§ MR. BUTTsaid, he had given Notice of several important Amendments, the discussion of which would occupy some time, and he hoped the Bill would not be proceeded with to-day. There were many Irish Members absent who would wish to take part in the debate who could not, under the circumstances, be expected to be present.
§ MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCKdeprecated any further delay. There were plenty of Irish Members present, the Bill had been long before the House, and the Amendments that had to be considered had been for weeks on the Paper.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, he should be sorry to do anything unreasonable which would inconvenience Irish Members; but, at the same time, he would suggest that they should proceed with the Bill until they arrived at some point which was likely to create prolonged discussion. He hoped no opposition would be made to that proposal.
§ MR. BERESFORD HOPEI rise to Order. Perhaps you, Sir, will be able to explain. I see that there is Notice of opposition to this Bill on the Paper, as well as to some subsequent Business, and I respectfully ask whether, as it is after half-past 12 o'clock of the night between Tuesday and Wednesday, these matters can be brought on?
§ MR. SPEAKERIt is not easy to form an opinion upon the application of the Rule in the peculiar circumstances in which the House is now placed, and there being a doubt on the question, I think that it should be resolved in favour of freedom of action on the part of the House.
MR. SULLIVANsaid, he should vote against proceeding with the Bill under the peculiar circumstances in which they stood that night. [Laughter.] Yes; it was Tuesday night. It was impossible for the House to ignore the fact that it had been sitting for nearly 24 hours; and although it had been enabled to accomplish this by the plan of arranging relays of 50 or 60 Members 305 at a time—which he admitted was quite right, as all was fair in war—he, nevertheless, submitted that it was hardly reasonable to attempt to deal with a Bill of the gravity attaching to the measure before the House under the circumstances he had alluded to.
§ SIR HENRY JAMES,who admitted that the greatest respect was due to the opinions expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), and also the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken, nevertheless expressed a hope that the Bill would be proceeded with. He quite agreed with the observations of the last speaker that the House could not forget what had taken place during the last two or three and twenty hours, and it was with a full recollection of that that he trusted the House would go on with the Bill. If they did not proceed with it, they would virtually be giving effect to the tactics which they had sat so long to defeat. It was precisely in consequence of what had so recently occurred that the House desired to protest against anything which should have the effect of giving the slightest success to the tactics he referred to; and he hoped that Her Majesty's Government would proceed with the measure, and that in doing so they would receive the support of the House.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, that as he had taken some interest in this Bill, he perhaps might be allowed to express the opinion that there was no reason why they should not endeavour to make some progress with the Bill. He did not see that they were likely to have a better opportunity than they then had of making progress with the measure. Irish Bills were usually brought on very late at night, and he had from time to time protested against the bringing on both of English and Irish measures at a late hour. For so doing, he had incurred the censure of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury and front Opposition benches, and in other parts of the House; but, as it was now only half-past 2 o'clock, the day was still young, and there was really no reason why they should not be able to give their attention to the clauses of the Bill —at least, there was no reason but one, and that perhaps might not be deemed of very great importance—he alluded to the spirit and tone of the House. He thought that the House—and in saying 306 this he was speaking of the hon. Members who had taken part in the proceedings of last night and that day—he thought the House was scarcely in a frame of mind to take part with proper effect in deliberations on the Irish Judicature Bill. He was, however, disposed to think that this frame of mind might not be of much importance; because he had noticed that when Irish Bills were brought forward the House was generally conspicuous by its absence, except when the division bell was rung, and hon. Members on both sides rushed in to vote as the Whips directed them. Therefore, he thought that the frame of mind which, he was sorry to say, appeared to possess the House, was probably not of much importance as regarded the deliberations on this Bill. He thought, as they had an opportunity of getting on with the measure, they might make progress with it for a couple of hours—the present opportunity being the last they were likely to get on any other day of the Session if the Bill was really intended to pass. At the same time, he would point out to the Attorney General for Ireland that he ought to try and adjust his means to his ends; and if he did not think he could get through the Bill with all the numerous Amendments that were on the Paper, and others that it might be necessary to introduce, it would perhaps be better not to proceed with the measure any further this Session. This, however, was entirely a question for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider. He knew the time the Government had at its disposal for the consideration of the Bill during the remainder of the Session, and upon him, therefore, rested the responsibility as to whether the time spent upon the Bill should be wasted or not, or whether the Bill should be pressed forward until it could be passed. It was a new revelation for the House to have an Irish Bill brought forward at this period of the Session; but with regard to the question on which he had risen, he thought that they might fairly make some progress with the Bill.
