HC Deb 06 July 1877 vol 235 cc854-64

(Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)

COMMITTEE. [Progress 26th June.]

Bill considered in Committee.

Clause 13 (Tenure of office of Judges, and oaths of office).

DR. WARD

moved, in page 9, at end, to add— No Judge of the High Court of Justice, while he continues such Judge, shall hereafter be appointed to any place of profit under the Crown other than a judicial appointment.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)

assented to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

DR. WARD

moved to add a Proviso that no Judge of the Supreme Court other than the Lord Chancellor should continue to be a member of any Board of Commissioners, or other Board exercising any public trust. The hon. Member questioned the propriety of a Judge acting upon Boards where he was obliged to take part in controversy relating sometimes to political as well as social questions. He was thus reduced from a high administrator of the law to a mere partizan, and the popular feeling obtained that he carried any bias he might have to the Bench.

Amendment proposed, In page 9, after the word "appointment," at the end of the last Amendment, to add the words "No Judge of the High Court of Justice, other than the Lord Chancellor, shall be or continue to be a member of any board of Commissioners, or other body exercising any public trust, and all Acts of Parliament constituting any of the Judges members of any such board of Commissioners, or other public body, shall be and the same are hereby repealed, so far as such appointments are concerned: Provided always, That nothing herein contained shall affect any appointment already made, or any act done in pursuance of any appointment already made." (Dr. Ward.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN

said' he had long been of opinion that Judges ought to be confined to judicial duties, and should not be members of Boards where political questions were sometimes discussed. He hoped, therefore, the Amendment would be accepted.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)

said, none of the Judges in Ireland got even one shilling for what they did on these Boards. They gave the advantage of their judicial experience and training to the consideration of questions which came before the Boards of which they were members, and he did not think any reasonable and fair objection could be raised against them. It would be unwise to lay down any hard-and-fast rule that they should never serve as Commissioners, especially on the Board of Charitable Donations and Bequests, where their legal experience was no doubt of great value and utility. On the Education Board, also, their judicial training might make them useful members. It would be better to leave these appointments to the discretion of the Executive. He hoped the Committee would not support the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.

MR. MUNTZ

said, the arguments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General for Ireland) had convinced him of the necessity for the Amendment. Supposing a Judge sat as a Commissioner on some Board in Ireland, and a case came before him concerning the decisions of that Board, how was it possible for him to give an unbiassed decision? If we did not require them to sit in England on public Boards, why should we in Ireland? He thought that it would only be an act of justice to agree to the Amendment.

MR. RICHARD SMYTH

thought that whatever opinion a Judge might hold as a Commissioner, it would not prevent him deciding with justice when a case was argued before him in Court. He did not think the Executive in Ireland had pushed partizan appointments from the Bench in Ireland so far as to demand legislative interference in the manner suggested by the Amendment. He thought it unwise, so long as the Judges were willing to undertake the duties, for the country to deny itself their services.

MR. HOPWOOD

supported the Amendment. In England the feeling strongly was that Judges should be Judges, and nothing else, and he was always in favour of making the same law for Ireland as for England. It would be dangerous to allow a Judge to place himself in a false position by reason of having already expressed an opinion upon a point raised in his Court.

MR. O'DONNELL

supported the Amendment. As long as the appointment of Judges was open to suspicion it would be impossible there could be confidence in the administration of justice, and the respect due to the office of Judge. It was impossible that the Judges could maintain that position and respect as long as they were chosen from benefice holders, or were members of such bodies as the Education Commission, on which they must take sides, and it was well known that they were appointed by the Government of the day for political considerations. On these grounds the present system was indefensible.

DR. WARD

said, his object in moving the Amendment was to prevent the Executive from taking from the Judicial Bench men to do partizan work on political Boards.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, that the Amendment, instead of assimilating the law between the two countries, would vary it. Judges were appointed on Commissions in England. The Lord Chief Justice was appointed one of the University Commissioners, and the Master of the Rolls was a Patent Commissioner.

