[Lords.] SECOND READING. (Hansard, 7 July 1874)

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND
(Dr. BALL), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it had precisely the same object as the English Bill on the same subject. It would be quite impossible to have the law different in England and Ireland. If was right that in England one tribunal should decide every portion of 1266 a case, whether involving legal or equitable questions, it was quite plain that the improvement should be extended to Ireland. There were, however, certain differences in the nature of the tribunals of the two countries. For instance, in Ireland there was a Court totally unknown in England, the Landed Estates Court; and the business of the Irish Court of Bankruptcy was administered, not, as in England, chiefly by the Registrars, but by the Judge of the Court, to the great satisfaction of the mercantile community. While in England, too, the Court of Admiralty had a very large business, in Ireland it had scarcely any business. These differences in circumstances necessitated differences in the provisions of the Irish Bill in some respects from those of the English. With regard to the Admiralty Court, the Government came to the conclusion that they would not be justified in keeping it up as a separate Court at an expense of upwards of £3,000 a-year, taking into account all the officials. In dealing with the three Law Courts, the Government had decided that it was not necessary to retain as many as 12 Common Law Judges if they were only to discharge the duties devolving upon them by reason of their office. It was proposed that, after diminishing the number of Common Law Judges by adding in their stead a Probate and Bankruptcy Judge, the number of Judges should ultimately be 16, and complaints were made, on the one hand, that they would be too few, and on the other, that they would be too many. The Judges, he thought, would be fully employed, and perhaps the judicial strength might be economized by having motions heard by two instead of four Judges. The power of dealing with the circuits would be left with the Lord Lieutenant, assisted by the Council of Judges. Some critics of the Bill seemed to overlook the fact that under the Bill every Judge would be a Judge both of law and equity, and that all future Judges might be sent on circuit. It was proposed to raise the salaries of the Judges from £4,000 Irish to £4,000 British money, which appeared to be a fair equivalent for £5,000 a-year paid to English Judges. In England there was no Intermediate Court of Appeal; but a Bill had been introduced to give the power of re-hearing; and it would be impos- 1267 sible to work the judicial system of Ireland without a second appeal. The cases were not of a magnitude to bear the expense of being brought at once to England, and to deny a re-hearing in Ireland would make a Court of First Instance absolute. Accordingly, the Bill would create an Intermediate Court, with special Judges—the Lord Chancellor, the present Lord Justice of Appeal, and a Lord Justice to be appointed, and, in addition, the three Chiefs of the Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer would be ex officio members of the Appellate Tribunal. By the intervention of this Court many cases would be settled without incurring the expense of bringing them to England. Criminal appeals were proposed to be sent to this Court. It might be objected that the Lord Chancellor, being a political officer, should not have jurisdiction in criminal cases; but the English Lord Chancellor was to a still greater degree a political officer, and had taken part in the trial of political cases, as in the cases of O'Connell and Smith O'Brien, and he did not see any valid objection to the Irish Lord Chancellor taking part in the trial of ordinary criminal cases. If, however, the legal Members from Ireland preferred it, this appeal would be left with the Judges of the Common Law divisions; and generally he desired to say that he was not so wedded to particular provisions of the Bill as to refuse to consider any suggestions that might be made, but matters of detail could be best dealt with in Committee.

§ MR. LAW
, after observing that he was glad to find the language of the English Judicature Act had been scrupulously adhered to in this Bill, said, that if the Irish Law Officers of the late Government had had to deal with the subject, they would have begun by providing for the absorption of the Judges, and Courts of modern creation. They would have retained the 12 Common Law Judges as these would now be ultimately retained; but they would not have first removed two of them and left their places to be supplied after an uncertain interval by the outlying Judges. 1268 Ho thought some inconvenience might arise in this respect. For example, when the last Bankruptcy Judge was transferred to the Court of Exchequer, how was bankruptcy business to be done during his absence on circuit? It appeared to him, also, that under the proposed arrangements the Chancery division would be unequal to its work; whilst to make one of the Lords Justices of Appeal available for the hearing of causes in a Court of First Instance was undesirable, and was, in fact, open to the objections taken by the present Lord Chancellor to the old Court of Exchequer Chamber. It seemed to him that the Court of Bankruptcy and the Probate Court ought to be annexed to the Chancery division. The most important feature, however, of the Bill was the constitution of the Court of Appeal. This, it was admitted on all hands, should be as strong a Court as possible. But though, by the English Act, the Master of the Polls was an ex officio member of the Supreme Court of Appeal, it appeared that the Irish Master of the Polls was not to be a member of the Irish Appellate tribunal. Now, he saw no reason why the Master of the Polls should be left out in the composition of this Court, in which he might advantageously sit as an ex officio Judge; and it should be remembered that in point of precedence he ranked next after the Lord Chief Justice. So with respect to Crown cases reserved, he could discover no sufficient ground for departing from the precedent made by the English Act, and providing that these criminal cases should be disposed of, the Court of Appeal presided over by the Chancellor. Many other matters of detail seemed to him to require further consideration, but of course there was no opposition to the second reading of the Bill, which all were glad to see at last.

§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN
regretted that the Bill, which had been put forward as a chief measure of the Session, had been brought forward at so late a period of the Session, when it was most inconvenient for Irish Members to remain in London. The main feature of the Bill was the reduction of the number of Irish Judges. This he considered as an uncalled-for step, considering the magnitude and importance of the business they had to transact, and heespecially regretted that the reduction was 1269 to be in the number of Common Law Judges, who were the Judges that brought justice home to the people. Considering jurisdiction of the Common Pleas in election cases, the removal of a Judge from that Court was particularly unfortunate. As to the proposed Court of Appeal, it should be small and made up of permanent Judges. He thought the Court of Appeal ought also to be the Court of Criminal Appeal. He hoped the Bill would come out of Committee a better measure than it now was.

THE O'CONOR DON
rose simply to refer to the Landed Estates Courts in Ireland, in which the Judge who presided had the most important duties to perform as regarded landed property. That position ought to be held by a man of the greatest eminence, and ought not to be selected from men of an inferior position at the Bar, and be paid a lower salary than the other Irish Judges.

§ MR. MELDON
said, it was the unanimous feeling of the Bar that one Judge was not sufficient for the work of the Landed Estates Court. He objected at the same time to the proposal to have only one Judge for the Court of Bankruptcy in Ireland instead of two as at present.

§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING
complained that a Bill of this importance should be discussed at that late hour of the morning. With respect to the Landed Estates Court, the Judge no doubt discharged his duties properly; but he found by a Return that no less than 1,732 cases were undisposed of in 1873, and 108 questions of abstract titles. That was a formidable arrear, and yet this Bill proposed to impose other duties upon him in addition.

§ MR. D. PLUNKET
said, he believed it was the unanimous opinion of the Judges, of the Bar, of attorneys and solicitors, and of the outside public in Ireland, that one Judge was not sufficient for the Landed Estates Court.

MR. MACARTNEY
, on behalf of the landed proprietors of Ireland, protested against the changes proposed by this Bill, and hoped the Government would re-consider the whole question.