Commons Sitting of 22 June 1877

MINUTES
"—PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution [June 21] reported—Ordered—First Reading—East India Loan* [215].
Second Reading—County Officers and Courts (Ireland) [67].
Select Committee—Report—New Forest* [No. 281]; Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) (re-comm.)* [No. 283].
Committee—Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) (re-comm.) [184]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Roads and Bridges (Scotland)* [65–214]; Royal Irish Constabulary* [203].
Third Reading—Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London)* [179], and passed,; Colonial Fortifications [174], debate adjourned.
The House met at Two of the clock.

QUESTION.
  ARMY PROMOTION—THE WARRANT.

    QUESTION.
    SIR PATRICK O'BRIENasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in the event of the recommendations of the Army Promotion and Retirement Commission being carried out in their entirety, the promotion of the officers of the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers will in a short time be from four to six years behind that of the Line; and, if so, will he take steps for such a revision of the scheme as might prevent this injustice being done to the scientific corps?
    MR. GATHORNE HARDY,in reply, said, that he hoped to lay the Warrant which he had prepared, containing the Regulations, on the Table in July, and when they were there the hon. Baronet would find that the recommendations of the Commission had been carried out.

  ROADS AND BRIDGES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I think it may be for the convenience of the Scotch Members if I state the course that the Government wish to take with regard to the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Bill, which stands second on the list of Orders to-day. The Amendments, a considerable number of which appear
    156
    on the Paper, are now all before the Government. I therefore propose to commit the Bill pro formâ to-day, in order that the Government may take all these Amendments into their consideration, and see what they can accept, and what they will feel bound to oppose.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

    SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) (re-committed) BILL.— [Bill 184.]
    (Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
    COMMITTEE. [Progress 19th June.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    On Question, "That the Preamble be postponed,"
    MR. BIGGARmoved that the Chairman should report Progress, in order that the House might proceed to the discussion of the second reading of the County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Bill. There were several reasons why that Bill should be taken first, and not the least was that the number of Judges that' would be required under the Judicature Bill must depend upon the County Courts Bill. There was no great need of pressure with regard to the former; but it seemed to be the unanimous opinion of the non-lawyers among the Irish Representatives, that the County Courts Bill was really urgent, in order to provide against the expense and annoyance to which small suitors were put in having to go to the Court of Chancery. He expected to be opposed by the lawyers, because it was their interest to get as much business done in the Superior Courts as possible.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Biggar.)
    MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGagreed with the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) that it was greatly to be deplored that the Bill was taken before the County Courts Bill. The latter was very much needed, as cases were frequently arising in which great injustice was done to suitors in small cases by the enormous costs involved in actions in the Superior Courts. He did not think it

    157
    mattered if the Bill did not become law for a year or two, whilst the County Courts Bill was one of pressing importance. He was sure that, if it could be done conveniently, the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland would be disposed to consult the interests of the public and the wishes of Irish Members in this matter.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYdenied that there was any foundation for the charge which the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had brought against those Representatives of Ireland who were members of the Bar.
    MR. BIGGARdenied that he had made any charge against them. All he said was that, like other people, they were desirous of making as much profit as they could, and he did not suggest in the slightest degree that they were influenced by corrupt motives.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYconsidered that, to say, that in expressing their opinions upon legal measures, the members of the Irish Bar would be influenced by the chances of fees, as a very direct charge against them. He was not now a practitioner at the Irish Bar, and certainly that charge could not be made against him. The greatest injustice and inconvenience arose from the double proceedings which it was the object of the Judicature Bill to do away with; and though the County Courts Bill might be considered more pressing, nothing was to be gained by obstructing both. Let Irish Members treat the question which should have precedence, as one of great importance and take a division upon it; but let them not waste time in useless discussion, especially after the offer of the Government to send the other Bill to a Select Committee. It would be a serious thing to interfere with the discretion of the Government as to the order in which the measures were set down for discussion.
    MR. LAW,while regarding the measure as one of considerable importance, concurred in the suggestion that the difference of opinion as to which was the more pressing matter should be brought to the test of a division. The general sense of the Committee should be ascertained with regard to the Motion, and the minority should yield to the majority.
    MR. FAYthought the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar)
    158
    was too much enamoured of the County Courts Bill. To give to the County Courts an equitable jurisdiction that would be of any great practical advantage could not be done without large staffs; and that being so, he questioned whether the classes intended to be benefitted would find themselves any better for the change. The best way to reach the County Courts Bill was to get through the Judicature Bill as fast as they could, and, in order to do that, he hoped the hon. Member for Cavan would withdraw his Motion, and not obstruct it. The County Courts Bill might easily be considered afterwards.
    MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGwanted to know, whether in case the Judicature Bill was proceeded with, it was intended to prosecute the County Courts Bill with such vigour as the Government could command, with the object, if possible, of passing it into law this Session?
    MR. SHAWobserved that there was really no opposition to the second reading of the County Courts Bill, and he would urge the Government, therefore, to consent to the Motion to report Progress, in order that the Bill might be sent to the Select Committee without delay.
    MR. PARNELLconcurred in the suggestion, because if the County Courts Bill was to pass that Session, it was necessary that it should be taken in hand at the earliest moment. He understood that there was some difference of opinion amongst Irish Members in regard to the constitution of the Select Committee, the lawyers wishing it to be so constituted as to make any beneficial result that Session impossible; while there were others who were not lawyers who desired that it might be constituted with power to carry out the work referred to it. In his opinion the County Courts Act should be in operation a year or two before the Judicature Bill passed.
    THE CHAIRMAN,calling the hon. Member to Order, pointed out that a discussion of the constitution of the Select Committee was at that stage irrelevant.
    THE O'CONOR DONsaid, all agreed that both Bills should pass; but because some preferred one, and some the other, they were in danger of losing both. He would suggest that they should make what progress they could in Committee on the Judicature Bill, upon the under-

