courts),
§ MR. AYRTONmoved the insertion of words at the end of the clause for the purpose of saving the prerogative of the Crown in regard to fixing the precedence of the Judges.
§ SIR CHARLES WOODsaw no objection to these words.
§ MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaw great objection to them, and thought them most unconstitutional. There was a see-saw system going on in respect of this Bill between the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, who was backing him, and the Secretary of State for India.
§ Amendment agreed to; Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clause 6 (Salaries, &c, of the Judges of the High Courts),
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEasked whether the Civil Servants called upon to act in these Courts would receive the same retiring pension as the legal members? At present these Civil Servants were entitled on their retirement to superannuations of £1,000 a year, one-half of which had been contributed by themselves in the shape of deductions from their pay; whereas the legal members of these Courts would receive pensions of £1,200 to £1,600.
§ SIR CHARLES WOODbelieved the Civil Members of the Courts would be entitled to their Civil Service superannuation.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, that great injustice would be done to these Civil Servants if they were not put on an equal footing with the legal members of these Courts.
§ MR. VANSITTARTsaid, this important point ought not to be discussed at that late hour (one o'clock). It was most unfair to reduce the pension of these highly qualified Civil Servants below that of mere barristers of five years' standing.
§ SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that the Civil Servants had not hitherto been entitled to anything else than their superannuation allowance; but it would be in the power of the Secretary of State in Council to consider their claim to something further.
§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIEthought the Bill would give the Government great power over these Judges, and suggested that words should be introduced into the clause on the Report, limiting the authority of the Secretary of State in Council to make regulations with respect to their emoluments and pensions, so that whatever was done in the matter might apply to the Judges generally, and not to individual cases only.
§ SIR CHARLES WOODpromised to adopt the suggestion.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEmoved that the Chairman report Progress.
§ Motion negatived Clause agreed to.
§ MR. HENNESSYinquired whether, as this Bill seriously affected the bar of India, it had been when drawn submitted to the present Lord Chancellor, who was then first law officer of the Crown?
§ SIR CHARLES WOODsaid it was not.
§ Remaining Clauses agreed to.
§ House resumed.
1682§ Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Monday next.