THE O'DONOGHUEI rise for the purpose of pointing out that the statement made by the hon. Member for Meath is, like most of his statements in reference to the conduct of Public Business in this House, perfectly inaccurate. 307 The hon. Gentleman has stated that it is the habit of hon. Members to come in at the sound of the division bell and vote as the Whips direct. That is the baseless claptrap used by those who seek to discredit the conduct of Business in this House.
§ MR. PARNELLI wish to ask you, Sir, whether the words of the hon. Gentleman are in Order?
§ MR. SPEAKERI see nothing out of Order in the words used by the hon. Member.
THE O'DONOGHUEIt is a very exceptional circumstance for any question to come before this House which hon. Members have not had before them for a considerable period, and had the fullest opportunity of considering both the main points and the Amendments.
§ CAPTAIN NOLANsaid, he had often been at the door of the House when the Whips were asked by hon. Members whether they were "ayes" or "noes." It was perfectly impossible that this should not happen with a large Party; but how an affirmation to that effect could be described as baseless claptrap he could not imagine. He suggested that the Bill should be postponed, and that another Irish Bill—the County Courts Bill—should be taken.
THE O'DONOGHUEdid not deny that the Whips were asked questions; but he objected to any statement from which it might be inferred that votes were given by direction the first time a question came before the Committee.
§ Bill, as amended, considered.
§ MR. MELDONmoved, in page 38, after Clause 59, to insert the following new clause:—
(In every Court where there shall be jury trials there shall be Official Shorthand Writers.)To every Court of the High Court of Justice in which jury trials shall be held there shall be attached an Official Shorthand Writer, who shall be appointed by the President of each Division, and on each Circuit there shall be appointed two Official Shorthand Writers who shall be appointed by the senior going Judge of Assize on the Circuit on which the vacancy may arise.The hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out that it was a most important clause, and that it would benefit suitors and economise the judicial strength.
§ Clause brought up, and read the first time.
308§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)questioned whether the adoption of the clause would confer the benefits stated, and hoped that it would not be adopted, as in its present form it would certainly cause much expense to suitors.
§ After short discussion,
§ SIB MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHsaid, he thought some words might be inserted which would enable a step to be taken in the direction indicated where it was thought desirable, but it must involve a very unnecessary expense if a large number of such fixed salaried officers were appointed.
§ MR. M'LARENtestified that great economy resulted from the employment of shorthand writers in Scotland. All that was needed was an enabling power.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Clause 4 (Union of existing Courts into one Supreme Court of Judicature).
§ MR. BUTTmoved the omission of "the Landed Estates Court." He objected to the increase of the salaries of the Judges of that Court from £3,000 to £3,500 a-year, and making them Judges of the Supreme Court. He sketched the constitution of the Court in 1849, and the qualifications of the Judges on their appointment as Commissioners at £2,000. There was no reason for raising the salaries now. Neither would have been appointed directly to such a position, and he therefore designated it as a job to elevate them gradually and to raise their salaries in a measure of law reform. It was a serious question whether the system of the Court should be continued, because great mistakes had been committed, and the estate of one man had been sold to defray the debts of another. The reading of titles entrusted to the Examiners was so important a matter that a Judge ought to devote his whole time to it, and ought not to have his mind distracted by liability to judicial duties, which, besides, there was no necessity to assign them. It was impossible to adopt a more injudicious way of creating Judges. It was lowering the dignity of the Bench, and it was increasing expenditure need- 309 lessly, for the salaries were much less while the duties were more onerous. The Bill was not receiving adequate discussion; but, if the Government were determined to pass it, he supposed it must pass, although it might require immediate amendment.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 2, to leave out the words " and the Landed Estates Court."—(Mr. Butt.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to Be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. CHARLES LEWISsaid, he had never listened to a more inconsistent speech than that delivered by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Butt), who had magnified the duties of the office of the Judges of the Landed Estates Court, and then had scornfully spoken of the addition of £500 a-year as a monstrous job, and that the Bill should be stopped in order to prevent the job being perpetrated. The attack of the hon. and learned Member was not upon the system, but it was a personal attack upon the Judges. [Mr. BUTT: No, no!] He said that neither of the two gentlemen who filled the offices of Judges would have been selected by the voice of the Profession as competent to perform the duties.
