PART I. (Hansard, 26 June 1877)

§ MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCK
moved the omission of a portion of the clause providing— That when first after the commencement of this Act one of the existing Judges of the Landed Estates Court shall die, resign, or otherwise vacate his office, 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 connexion with the Division of the High Court of Justice (herein-after 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. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, that according to the succeeding clause of the Bill, the jurisdiction exercised by the Judges of the Landed Estates Court was to continue to be exercised by them or their successors, or, in case of illness, absence, or vacancy, by any other Judge of the Chancery Division of the High Court; that if the state of business permitted they should be bound to assist from time to time in the general business of the Chancery Division; that they were to be Judges of the Chancery Division. He objected to the proposed appointment of a Commission, and pointed out the inconvenience that might arise from the adoption of such a provision, especially in a case where one of the Judges of the Landed Estates Court might be incapacitated from discharging his duties at the time his brother Judge had been sent to discharge duties at the Assizes or to perform other functions that were superadded to his department. 263 He failed to see the practical utility of such a Commission, and thought that the only question really to be considered was whether the Committee would be justified in imposing so many new duties on the Judges of the Landed Estates Court. If the Government thought the number of Judges ought to be reduced, and could show good ground for so thinking, he should not oppose a provision giving power to reduce the number in case of necessity.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)
said, that unquestionably a large and increased jurisdiction was by this Bill given to the Judges of the Landed Estates Court. A second Judge had been appointed for that Court; but the Government desired to retain the power of issuing a Commission, when a vacancy occurred, to consider whether it was necessary to maintain a second Judgeship. He trusted his hon. and learned Friend would not press his Amendment to a division.

§ MR. GOLDNEY
opposed the Amendment.

§ MR. LAW
said, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed, as it was impossible to say, until they saw how the new machinery worked, whether it would or would not be desirable to retain two Judges of the Court in question.

§ MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCK
said, as the Government were unwilling to accept it, he would withdraw the Amendment.

§ MR. BIGGAR (for Mr. PARNELL)
moved, in page 5, line 8, to leave out from "until" to "next Session of Parliament." He said, the object was to make it imperative not to appoint another Judge, and he added that much wonderment had been created as to the grounds on which appointments already made had been ordered.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)
said, this Amendment was the exact converse of the one which had been previously moved. He opposed it on the ground that the Government ought to retain the power of re-considering the whole question when a vacancy occurred. The matter had come before the House in July, 1875, and there had then been little difference of opinion, the hon. Member for King's County (Sir Patrick 264 O'Brien) and others remarking on the inconvenience arising from the want of a second Judge.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he was sorry that he was not present in time to move the Amendment. Judge Flanagan had written to the Government saying that he was quite capable of discharging all the duties of the Landed Estates Court, and therefore there was no necessity for making the appointment; yet, for reasons that never appeared, the Government appointed a second Judge to the Landed Estates Court, in the teeth of the remonstrance of Judge Flanagan. Judge Flanagan also said that in 1875 he had only sat 87 days out of 365, and notwithstanding the short time he sat he had time to work off a considerable portion of the arrears left to him by his predecessor.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)
said, much of the work of the Landed Estates Court was done at home, and consisted in the reading up of titles to estates and so forth, a mistake in which would be irreparable. It was also proposed to abolish the office of Receiving Master, and all his work would have to be performed by the Judges of the Landed Estates Court.

§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY
said, he thought that members of the Irish Bar could not be taunted with selfishness in the matter, though it was one of much interest to them. He held that many of the duties at present performed by the Judge were merely clerical and ministerial. As long as these merely routine tasks were thrown upon him there would be need for the additional Judge whose appointment was now questioned. He could not support the Amendment, because he thought it would not be wise to take action in the matter before they found out whether the alterations made in the Bill would or would not increase the work which would have to be performed by the Judges of the Landed Estates Court.

§ MR. MORRIS
said, he did not think there was a harder working member at the Bar than the Receiving Master of the business of the Landed Estates Court. He thought it would be found necessary to have two Judges to perform the work in an efficient manner.