    159
    standing that at the end of the Sitting the Government should move the second reading of the County Courts Bill, with a view to referring it at once to a Select Committee.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Gibson)recognized the the fairness of the suggestion of hon. Gentleman the Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don). He (the Attorney General for Ireland) had already stated that the Government were most anxious at the earliest moment to pass the County Courts Bill, and desired to refer it to a Select Committee, with a view to its becoming law this year. Let the Committee go on and make real progress with the Judicature Bill, and then at a quarter to 6, when the debate was adjourned, he would move the second reading of the County Courts Bill, and that it be referred to a Select Committee.
    SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, he was not opposed to the County Courts Bill; but he must insist that an opportunity should be afforded for the discussion of its principles before it went to a Select Committee. He wished himself to have the opportunity of expressing his views on it.
    MR. SHAWdeprecated further discussion on the subject, remarking that if the House set about its business in a practical manner, satisfactory progress might be made with both Bills that day.
    MR. P. MARTIN,as a business man, could see no reason why the House should not proceed at once to discuss the Bill. Most of the municipal bodies in Ireland earnestly desired that the Judicature Bill should be passed. No doubt, the County Courts Bill had been delayed, but surely that was no reason why the measure now under consideration should be delayed also. So far from Irish barristers being opposed to the County Courts Bill, they were the first to urge the reform which it was intended to carry out. Though he was anxious to spare the time of the House as much as possible, he could not, as a County Member, assent to the second reading of the County Courts Bill without a discussion of its principles.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the County Courts Bill had never been explained to the House, neither had the Judicature Bill.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that the Irish lawyers evidently desired to pass the
    160
    Bill without discussion, and he hoped that the County Courts Bill would be taken first. He would therefore oppose any further progress with the Bill under discussion in the interests of his constituents. He should not talk on the County Courts Bill; but he should have a good deal to say on the Judicature Bill.
    SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, the Judicature Bill had already been fully explained on its introduction. On the other hand, the County Courts Bill had been brought forward so long ago as February last. There had been no explanation of its provisions, and it was impossible that it could pass the second reading without a full discussion.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 10; Noes 180: Majority 170.—(Div. List, No. 188.)
    SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, if Progress was reported at 5 o'clock, the difficulty would be solved, and then the County Courts Bill could be taken.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that, although extremely anxious to make Progress with the Bill, he was equally anxious not to waste the time of the House, and to consult the wishes of hon. Members. He would therefore accept the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Baronet opposite, on condition that this Bill met with a fair discussion, and then at 5 o'clock he would proceed with the County Courts Bill, which he was sure would also meet with a fair discussion.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he never heard anything but a fair discussion of the Bill. The object seemed to be to push the Bill through without discussion.
    MR. PARNELLdid not understand what the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary meant by "a fair discussion." He was prepared to discuss the Bill "fairly." He objected to its passing until, say, a couple of years had elapsed after the County Courts Bill was passed.
    MR. SHAWhoped there would be no real obstruction. Whoever obstructed now, after the promise of the Government, on their heads be it.
    MAJOR O'GORMAN: The right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary talks about fair discussion and about obstruction. He should remember that on Tuesday last the House was counted out at 9

