THIRD READING. (Hansard, 11 June 1872)

§ MR. EYKYN
rose to move that the Order of the Day for the third reading of the Bill be read and discharged, and that the Bill be re-committed to the former Committee. He regretted to stand in the way of the solution of the very difficult question involved in that Bill, 1585 being himself strongly in favour of the principle of arbitration, and believing that the constitution of a proper Court of Arbitration by the Government would confer lasting benefits on the country. His objection to the present Bill related only to one point—namely, the question of who was to be the arbitrator under it? He did not think that ex-Lord Chancellors should hold such appointments. Filling the high position which they did as Peers and as Judges in "another place," and being, as he thought, well entitled to the recompense which the country gave them, he regarded it as unwise in those noble and learned Lords to depart from the rule followed by their predecessors and to enter into competition with their former brethren of the long-robe. If he had been rightly informed, Lord Cairns had declined to act as arbitrator in this case, on the ground that it would interfere with his duties in the House of Lords, and the appointment had thereupon been offered to and accepted by Lord Westbury, who was to receive for his services as arbitrator 3,500 guineas. He (Mr. Eykyn) thought it unbecoming that ex-Lord Chancellors should undertake to act as arbitrators for fee and reward, and he had drawn the attention of the House of Commons to these circumstances, in order that some notice might be taken of them in "another place."

§ MR. BARNETT
, as Chairman of the Committee to which this Bill had been referred, might say that when they recommended a course of arbitration the counsel on both sides unanimously offered their thanks to the Committee for having so decided. He had no doubt that ex-Lord Chancellors very usefully employed their time in the judicial tribunal of the House of Lords; but, in his opinion, there could not be a more important judicial function than that which this Bill proposed to confer upon Lord Westbury. The interests involved in the case were so immense and intri- 1586 cate that it would require a man of great acuteness of mind and of judicial ability to bring the matter to a satisfactory ending. It must be remembered that when Lord Chancellors were pensioned no condition was imposed upon them that would prevent their accepting the position of arbitrators in such cases as that now under discussion. He could not help having a suspicion that the interest of some persons would be served by delay in this matter; and, without imputing any motives or mentioning any names, he was afraid that this Amendment would have the effect of carrying out their object.

§ MR. COLLINS
said, he thought that the House ought to feel obliged to the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Eykyn) for calling attention to this case; because there was really a great principle involved in it. A person who had filled the office of Lord Chancellor received a pension of £5,000 a-year, on the ground that he had lost the opportunity of making money in his profession, If ex-Lord Chancellors were to act as arbitrators, with salaries of £2,000 or £3,000 a-year, he could not see upon what principle their magnificent retiring pensions could be defended. It appeared to him that it would be wise of the Government to consider the subject when they were dealing with the Judicial Committee or the new Court of Appeal. He hoped the hon. Member for Windsor would not divide the House upon the question.

§ MR. JAMES
said, he hoped the hon. Member for Windsor would not divide the House on his Amendment. It would be a great hardship to the members of the different assurance companies if this Bill were not passed, and he thought that the House ought to make some sacrifice of principle on behalf of those unfortunate persons. He hoped, therefore, that the Amendment would be withdrawn; but, at the same time, considered that some protest should be made against this dangerous practice, lest it should be drawn into a precedent. The Albert case had been quoted as a precedent in order to justify the present proceeding. The Appellate Court was starved from want of power, that power being the services of eminent Lord Chancellors. Lord Cairns, when Lord Chancellor, directed that County Court Judges should in no case hold arbitrations when their 1587 Courts were sitting, and yet Lord Cairns became an arbitrator, and sat as such when he ought to be sitting in the Court of Appeals; and was a party to the passing of a Bill which gave him £2,000, and as much more as he wished to appropriate to himself by his own will. Of course, he should speak of Lord Cairns with the utmost possible respect; but surely human nature was human nature, and if a man could sit in the Appellate Court when he liked, and do other business besides, was it not natural that ex-Lord Chancellors would yield to the temptation of the latter rather than give their services to the country? Surely, if the House wished to preserve the dignity of the Bench, and have suitors come to Courts above suspicion, they ought to make clear their protest against the course sanctioned by this Bill. However humble his voice, it should be ever raised on behalf of the profession.

§ MR. STEPHEN CAVE
said, he thought the present was not a time for discussing so grave a question of policy as the one they were then dealing with, and he also was of opinion that his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Barnett) was a little too severe in some of his remarks. The liquidators had acted under the directions of the Court of Chancery, and he thought that no imputation of interested motives ought to be made against them. It was an open question entirely as to which was the better way of dealing with the matter—whether to send the Bill to arbitration, or to give powers to the Court of Chancery for settling the question. The President of the Board of Trade had promised to introduce clauses in his Bill, giving powers to the Court of Chancery to decide such questions as these; but they had not seen these clauses, and could not tell whether they would become law. He thought, therefore, that it would not be fair to deprive the Company of one mode of meeting their difficulties before they were sure of the other. Should these clauses be sufficient, the Bill might be dropped in "another place." He thought the House should allow the Bill to be read a third time.

§ MR. EYKYN
withdrew his Amendment, with the view of moving on an early day a Resolution that, in the opinion of the House, no ex-Chancellor should accept any fee or reward for act- 1588 ing as arbitrator or referee, unless specially appointed by the Government.