§ MR. BUTTMay I explain —and everybody in Ireland knows it—that at the time that those gentlemen were appointed, if salaries of £3,500 and the position of a Judge at the Supreme Court of Judicature had been attached, the present gentlemen would never have been appointed. Men of far different standing would have been appointed.
§ MR. CHARLES LEWISremarked, that that only showed that a great many other persons' mouths would have watered for their positions. He dared say that a great many competitors of the two learned Judges, if the salaries had been £3,500 when originally nominated, would have wished to occupy their place; but was that an argument for abstracting the Court from the High Court of Justices? It seemed to him that there was something more behind this very elaborate attack on the Landed Estates Court and its present Judges; and he wanted to know from the hon. and learned Gentlemen what was the meaning of those two Judges being treated with so much scorn and contempt? Those Judges had 310 a most serious responsibility put upon their shoulders, and any want of time or attention might transfer an estate from one person to another, and the hon. and learned Member had told them that this had been done once. The most eminent conveyancers must have made mistakes; but in the whole course of 26 years the hon. and learned Member could only point to one mistake. Was that any justification for an elaborate attack, not only upon the system of the Court, but on the present Judges? He invited any legal Member who had anything to say against the professional character of the two Judges to say it openly and distinctly, and not in any covert way. He was amazed at the hon. and learned Member making such an attack on two Judges without so much as a scintilla of a fact to support it. He was himself no slavish admirer of Judges, for he had frequently said that they were not immaculate, for though they wore the ermine they were just as liable to mistakes as other mortals; but he challenged any hon. Member to say, as regarded Judge Flanagan, a man of a most excellent capacity and distinguished character, whether he did not discharge his duties in a becoming manner; and he was afraid that the hon. and learned Member must have heard his rumours amongst the disappointed and envious in the Four Courts, which he ought to have kept there and not have repeated in that House.
§ MR. MELDONsaid, he had listened to the hon. and learned Member for Limerick, and he had failed to hear anything which reflected upon the Judges who administered the Landed Estates in Ireland. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Limerick that the Landed Estates Court was formed for a special purpose, with special functions of a most important character, and these functions would be most materially interfered with if this Bill passed. The Landed Estates Court was formed at a particular crisis of Irish history, when large numbers of Irish estates were greatly encumbered, and the functions of the Court were really to sell the lands and get rid of the incumbrances. There was no necessity for those two Judges being attached to the High Court of Chancery. That was no reflection upon the Judges themselves. Judge Flanagan was probably more experienced before he was 311 appointed one of the Judges of the Landed Estates Court than any man in Ireland, and the present Judge Ormsby, on matters of title and things of that kind, discharged his functions better, probably, than any other man. But he did not see why large salaries should be given to them, and he feared that great injury would be done to the property in Ireland by giving them extra duties to perform.
§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGcertainly thought that the hon. and learned Member for Limerick had made a personal attack on the two Judges. He had had considerable experience of the way in which these Judges had performed their duties, and he could say that Judge Flanagan was a very distinguished member of the Court, and Judge Ormsby had discharged his functions to the satisfaction of the public at large. They examined for themselves those points in the titles to which their attention was called by the examiners. They could not have neglected their duties if they had committed only one mistake in 26 years. He did not think that it was fair or just to attack the character of a judicial officer, and it was the duty of every Irish Member to try and elevate the position and sustain the honour of those who held high judicial positions in Ireland.
§ MR. KING-HARMANtestified that the Judges discharged their duties laboriously and efficiently.
§ MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCKobserved that the propriety of giving the Judges new duties was fair material for discussion, but to impute to them that they were not fit to perform these duties was an allegation entirely destitute of foundation. The Judges had additional salaries given to them, because they had additional duties imposed on them by this Bill; they had to take their share of the business of the Court of Chancery, and to go Circuit when requested. To say that these Judges did not read the titles, but left them to a subordinate officer, was a grave charge which ought to be answered, and the answer he gave to it was that there was not one particle of foundation for the statement. He had practised before them, frequently on questions of title arising on the abstracts before the Court, and he invariably found them giving the greatest possible attention to every 312 minute detail, and exhibiting such an intimate acquaintance with the titles before him, as could only have been acquired by a most careful perusal. The mistake referred to had no connection with the personal duties of the Judges, it occurred in a case in which there was personation, which might have been committed in any Court.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, the question was whether the Landed Estates Court, which had been described by one of their most eminent Judges as "An excrescence of their judicial system," should remain isolated, or brought into harmony with the High Court of Justice in Ireland? He ventured to put it broadly that it was desirable, when they were re-organizing the judicial system, to gather all the Courts together. Her Majesty's Government had determined that the Landed Estates Court should no longer remain an excrescence of the judicial system. Its jurisdiction was very wide and its importance could hardly be exaggerated. It came upon him by surprise to hear, and it was quite inaccurate to state, that these learned Judges did not read the abstracts of titles. At present a very substantial and large part of the business of the learned Judges was transacted in their own Chambers and involved inquiries into titles. It was necessary for them, for the due discharge of their duties, to exercise the powers of the Court of Chancery. If it became necessary, one of these Judges could go Circuit. The reasons for making those Judges members of the High Court appeared unanswerable, when their new duties and enlarged jurisdiction were considered.
§ MR. BUTTsaid, it was hopeless to go to a division; but by every word that he had uttered he would abide.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. BIGGARmoved the insertion of words which would have the effect of bringing the Bankruptcy Courts in Ireland and their officials within the general scope of the Bill.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 3, to leave out the word "Court," in order to insert the words "Bankruptcy Court."—(Mr. Biggar.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
313§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)replied that this very point was considered in the Judicature Bill for England; but it was found advisable to omit the Bankruptcy Court. The Irish Bankruptcy Court was worked most efficiently and more cheaply than that of England, and it was thought that it was better to leave untouched a Court which was working so well, and accordingly it was not introduced into this Bill.
§ MR. M'LARENexplained that bankruptcy was managed by one Court in Scotland at about half the cost of bankruptcy proceedings in Ireland.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Clause 6 (Constitution of High Court of Justice in Ireland.)
§ MR. PARNELLsuggested that the number of the Judges in the Landed Estates Court should be reduced to one. Two highly paid Judges were quite unnecessary, the duties of the office could be carried out in a more satisfactory way if instead of one of them a lawyer of experience was appointed. He moved, therefore, an Amendment providing that when any vacancy occurred a Royal Commission should inquire whether or no the staff could not be reduced.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 4, line 29, after the word "patent," to insert the words " Provided always, the vacancy thus occasioned shall not be filled up until a Commission shall have been issued by Her Majesty under Her Royal Sign Manual to ascertain and report whether the business in connection "with the Division of the High Court of Justice (hereinafter termed the Chancery Division) makes it requisite that such appointment should be made, nor until the expiration of a period of forty days after the date of such report, if Parliament be then sitting, and if Parliament be not then sitting, until the expiration of a period of forty days after the commencement of the then next Session of Parliament."— (Mr. Parnell.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGpointed out that this subject had been fully discussed at a previous stage, and to discuss it now would be sheer waste of time.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)observed that, irrespective of the appointment of a Royal Commission, Government would 314 be bound, in the event of a vacancy taking place, to consider the desirability of filling it.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 7, to leave out from the word "up," to the word "Parliament," in line 15, inclusive.—(Mr. Parnell.)
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 6, line 19, to leave out the words "and none other, as if this Act had not been passed," in line 20, in order to insert the words " till altered as by this Act directed."—(Mr. Biggar.)
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§ Amendment made.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, that the Attorney General for Ireland had proposed to go on with this Bill for two hours or so; and two hours having expired, he moved the adjournment of the debate.
§ MR. SPEAKERI have to point out to the hon. Member that at the present moment there is no debate to adjourn.
§ Clause 8 (As to Judges of Court of Bankruptcy).
§ MR. MELDONmoved, in page 6, line 32, after "Act," to insert—
Every order of the Judges of the said Court made on appeal from any order of a chairman may be appealed from to the Court of Appeal constituted by this Act, in the same manner as appeals from other orders of the said Court.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 9 (Existing Judge of Admiralty).
§ MR. BIGGARmoved an Amendment to limit the patronage in reference to the appointment of Judges in the Irish Admiralty Court.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 34, to leave out the words "rights of patronage."—(Mr. Biggar.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)opposed the Amendment.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 155; Noe 1: Majority 154.—(Div. List, No. 289.)