    161
    o'clock on a discussion upon a Resolution brought forward by an Irish Member, the right hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Clare.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he did not think the reform contemplated by the measure was sufficiently extensive. For years past it had been asserted that the Irish Judicial Bench was over-manned, overpaid, and under-worked. In 1866 there were 12 Irish and 15 English Judges, but there was a very small proportion of judicial work in Ireland compared with that in England. The number of writs, of judgments signed, of defences filed, and of prisoners tried in Ireland was in about the proportion of one sixth, as regarded England. That being so, he objected to the Bill, because it did not provide a sufficient reduction, either in the number of the Irish Judges, or of their salaries. It was true that the salaries of the Irish Judges were, perhaps, 40 or 45 per cent less than the salaries paid to the English Judges; but then, in the payment of salaries, regard should be had to the average emoluments earned by that portion of the Profession from which Judges were taken, and the emoluments earned by Irish barristers were very much less than those earned by English barristers of the same standing. Very few Irish barristers earned more than £1,500 or £2,000 a-year, whilst the average earnings of English barristers was probably £6,000 or £7,000 a-year, and they usually sacrificed a considerable sum when they obtained a seat on the Bench. Owing to the system pursued in Ireland, it had been found necessary to provide places for barristers and to pay them more highly than they would otherwise be paid. Ever since the Union, therefore, members of the Irish Bar had been more or less devoted to the interests of the English Government, and more or less unmindful of the interests of their own country. The result was, that in recent years it had been very difficult for Irish barristers, with some remarkable exceptions, to obtain the suffrages of Irish constituencies. He thought it was a great evil, and one that ought to be pointed out, that County Court Judges should be overpaid. He had wished that the Bill could have been postponed until the County Courts Bill had been in operation for a time, so that it would then be found how many Judges were necessary to perform the
    162
    work, and how they ought to be paid. For instance, the duties of the Landed Estates Court had been performed by Judge Flanagan much to the satisfaction of the suitors, and that distinguished Judge had himself stated publicly that he was quite competent to do all the work of the Court. But, nevertheless, a second Judge had been appointed to the Landed Estates Court, and that second Judge formed part of the scheme of that Bill. Those two Judges, for performing the work which one formerly did for £3,000 a-year, were to receive £3,500 each. He hoped that proper explanations would be given on that and other points by the Government.
    MR. BIGGARcomplained that the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland did not seem inclined to answer the hon. Member for Meath's observations.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)thought that the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), in his criticisms, had lost sight of the substantial reduction in the Judicial establishment already effected, and the further reductions which would be gradually brought about by the operations of the Bill. There was a vacant Judgeship at present in the Court of Common Pleas which would not be filled up, by which there would be a saving of £3,600 a-year at once. It was also proposed that, on the first vacancy occurring in a Puisne Judgeship of the Court of Exchequer, it would not be filled up, whereby another £3,600 would be saved. It was also contemplated that the next vacancy in the Admiralty Court should not be filled up. The same remark applied to the Receiver Master's office, on which a further saving of £2,500 would be effected when a vacancy occurred. With regard to the Landed Estates Court, when a vacancy by death or resignation occurred, it was proposed that it should not be filled up without an opportunity being given for ascertaining by a Royal Commission whether the appointment of a successor was required. Therefore, he thought it would be seen that the Bill provided reasonable safeguards against wasteful expenditure of the public money. As to the payment of the Judges, it would not do to degrade the Judicial establishments of a country like Ireland, so long as she had a separate system. They must give, he did not say extra-