§ MR. MELDON
said, that was not the first time that the hon. Member for 265 Meath (Mr. Parnell) had brought forward the question of the appointment of a second Judge to the Irish Landed Estates Court, but he had never heard any arguments offered in support of the work really requiring two Judges to discharge it. He knew that the newly appointed Judge, Mr. Ormsby, was a most painstaking Judge—that he had given satisfaction to the suitors at the Bar, the Profession, and the public since his appointment; but the question was whether or not a second Judge should have been appointed.

§ MR. LAW
also defended the appointment of Judge Ormsby as a man very well suited to the position which he now filled.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, the reason for the Amendment was that there were not sufficient causes in the Landed Estates Court to fully occupy two Judges. That was proved by the Government now proposing to throw upon their shoulders additional duties. What he complained of was that the judicial staff of Ireland was too large. He was told by a person highly qualified to give an opinion that six Judges would be sufficient; but under the Bill there were to be 11, and all he wanted to do was to reduce the number to 10.

§ MR. PARNELL
moved, in page 6, line 6, to leave out all the words from after "Judges," to the word "Judges," in line 8, inclusive, and insert— All rules made in pursuance of this section shall be laid before each House of Parliament within such time, and shall be subject to be annulled in such manner, as is in the sixty-seventh section of this Act provided.

§ MR. PARNELL
moved, in page 6, after line 19, to insert— Provided always, That when first after the commencement of this Act one of the existing judges of the Court of Bankruptcy shall die, resign, or otherwise vacate his office, 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 Court of Bankruptcy makes it requisite that such appointment should be made, nor 266 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. This Amendment merely proposed that the provisions adopted with regard to the Landed Estates Court should apply to the Court of Bankruptcy also.

§ MR. MELDON
hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw the Amendment. The case of the Bankruptcy Court was quite different from the Landed Estates Court. The Judges of the Bankruptcy Court had as much as they could do, and their work was continually increasing. If local Bankruptcy Courts were instituted, then would be the time to consider whether the Judges of the Court of Bankruptcy should be so relieved of their duties that only one Judge would be necessary. In 1874 the two Judges had 5,602 sittings, and in 1875 these sittings had increased to 6,936; and, besides these, the Chief Registrar had 3,000 or 4,000 sittings annually. The hon. Gentleman paid a compliment to the efficiency of the staff, to whose skill it was owing that the costs of winding-up estates were so very small in Ireland.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)
said, that the statement of the hon. Member for Kildare had clearly shown that the quantity of business in the Bankruptcy Court was so great that it could not be done by one Judge. The whole scope of the present Bill was to leave the Bankruptcy Court, which was found to work very well, exactly as it was for the present. When local courts with bankruptcy jurisdiction were established, then would be the time to consider whether one Judge in Dublin would not be sufficient to administer the business of the Court.

§ MR. BIGGAR
supported the Amendment. The argument was not that the Bankruptcy Judges had too little business at present, but that it was very probable that a clause in another Bill would give bankruptcy jurisdiction to local Courts in Ireland, and then the work to be done in Dublin would be greatly reduced.

§ DR. WARD
maintained that the Irish Bench was greatly over-manned. If they passed a County Courts Bill they would take away a great deal of the business 267 from the higher Courts. In Ireland there were 24 Judges of the first instance against 20 such Judges in England, and 12 Common Law Judges in Ireland against 18 in England. The whole question came to this—were they to maintain all these Judges merely to please the Bar until Government modified their Bill by appointing a Commission of Inquiry into the business performed by the Judges? He must oppose the Bill. The judgments in Ireland numbered 4,481, against 23,543 in England, so that the amount of business done in England was enormously beyond that done in Ireland. He commented on the eagerness of the Members of the Irish Bar for obtaining Government appointments.

§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN
said, these statistics, if his ears did not deceive him, had been given by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) on the day when the Bill was last before the House. He thought that two Judges were at present necessary, but that before any vacancy was filled up a Commission should be appointed to say whether a second Judge was necessary.