MR. BUTT

said, they were not speaking of Commission Judges; they might be appointed as Commissioners of Charitable Bequests and Donations, which was analogous to the Charity Commissioners in England. But would it be tolerated that a Judge should be made a Charity Commissioner? He maintained that under the existing state of things the Judicial Bench in Ireland was placed in a position in which it ought not to be placed. The Judges regarded an appointment to some of these Boards a compliment from the Government, and Judges had no right to accept compliments from the Government. He desired the Irish Judges as free from every political, and even social, movement as were the Judges in England. It was the object of all legislation that Judges should be kept free from every influence which could in any way tend to bias their judgment.

CAPTAIN NOLAN

pointed out that Judges who were appointed to try Election Petitions might also be members of the Education Board, where they would, have to decide on what were often political questions. It was evident that such a position of things would be undesirable, and place in a false position both Judges and Members of Parliament.

MR. BIGGAR

suggested that there should be a certain staff of paid Commissioners, and that Judges should be confined to their official work. It was evident that there were more Judges than were sufficient, or else the Judges in England must be very much overworked. If there were a paid body of Commissioners, perhaps the number of Judges might still be further reduced.

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY,

with reference to what had been said as to the freedom of the English Judges from contact with political matters, said, that not long ago he had himself the honour of serving on a Commission upon a question which excited political feeling. Out of the eight members of that Commission two were learned Judges, who were among its most useful members. There were many Acts under which Judges had been appointed Commissioners, and if the Amendment were passed as it stood it would have the effect of repealing those Acts so far as regarded those Commissioners.

SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN

proposed to amend the Amendment by excepting from its operation those Judges already appointed.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 133: Majority 70.—(Div. List, No. 219.)

Clause agreed to.

Clause 14 (Precedence of Judges) agreed to.

Clause 15 (Saving of rights and obligations of existing Judges) agreed to.

Clause 16 (Provisions for extraordinary duties of Judges of the former Courts) agreed to.

Clause 17 (Salaries of certain existing Judges).

MR. PARNELL,

in moving, in page 11, line 9, to leave out "four thousand," and insert "three thousand five hundred," said, that he did not desire to take the money out of Ireland. There were the Irish National teachers who might be benefited. They were overworked, but they were not paid too high salaries, because it was not to the advantage of the Government of the day to overpay them. In Ireland Judges were paid much larger salaries in proportion than were Judges in England. Whereas in England a barrister of good standing deliberately forfeited a certain amount of his income when he accepted a seat on the Judicial Bench, in Ireland, with but few exceptions, a barrister who was raised to the Bench received a higher salary than he could possibly earn at his profession.

MR. BUTT

said, no such proposition was ever made before as that of the hon. Member to cut down the salary on which a Judge had accepted office. The Amendment would be applicable to the next clause, which dealt with future salaries.

MR. PARNELL

acknowledged that he had made a mistake in moving his Amendment to the 17th clause, and would therefore withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 18 (Salaries of future Judges).

MR. PARNELL

moved, in page 11, line 29, to leave out "four thousand six hundred," and insert "four thousand."

MR. BUTT

said, there were several eminent men at the Bar who had not come into Parliament who would lose considerably if they were to accept £4,000 a-year. He would not advocate the spending of a penny in Ireland unnecessarily, because patronage in the past had been a great evil; but he did not think £4,000 a-year was enough to enable these Judges to maintain the dignity of their station.

MR. BIGGAR

thought £4,000 sufficient, and deprecated high salaries as likely to produce political barristers rather than eminent jurists.

CAPTAIN NOLAN

said, they had voted for a reduction of the Judges and for economy in several respects. They had also voted for cutting down perquisites of public functionaries. There was a general idea that Judges ought to be well paid, and they did not wish to see their dignity lowered.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)

was quite sure that hon. Members did not wish to lower the dignity of the Irish Judges; and to say that £4,600 a-year was too much for the Chief Judges would be indeed to lower their dignity.