    163
    vagant, but adequate salaries to secure the services of men of independence, and to enable them to maintain the dignity suitable to their high office. He repudiated, on the part of the Government, the idea of keeping up a single unnecessary Judge; but they thought, after careful examination, that the gradual striking off of four Judges was as far as, with a due regard to the public interests, they could fairly carry those reductions. The Judges of the High Court were to have a uniform salary of £3,500—a reduction of under £200 a-year on the pay of the existing Judges. Once they put Judges on the High Court, it was thought only reasonable that they should be remunerated on the same scale as the other Judges of that tribunal. The Judges of the Landed Estates Court were, therefore, to receive £500 additional; but that was not all sheer increase of expenditure, because part of the sum was met by savings from other changes; and, moreover, that extra £500 to the Judges of the Landed Estates Court was balanced by the fact that they would be compelled under that Bill to take their full share of the work in the Chancery Division of the High Court, about the most important jurisdiction of the country. Moreover, the Judges of the Landed Estates Court would have cast on them the arduous duty previously discharged by the Receiver Master; and they would also have to take their share of Circuit work. As to the appointment of the second Judge in the Landed Estates Court, he agreed that Judge Flanagan had most admirably presided over that tribunal; but that learned Judge had, from his exceptional experience, possessed extraordinary efficiency. The Incorporated Society of Attorneys and Solicitors of Ireland—a body most competent to form an opinion as to the state of business in that Court—had memorialized the Government again and again, urging the necessity of appointing a second Judge of the Landed Estates Court. He believed that the Bill, by abolishing and consolidating offices, would, in a very short time, effect a saving to the country of some thousands a-year.
    MR. SULLIVANsaid, he regretted that the state of his health had prevented him from taking the part in the discussion of the Bill which he had promised himself. It was always invidious to
    164
    undertake personal criticism of officials; but he deliberately asserted, that if there be an Irish Greville, whose memoirs were to be published 50 years hence, the revelations made in that volume in reference to the behind-the-scenes history of the recent appointment in the Landed Estates Court would astonish those who read them. That appointment he had no hesitation in saying was one of the worst transactions that had taken place with regard to the Irish Judicature system that he had known for 40 years. It was notorious that Mr. Ormsby was appointed, not because he was wanted in the Landed Estates Court, but because his position as a Law Officer of the Crown was required for some one else. The late Viceroy of Ireland (Lord Spencer), to whose zeal and honesty regarding patronage in Ireland every Irishman must pay a just tribute, had succeeded in preventing the appointment of the second. Judge to a Court where one Judge was amply sufficient; but the present Government had hardly come into office, when they gave way on the point, although they knew, as a matter of fact, that the one existing Judge was able and willing to do all the work. The salary involved was a trifle, but the principle was one which he could not help deploring. The right hon. and learned Attorney General said it was essential to give the Judges salaries which would enable them to fully support their dignity. That was right; but, at the same time, it was possible to make them too high in proportion to the earnings of the barristers. In Ireland the salary of a Judge was nearly twice as large as the average emoluments of the first 20 or 30 men at the Bar, and therefore "the Bench, the Bench, the Bench"—something from the Government—was the aim and object of every man who went to the Irish Bar; and so vast was the number of legal appointments, large and small, that there was a place of some kind for one man out of every three or four at the Bar. He might be told that he was not acting in a patriotic spirit, and that he ought to try and get as much as possible for Ireland out of the Consolidated Fund; but he maintained that if the Judges were overpaid, that money was money which a patriotic Irishman ought not to defend, but ought to deprecate. He denied that there was any necessity for appointing another

    165
    Judge in the Landed Estates Court, and gave the Government credit for their desire to bring justice to the door of the poor man by introducing the County Courts Bill, which ought to be passed first, and in favour of which there was a general concurrence of opinion in Ireland. He should support the Judicature Bill, as far as it went in cutting down the overmanning of the Bench, and that enormous multiplication of legal offices, which was detrimental to the best interests of the country and fatal to the independence of a noble Profession which in former days had contributed some of the brightest pages to the history of their country.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he took a different view of the measure from that taken by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) and the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan). He thought the parallel between the English and Irish Judicial Staff was not a very happy one, for as regarded England, the number of Judges in that country was generally alleged to be quite inadequate for the business done. Besides, if the taxpayers did not object, it was much better to have too many Judges than too few. He considered it was only right that a Judge should get a larger sum than a first-class man earned by practice at the Bar; and in his idea, the desire prevalent in the Irish Bar to obtain a Government appointment was a legitimate one. This Bill was in some respects very peculiar; for, in a great many cases, it stipulated that no change should be made. He did not see the object of introducing a Bill if it was to make no change. It, no doubt, had some good points; but it was very defective in others, and, in his opinion, it ought not to pass in its present shape. He objected to the Judges having authority to make rules, and to the Government having the power of fixing salaries. That House should hold fast by its own authority and its own dignity, rather that delegate such extreme powers to the Courts below.
    Question, "That the Preamble be postponed," put, and agreed to.
    Clauses 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 4 (Union of existing Courts into one Supreme Court of Judicature).
    MR. SHAWmoved as an Amendment, in page 4, line 3, after "court"
    166
    to insert "and the Bankruptcy Court." He understood that on a former occasion it had been intended to facilitate the Bankruptcy business. At present an immense amount of costs were accumulated in Bankruptcy cases, owing to the fact that they had to be adjudicated in Dublin and wound up there. He thought this evil would be avoided by the appointment of local Bankruptcy Courts.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)pointed out that this appointment of local Bankruptcy Courts would not be facilitated by the Amendment. But the present constitution of, and the members employed in, the Irish Bankruptcy Courts were engaging the attention of the Government, and they hoped to legislate on the subject next Session. For that reason, amongst others, it had not been deemed desirable to include them in the present Bill, as forming a part of the High Court of Justice.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 5 agreed to.
    Clause 6 (Constitution of High Court of Justice in Ireland).
    MR. MELDONmoved, as an Amendment, in page 4, line 26, after "heretofore," to insert—
    "except that no future Lord Chancellor shall he appointed, unless he shall he of fifteen years' standing at least at the Bar of Ireland."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 4, line 26, after the word "heretofore," to insert the words "except that no future Lord Chancellor shall be appointed unless he shall be of fifteen years' standing at least at the Bar of Ireland."—(Mr. Meldon.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. He could not see why the Lord Chancellorship for Ireland should be absolutely restricted to a member of the Irish Bar, seeing that there was nothing to prevent a member of the Bar in Ireland being Lord Chancellor in this country, and that in fact the present Lord Chancellor of England was a distinguished Irishman. The Irish Lord Chancellorship had been held by Lord Campbell, Lord St. Leonards, and other distinguished English lawyers