§ NOE—Nolan, Captain
§ TELLERS—Mr. Biggar and Mr. Parnell.
§ Clause 10 (Constitution of Court of Appeal).
§ MR. BIGGARmoved to reduce the number of extra Judges of Appeal to be appointed under the Act by one.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 5, to leave out the word "two," in order to insert the word "one."— (Mr. Biggar.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'two' stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. BUTTremarked that they were not under the customary Rule requiring the adjournment of the House at 6 o'clock on Wednesday.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERAccording to the strict Rules of the House, there is no limit to this Sitting. The intention of the Government, however, is that we should adjourn at the usual time for rising on Wednesday—6 o'clock—and I think before that time we shall be able to make considerable progress.
§ MR. PARNELLOn rising to move the adjournment of the debate I wish to point out that the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is by inadvertence contrary to a statement of the Attorney General for Ireland, who said at the commencement of the debate that he desired to go on for two hours or so. [Interruptions.] Well, this is a question of some interest to us, though I do not suppose the matters arising in the Bill are of any interest to Englishmen. My desire is that this Bill should be discussed when the Committee is in a frame of mind in which they might be able to do some justice to it.
§ CAPTAIN NOLANseconded the Motion.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." —(Mr. Parnell.)
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)I spoke in general terms, saying I think that in two or three hours we might advance sufficiently far with the Bill, and the three hours are not up yet.
MR. GOLDSMIDI think it is the duty of the Government to decline to adjourn at all until after the Business is concluded. After the proceedings of the hon. Member who sits beside me (Mr. Parnell) and of the hon. Member who sits behind me (Mr. Biggar), I do not think we ought to consider their personal convenience at all. It appears to me that we should now finish the Orders of the Day for Tuesday, although we are sitting on Wednesday, even if we sit till 12 o'clock—and if we are kept till that hour, so much the worse for these hon. Members and so much the better for the House—because it would show that the House is not going to be overruled in the management of its Business by two or three Members who speak on every question—those they do not understand as well as those they do understand. I would further add that a long list of Amendments has been proposed by the hon. Member behind me (Mr. Biggar) touching matters of law, though he knows no more about law than I do about medicine, and that appears to be an additional proof that certain hon. Members are in the practice of abusing the Rules of the House for the purpose of speaking on every question at enormous length without understanding the subject upon which they address the House. I therefore hope that instead of stopping in half-an-hour we shall go on.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwould say a few words in answer to the hon. Member for Rochester. The Government did not propose for the convenience of hon. Members to adjourn; but they had to consider the general convenience of hon. Members, and they must have some regard to the convenience of the officers of the House. On Wednesday it was the usual practice to conclude their Business at a quarter to 6 or 6 o'clock, and he saw no reason, in the circumstances of to-day, for extending their discussions beyond that time. They therefore thought it reasonable that the Business on the Paper should be carried on as far as it was possible to do within the time. Then they had to regard the wish expressed by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Butt), to whom they owed some consideration. The hon. and learned Member had said that it would not be convenient that there should be a discussion of his Amend- 317 ment on Clause 13 at this time, if there was not a fair chance of carrying it to a conclusion. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought, therefore, that the proposal of the Government was a reasonable one. Of course, the House would understand what the real nature of that proposal was. They thought it would be desirable to go on until they reached that Amendment; and, according to the usual reckoning, they believed it would be perfectly possible to do that within the time he had named. Therefore, he proposed that the House should go on with the Amendments on Clause 10 or 11, or on whatever other clause there were Amendments, and stop when they reached the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick. If there was any further Business on the Paper they would go on with it.
§ MR. PARNELLrose amid cries of "Spoke!" "Oh, oh!" and "Order!"
§ MR. SPEAKERDoes the hon. Member wish to withdraw the Motion?
§ MR. PARNELLI do, Sir.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ SIR HENRY JAMESpointed out that the effect of the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Biggar) would be that they would have one Judge sitting in appeal over three Judges in the Court below. He trusted the Amendment would not be accepted.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)also opposed the Amendment.
§ Question put, "That the word 'two' stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 155; Noe 1: Majority 154.—(Div. List, No. 290.)
§ NOE—Nolan, Captain
§ TELLERS—Mr. Biggar and Mr. Parnell.
§ Further Proceeding deferred till Tomorrow.