MR. PARNELL

said, he felt that he ought to take a division on the Vote; and he could not agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, nor with the hon. and learned Member for Limerick. He would not, however, press his Amendment, and would withdraw it with the consent of the Committee.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. PARNELL

then moved, in page 11, line 31, to leave out from "such," to "Act," in line 34, inclusive, and insert "three thousand five hundred pounds a-year."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)

defended the Vote, and asked whether it was worth while, considering the importance of the Judges of the Court of Appeal, to cut the salaries down?

MAJOR O'GORMAN

said, there was not a man at the Irish Bar at this moment who if he were offered £2,500 a-year would not jump at it. But what can we expect? We have Judges in Ireland who have sat here as Members of what was called the "Pope's Band"—men who incited the people to go about by night and commit murder. ["Order!"] They are on the Bench this moment. ["No, no!"] It cannot be denied, and has never been denied. I can bring the very words. "The nights are short in June; the nights are long in December," and the man who made use of that language was now on the Irish Bench. ["Order!"]

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

I appeal to you, Sir, whether it is competent to the hon. and gallant Member to say that a Judge sitting on the Bench has incited to murder?

THE CHAIRMAN

The observations which have been addressed to the Committee by the hon. and gallant Member are certainly exceedingly unusual—

MAJOR O'GORMAN

Very likely. They are true. ["Order!"]

THE CHAIRMAN

At the same time, I am not prepared to say that it is not competent to a Member speaking in his place in Parliament with a due sense of his responsibility to bring a charge, however serious, against any public functionary, however important; but I think it my duty to point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the great responsibility of using such language.

MAJOR O'GORMAN

I accept the responsibility. I am here to accept it, and to declare openly, before this House and before all England, that there is a man on the Irish Bench at this moment—["Order!"]

THE CHAIRMAN

The Question before the Committee—

MAJOR O'GORMAN

Hear, hear!

THE CHAIRMAN

I would point out that it is the custom of this House to treat the Chair with respect. The Question before the Committee is the salary of a Judge. [Major O'GORMAN: Aye, aye.] The Amendment now before the Committee is an Amendment touching the salary of the Judge of the Court of Appeal to be appointed under this Act, and the hon. and gallant Member's observations touching the conduct of other Judges are clearly beside the question.

MAJOR O'GORMAN

I do not think so, Sir—["Order"]—and I beg—["Order"]—well, then, Sir, I beg leave to say most distinctly that there is not a single Member of this House who is more ready to pay greater respect than I am prepared to give to you, Sir; and if I have in the slightest degree wandered away from that path, I sincerely beg your pardon and the pardon of the House. But, Sir, there is a broader scope in this Vote than what appears upon the Paper, and it is with respect to that that I think I am entitled to say a few words. The Question before the House is the salaries of Irish Judges, is it not? Am I to be confined in my observations to the simple question as to what shall be paid to a particular Judge? I sincerely hope not. I hope the House will permit me to say a few words on the general question. ["No, no!"] No, no! I say that comes from the right hon. and learned Member from my own county of Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen). I am astonished at that observation of "No, no," from him—indeed, and indeed I am. I am very much astonished, and I should be very much astonished also if his constituents are not also astonished. When the House is asked to vote these thousands, I say what they receive at this moment is quite enough. Why, there is not a man at the Irish Bar, beginning with Serjeant Armstrong—who, I believe, receives from his Profession the highest emoluments—who would not jump at an offer of a seat on the Bench with £3,000 a-year.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, he thought the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Meath was a reasonable one, and he should therefore support it. The Chairman had allowed other speakers to-night considerable latitude, and therefore his hon. and gallant Friend (Major O'Gorman) naturally thought that a similar latitude would be extended to him. The hon. Member was proceeding with his remarks, when—

THE CHAIRMAN

twice ruled that he was out of Order, and he at last sat down.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

was opposed to small reductions in the salaries of Judges, and he was equally opposed to the multiplication of such offices. He contended that Irish Judges should be as well paid as those of England and the same thing applied to Scotland. He would have them confined to their judicial functions, but he would give them salaries that would make them easy in their circumstances. [Major O'GORMAN laughed.] My hon. and gallant Friend laughs; but he must know that Judges have a certain position to maintain, and often large families to educate, and that the due discharge of judicial functions eminently demands a mind free from unnecessary cares.