    167
    with great advantage, and it would not be desirable to limit the area of selection for the office, as proposed. It had been found in the past that the Executive, in filling the post, had fairly considered the claims of the Irish Bar. It was very undesirable to lay down a hard-and-fast line in this matter, as it might have the effect on some occasions of preventing Ireland from having the services, as Lord Chancellors, of the men best fitted for the position.
    SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN,on the contrary, hoped the Amendment would be pressed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said there was nothing to prevent the appointment of a member of the Irish Bar to the post of Lord Chancellor of England, but he (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) would like to see it attempted. There was no reason why the Irish Lord Chancellor should not, like the other Irish Judges, be regarded to belong to the Irish Bar. With reference to the appointment of of Lord Campbell as Lord Chancellor of Ireland, he must observe that that noble and learned Lord never held a brief in a Court of Equity, and great indignation was felt in Ireland on the subject. The members of the junior Bar held a meeting, and protested strongly against the appointment; but, unfortunately, they were not supported by the seniors, who did not like to set themselves in opposition to the authorities.
    MR. OSBORNE MORGANobserved that if the provision which the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) wished to introduce had always been the law, Ireland would have lost the services of three of the most distinguished men who had ever held the office of Lord Chancellor—namely, Lord Campbell, Lord Redesdale, and Lord St. Leonards. At the same time, he thought the head of the Irish Bench ought to be a member of the Irish Bar, and successive Governments had acted on that principle, for the last six Chancellors were Irish barristers.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, that the right hon. and learned Attorney General had said there was nothing in the Bill which prevented the appointment, as English Lord Chancellor, of an Irish barrister, but the fact was that no such appointment had ever been made. Neither were they appointed to other offices, in instance of which he
    168
    would refer to the appointment of Lord Plunket as Master of the Rolls in England, which appointment had to be cancelled on account of the opposition of the English Bar. With reference to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh (Mr. Osborne Morgan), as to the advantages which Ireland was supposed to have derived from the services of Lords Redesdale, St. Leonards, and other Englishmen, as a matter of fact, the law was quite as well administered by the Irish Lord Chancellors who had succeeded them—such men as Sir Maziere Brady, Mr. Blackburn, and Dr. Ball. It was most important that the Irish Lord Chancellor should be an experienced member of the Irish Bar. They had, for example, a code of Land Laws widely differing from that of England, and the President of the Ultimate Court of Appeal for Land Law Causes was the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. The only thing he would suggest to the hon. and learned Member for Kildare was that, if the Amendment was to be adopted in its present form, they might deprive themselves of the advantages to be derived from the appointment of an Equity Judge to the highest judicial office. He further thought that the Amendment would be improved if 10 years' standing at the Bar was substituted for 15 years.
    Amendment amended, by leaving out the word "fifteen," and inserting the word "ten."
    Question put,
    "That the words 'except that no future Lord Chancellor shall he appointed unless he shall he of ten years' standing at least at the Bar of Ireland' he there inserted."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 106; Noes 202: Majority 96.—(Div. List, No. 189.)
    On the Motion of Mr. PARNELL (for Mr. Butt), Amendment made in page 4, line 29, at end, by adding—
    "And shall he appointed in the same manner in which the puisne justices and junior barons of the superior courts of common law in England were appointed before the passing of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873."
    House resumed.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  COUNTY OFFICERS AND COURTS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 67.]
  (Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
  COUNTY OFFICERS AND COURTS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 67.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
    SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, the subject was one of great importance to Ireland. The present Bill had been introduced so far back as February 12th. No one intimated any opposition to the second reading, with the exception of a formal Notice to prevent its being taken up after midnight from the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell). Still, although there was no opposition to the second reading, the Government neither took the stage, nor did they intimate their willingness to refer it to a Select Committee, as he had proposed. No intimation had been made by the Government as to the course they would pursue; but that day they had stated that they would have no objection to read it a second time pro formâ, and refer it to a Select Committee. It was, he thought, rather too late to take that course now. If his proposal had been accepted three months ago, the Committee might have met and agreed to a Bill which would have met with the approval of the House. He feared it was now too late; but as many hon. Members around him were desirous that the Bill should be read a second time, he deferred to their opinion, and would content himself with stating his objections to the Bill in general, and if it should be read a second time, would move that it be referred to a Select Committee, with special instructions to amend it on the points to which he objected, and which were enumerated in his Motion. He thought, however, it would be inexpedient to read it a second time under those conditions without having some discussion on the provisions. The objects of the Bill were four-fold. It proposed, firstly, to amalgamate the offices of the Clerk of the Crown and Clerk of the Peace. He agreed to that as a good object; but he objected to the manner in which it was proposed to
    170
    carry it out. The second object was to reduce the number of Chairmen from 33 to 21. To that he did not object, but he opposed the manner in which it was carried out. The third object of the Bill was to extend the jurisdiction of the Chairmen of the counties, which was well enough in itself, but badly carried out. The last object of the Bill was to prevent them from practising at the Bar. That was the only part of the Bill to which he objected; and he admitted that it was a point that could be discussed in Committee. With regard to the first point, the Bill would abolish the old Common Law tenure of office by the Clerks of the Crown and of the Peace, and the new official would hold his office, not as at present by good behaviour, but during the pleasure of the Lord Lieutenant. He would, as a matter of fact, be put upon the footing of a mere Civil Servant, a proceeding which he thought very objectionable, and he must contend that the old condition of tenure should be preserved. It was also objectionable that any future holder of the office should be subject to a Treasury certificate of his fitness for the post. The Treasury could know nothing about the fitness of a man for the office of Clerk of the Crown and of the Peace in Ireland. Then it was also objectionable that the salaries of these officers should be left to be fixed, not by the Bill, but by the Treasury dealing with the duties performed. The result of that would be that in one county a Clerk of the Peace and of the Crown would receive one salary, and in another county a different one. Then, although it might be right to reduce the number of Chairmen by amalgamating counties together, the amalgamation should be carried out by the Bill itself, and should not be left to be carried out by the Lord Lieutenant in Council, a mode of procedure which was certain to lead to jobbery and favouritism of all descriptions. The Bill ought also to contain a Schedule of the counties proposed to be amalgamated. To that part of the Bill which proposed to extend the Common Law jurisdiction of the County Courts from £40 to £50, the only objection he had was that the jurisdiction was not extended to £100. He approved of the proposal of the Bill to confer Equity jurisdiction upon the Chairman in 11 different matters or classes enumerated

