§ MR. CALLANasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If his attention has been called to the statements in a letter which appeared in "The Times" newspaper of Monday March 6, under the heading of "Lord Justice Christian and the Irish Equity Courts," and signed "J. Christian," charging Her Majesty's Government with having revived the Second Court of Landed Estates in Ireland "against their better judgment," and with being parties to ostracising from promotion "one of the ablest of living Judges," because "he had earned the hatred of a priesthood which is a power in politics over a class which are the enemies of England;" and asked is there any truth whatever in either of these grave charges; and, if not, are Her Majesty's Government prepared to take steps to prevent the advancing of grave charges by individuals holding judicial positions in that Country?
§ MR. DISRAELIIt is not very easy for me to reply to the inquiry of the hon. Gentleman, as it involves three separate questions, and, besides three separate questions, two charges; but I will endeavour, as far as I can, to meet his wishes. He desires to know whether I have seen a letter in The Times newspaper of March 6, signed "J. Christian," containing the two charges to which he refers. I am sorry to say I was not able to see that letter, but I will assume that it has appeared as he says, and I will try to meet those two charges. The first charge is that Her Majesty's Government have "revived the Second Court of Landed Estates in Ireland against their better judgment." Upon that I will remark that the Government revived the Second Court of Landed Estates in Ireland, because there was a strong ex- 1872 pression of opinion in this House in favour of that revival, and from hon. Members of the House who on that subject spoke with authority. One of them, for example, was the hon. and learned Gentleman who occupied the position of Attorney General in the late Government, and another the hon. Member for Cork, who certainly on such matters addressed the House with considerable influence. Both of those hon. Gentlemen spoke in favour of the revival, and it is, I believe, the fact that nearly the whole body of solicitors in Ireland memorialized the Government in favour of it. I cannot therefore, agree with the gentleman who wrote the letter that the revival was against our "better judgment," but rather, I should say, in consequence of that better judgment. The next charge which is made by the letter-writer is one with which it is more difficult to deal, because the mode of expression is extremely obscure. It speaks of the Government as "being parties to ostracising from promotion one of the ablest of living Judges, because he has earned the hatred of a priesthood which is a power in politics over a class which are the enemies of England." The language of the letter, I have been told since I entered the House—for unfortunately I have not been able to obtain it—is of such a character that the imputations which it conveys seem to be directed against various Governments. Confining my answer to the present Government, I can only say that, so far from ostracising any Judges, we have made legal appointments which have, I believe, met with general approbation. Dismissing these two charges, I come to the next question, "whether there is any truth whatever in either of those grave charges;" and after the remarks which I have already made the hon. Gentleman will, I think, not be surprised if I observe that there is no truth whatever in them. Then the hon. Gentleman wants to know, if there be no truth in them, "whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to take steps to prevent the advancing of grave charges by individuals holding judicial positions in that country." I have only to say on that subject that I think a Government should avoid as much as possible entering into controversy with those who use certain expressions in high judicial positions. I would trust rather to their 1873 own sense of propriety on reflection, and to the dignity of the office which they occupy.