MAJOR O'GORMAN

The hon. Member says Judges have large families. Well, Sir, I am a member of a Board of Guardians, and I can tell him there are lots of paupers who have very large families.

MR. BIGGAR

supported the Amendment.

MR. COURTNEY

opposed the Amendment, and remarked that the fact that the House had listened to the serious charges made by the hon. and gallant Member (Major O'Gorman) was due to the feeling that there was a certain amount of truth in them. The hon. Member was proceeding to speak of the duties of Irish Judges, when—

THE CHAIRMAN

pointed out to the hon. Member that he was committing the same breach of Order as that for which the hon. and gallant Member (Major O'Gorman) had been called to Order.

MR. BUTT

said, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major O'Gorman) knew nothing of the Bar and the Bench. He (Mr. Butt) opposed the Amendment, on the ground that it would tend to lower the dignity of the Bench. He objected to the statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman that any man at the Irish Bar would jump at £2,500 a-year. The hon. and gallant Gentleman knew nothing about it. His statement was not true.

MAJOR O'GORMAN

I beg pardon; I shall not allow the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that I know nothing about it—I do know something about it. ["Order!"]

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. and gallant Gentleman can make any remarks he likes in reply; but he must allow the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Butt) to finish his speech.

MR. BUTT

I have a right to say he knows nothing about it. I base that assertion on what he said, which he never would have said if he knew anything about it. These attacks on the Irish Bench and these attempts to lower its dignity are most improper.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The question before the Committee is not the conduct of the Irish Bench, but the appointment of a particular Judge.

MAJOR O'GORMAN

Hear, hear!

MR. BUTT

I bow to your decision, Sir; but I was speaking in depreciation of these attacks on the Irish Judges with a view to diminishing their salaries. I think it would be better not to divide the Committee on this question, but to throw the responsibility on those persons upon whom it really rests.

SIR HENRY JACKSON

said, the salary of a Judge ought to be such as would secure the services of the best lawyers, and as would prevent the possibility of any temptation to corruption. It was also reasonable that a Judge of higher rank should receive a salary in proportion to the dignity of the office he holds. No doubt men could always be found ready to undertake the work for less than the present salaries; but nothing could be worse than that judicial emoluments should be determined by lawyers underbidding each other, and something ought to be left to the responsibility of a Government which had certainly shown itself adverse to the payment of high judicial salaries. He suggested that his hon. Friend behind him should not divide the Committee on the point, but should throw the responsibility of fixing the amount of the salary upon Her Majesty's Government.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

objected to the salaries of the Irish Judges being reduced, as long as those salaries were voted by an English Parliament.

MR. WHALLEY

was understood to denounce the attempt of the Government to obtain power and influence in Ireland by increasing the number of appointments and by giving undue salaries.

MR. PULESTON

rose to Order, appealing to the Chair whether the hon. Member's remarks were not wide of the question before the Committee?

THE CHAIRMAN

said, there was no doubt the remarks of the hon. Member did not strictly confine themselves to the Amendment, and they certainly did not refer to the Motion to report Progress.

MR. WHALLEY

I am very much obliged to you, Sir, for cutting short the observations I was not prepared to make. My observations were called forth by something like surprise—for it is a most gratifying surprise to find the hon. Member for Meath and others taking the line of economy.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Whalley.)

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

urged that before Progress was reported the Committee should come to a decision on the Amendment, which it had already fully discussed.

MR. PARNELL

said, he did not intend to take a division on the question, and he hoped the hon. Member for Peterborough would not persevere in his Motion to report Progress.

THE CHAIRMAN

asked, whether the hon. Member for Peterborough wished to withdraw his Motion to report Progress.

MR. WHALLEY

No.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 5; Noes 203: Majority 198.—(Div. List, No. 220.)

Amendment (Mr. Parnell), by leave, withdrawn.

SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN (for Mr. Law)

moved, in page 11, line 34, after "Act," to insert "to the Master of the Rolls the same salary as at present."

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that, while he was not at present prepared to assent to the proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he would consider it before the Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.