    171
    in the Bill; but he complained that while they were taking steps to bring justice home to the doors of the people in regard to the first trial of causes, there should be no appeal except to the Lord Chancellor sitting in Dublin. He considered that the appeal in every case should be heard in the county where the cause was originally tried, which could be done by the Master of the Rolls and the Vice Chancellor going circuit for the purpose. He thought it also most objectionable that the stamp duties to be levied under the Bill should not be settled by the Bill; but, perhaps, the most extraordinary part of the measure was that which provided that the salaries of the Chairmen of Counties should be fixed, not by the Bill itself, but by the Lord Chancellor and the Lords of the Treasury. This was a proposal to which he should object. There were several other points to which he might have referred, but he refrained from doing so, as he had no desire to obstruct the progress of the measure. He must, however, say that those to which he had adverted were well worthy of the attention of a Select Committee.
    MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCKsaid, that he was not opposed to the amalgamation of the offices of Clerks of the Crown and the Peace, if efficiency would be secured, and at the same time justice done to the holders of these offices. The officers in question were at present called upon, under pain of their removal by the Lord Lieutenant, to perform duties never contemplated when they were appointed. This would be unfair to officers, many of whom were appointed 20 or 30 years' ago. The present occupiers of office should be permitted to retire on a good salary, and their successors might be appointed on any terms which might be considered necessary. With regard to the conferring Equity jurisdiction on the Chairmen of Counties, he did not object to the measure; but he wished to point out that great injustice would be done to the suitors if the Chairmen were not provided with sufficient Staffs of officers. As to increasing the number of Judges, he urged the necessity of its being in the Bill. The Treasury might induce some of the Judges to retire on a competent pension. The discussion of the mode of amalgamation would be of advantage, and they would receive suggestions from the people interested in
    172
    the country. The whole matter should be done openly, and then all questions of favouritism would be removed. The amount of the jurisdiction at present was £40, and the proposal was to increase it to £100. £100 was a serious sum for Ireland, and he believed in these cases the parties would prefer going to a Superior Court. And then they must take into consideration the costs of a panel; for it should be remembered that questions of account, of administration, of partnership, and the like, though affecting small amounts of money, might involve points of law as abstruse and as difficult as in cases where thousands of pounds were at stake. In those cases, the costs would be very great. He thought it would be better to have the appeal to the Court of Chancery He must further urge, in conclusion, the advantage of setting forth in the Bill the mode in which it was proposed the County Courts should be consolidated.
    MR. MORRISpointed out that the Bill proposed to abolish the Recordership of Galway, which was a very ancient office. The Recorders of Galway and Derry were in future to be called County Court Judges, or something of that sort. He did not see why they should not bear the name of Recorders of Galway and Derry. There was an ancient historic interest in the Recordership of Galway, and something might be done in the way of preserving the title of the office, even if the duties were merged in the manner proposed.
    MR. FAYsaid, he did not see much in the Bill, except that it seemed to create offices for hon. and learned Gentlemen on the other side of the House. The unfortunate County Court Judge, with £1,000 a-year, was to have everything under his jurisdiction, from dealing with divorces to matters of account. The cattle dealers of Ireland often disputed over matters of account; but it would be unfortunate to have such a Judge dealing with their cases. If this Judge was to do this work properly, he ought to have an immense Staff; and if that was so, the unfortunate suitor would have tremendous sums to pay in fees, and would find the procedure more expensive than the Courts in Dublin. This Bill abolished Chairmen of Sessions who were practising as barristers, and well up in all the latest eases, and he could affirm that they were very popular

    173
    in Ireland. He was opposed to the Bill. As to its being cheap, his opinion was that cheap things were generally the dearest, and he thought that this cheap law would turn out to be very dear law. He hoped that if they had a Committee on the Bill, they would appoint gentlemen well acquainted with the legal offices, who could advise upon the subject, and who had all the experience which the practice of the law could give them.
    MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsupported the Bill. He thought there had been too many objections to what he would call the poor man's Court. This Bill had been thought of for years, and the necessity for it was well understood in Ireland. They were bound to bring justice home to the poor man's door. That was the professed object of this Bill; and, if he had the honour of being elected a Member of the Select Committee, he would do his best to make it effective for that purpose. He would not go into details, because that was a matter for the Committee. He objected to, for instance, raising the jurisdiction from £40 to £100. The further power given in the Bill would bring justice to the poor; but the alteration would compel that man to go to Dublin to obtain justice. The jurisdiction stopped at a farm of the annual value of £30; but the House should remember that a farm of that value in Ulster was very different from a farm £30 in value in Munster. He was sorry to see that the Bill had had the Equity jurisdiction reduced from £500 in the Bill of last year to £300, and he could not see why the change had been made. He should therefore propose an Amendment, to render it more in conformity with the Bill of last year. As to the officers, the Bill would certainly be unworkable with the present proposals. There would have to be a Registrar in connection with the Court, or otherwise the Circuits would never be gone through.
    MR. LAWsaid, he would not go into details, but he might say that he understood the chief object of the Bill was to give an Equity jurisdiction to the County Court Judges in Ireland equal to that which had for some years been exercised by the English County Court Judges. He must say, however, that he more than doubted whether this Equity jurisdiction could be efficiently worked
    174
    by the Irish chairmen with only the official assistance which the Bill provided. It was proposed that one man should act as Clerk of the Crown, Clerk of the Peace, and Registrar of the Civil Bill Court; that was to say, they allowed one-third of a man to do the official work of a County Court in Ireland, whilst they had several competent individuals to do similar work in England. He entirely agreed with what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken, and hoped that the measure would be so amended as to render it acceptable and beneficial to the great body of the people of Ireland.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY,while taking exception to some of the details of the Bill, would give it a general support. He trusted the Government would give a local Admiralty jurisdiction to two or three large towns in Ireland—to Limerick, Waterford, and, perhaps, some others. The Bill would not, in his opinion, lead to such an increase of officers as was suspected; and he hoped that where there were found men occupying the position of Deputy Clerks of the Peace the assistance of these officers of experience would be secured, and their rights, which were almost vested, recognized.
    MR. MELDONsaid, upon the understanding that the Bill upon being read a second time was to be referred to a Select Committee, and that the House would hereafter have a full opportunity of discussing the Bill, he would not enter into a discussion of its provisions. But he thought it was futile to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, who without the consent of the Treasury could not provide for the appointment of additional officers. He considered an extended County Court jurisdiction for Ireland absolutely necessary, and regretted that such a measure had been so long delayed.
    CAPTAIN NOLANcomplained that the Government had rolled up several distinct subjects in one Bill, and had in consequence put Irish Members in the dilemma of either rejecting all, or accepting all. Against that he protested. He was afraid the measure would place a great deal of patronage at the disposal of the Government, and pressed the Government to keep up the office of the Recorder of Galway.
    THE ATTORREY GENERAL foe IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, the course of the discussion was very satisfactory, in that it had shown the confidence which was felt in the distinguished position of the County Court Judges, and he trusted that under the more important jurisdiction to be conferred upon them by the Bill that confidence would continue. For his own part, he did not anticipate there would be any of that substantial increase of patronage hinted at, and he was at a loss to understand, looking over the surface of the Bill, what prospect there was for suspecting it. The 33 Chairmen were to be cut down to 21; and at present there were two important officers—the Clerk of the Crown and the Clerk of the Peace—these were to be cut down to 32, so that, indeed, instead of there being more there was less scope for patronage. It was not contemplated there should be any immediate resignation of county officers; but from time to time, from inclination, age, or infirmity, they might take advantage of the provisions of the Act. The various observations which had been made upon the increased jurisdiction provided in the Bill showed the advantage there would be in asking the House, as he intended, to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. Those observations would receive the utmost attention; and he would say, on the part of the Government and of the Treasury, that they had no wish to withdraw the Bill from the most searching examination and careful consideration upstairs. In reference to the observations as to a sufficient Staff, this Bill contained a clause not found in any previous Bill on the question, and there was every desire on the part of the Government and the Treasury to give a fair working Staff. The 8th clause provided that the Lord Chancellor, with the consent of the Treasury, could add additional Registrars where they were found necessary. Without committing himself to the figures, he might say there would be a very considerable saving in public expense by the passing of the Bill.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON),in moving that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, remarked that it was the
    176
    object of the Government that the Bill should become law this Session.
    Motion agreed to; Bill committed to a Select Committee.

  COLONIAL FORTIFICATIONS BILL.
  (Mr. Gathorne Hardy, Lord Eustace Cecil, Mr. Stanley.)
  COLONIAL FORTIFICATIONS BILL.

    [BILL 174.] THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a third time."—(Mr. Gathorne Hardy.)
    MR. E. JENKINSmoved that the Bill bere-committed, in order to insert a clause providing that fortifications are to be vested in the Governor of any Colony only for civil purposes. The hon. Member was proceeding when—
    It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.

    EAST INDIA LOAN BILL.
    Resolution [June 21] reported, and agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. RAIKES, Lord GEORGE HAMILTON, and Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 215.]
    And it being now five minutes to Seven of the clock, the House suspended its Sitting.
    The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

    SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

    THE SUPERANNUATION ACT AMENDMENT ACT, 1873—DEPARTMENTAL CIRCULARS.—RESOLUTION.
    MR. BOORDrose to move,
    "That it is unjust that Departmental Circulars should he issued in such a form, or so interpreted as practically to repeal or modify the operation of an Act of Parliament; and that it is expedient that those persons who have been debarred from participation in the benefits of 'The Superannuation Act Amendment Act, 1873,' by the War Office Circulars dated the 29th August and the 17th December 1861, and numbered 709 and 729 respectively, should be restored to the position they would have occupied had such circulars never been issued."
    The hon. Gentleman was referring to the subject of the Motion when—
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being found present—
    House adjourned at twenty minutes after Nine o'clock till Monday next.