§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN
asked whether the hon. Member for Galway (Dr. Ward) would like the principle he laid down applied to the Medical Profession? When he heard the hon. Gentleman apply it-to that Profession then he should believe in his doctrine. He maintained that if the views which had been expressed by the hon. Members near him were carried out the Bench and the Bar would be provincialized and degraded. Were it not that there existed the possibility of obtaining eventually those higher appointments, men of the ability and legal knowledge now practising at the Bar in Ireland would relinquish their practice in Ireland and betake themselves to the English Bar, thus lowering the character of the profession in Ireland, and inflicting deep and lasting injury on suitors in Ireland. He held that the Bar in Dublin was a credit to Ireland, and he hoped the Committee would recognize the character of the Bar and Bench and maintain it. He did not believe the views of the people of Ireland would approve of a reduction of the Judges.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
reminded the Committee that the discus- 268 sion was taking too wide a scope. The question before them was whether the Irish Bankruptcy Court should be left untouched for the present as proposed by the Bill.

MR. SULLIVAN
said, the hon. Baronet (Sir Patrick O'Brien) appeared to lay it down that whether they wanted the Judges or not they had better keep them, because it brought the money there. That was a corrupting influence, and the hon. Baronet belonged to an antediluvian school of Irish politics if he thought now-a-days they could carry on corruption. [Sir PATRICK O'BRIEN rose to Order, fie had not spoken of corruption.] No; the hon. Baronet had shrunk from that, but that was what it was. He called it public corruption when public officials were maintained out of public money, and their services were not bonâ fide required for the discharge of public duties. Why were they, in the name of patriotism, to pay officials in Ireland, whether they were wanted or not? Ireland did not want, either in the name of patriotism or any other name, that public money should be spent in any such manner, and the Department of all others that should be kept free from reproach was that of the seat of justice. The worst mode of expending public money was by applying political patronage to the justice seat, on the ground that it was good money spent in the country. The bankruptcy business in Ireland, they were now told, was increasing; but when other questions were under discussion relating to Ireland, they were told that Ireland, of all countries under the sun, was the home of happiness and prosperity, and that bankruptcy was scarcely known there. Taken as a whole, there was no Judicature throughout the world so free from imputation that would detract from the dignity that belonged to the seat of justice. He was afraid, however, that it was made in Ireland too much the reward of political attachment, rather than of intellectual attainments.

§ MR. GOLDNEY
said, the question was not whether there were sufficient Judges of high attainments in Ireland, but whether the bankruptcy department in that country should remain as at present for some little time longer.

§ MR. LAW
denied on the part of the Irish Bar that they had any desire to multiply judicial places. He did not 269 believe that an extravagant distribution of Imperial money was beneficial for Ireland. He certainly should be surprised to learn that any secret negotiations had taken place between the members of the Irish Bench and the Government in relation to this Bill. The complaint in Ireland was that there had not been sufficient communication between the Government and the Judicial Bench of Ireland before these great changes were proposed. The proper time, however, for the consideration of such a proposition as that before the Committee would be when the Bill, to be brought in hereafter, dealing with bankruptcy, was under discussion. There was sufficient bankruptcy business at present in Ireland to occupy the time of two Judges. He should oppose the Amendment.

§ SIR GEORGE BOWYER,
while concurring with the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) in the opinon that the number of Judges ought not to exceed that which was necessary for the due administration of justice, thought it extremely desirable, seeing how much of our law was Judge-made, that they should not be called upon to work under high pressure, and, in consequence, perhaps decide cases imperfectly. The number of Judges in this country had been a few years ago, in accordance with the economical suggestions of the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), reduced by one or two, and the result was that additional Judges were now called for. Ireland, he might add, was improving, and as that improvement went on its judicial business would increase in importance. It would be but a niggardly policy therefore, he thought, to diminish the number of Judges in that country. He should oppose the Amendment.

§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN
said, he totally and completely disclaimed that he had based his argument on the principle of corruption. He was as free from that commodity as the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan). He had not based his remarks upon any question of patriotism — patriotism he regarded as something too sacred to be estimated by considerations of pounds, shillings, and pence. He regretted to say it was but too often employed in that House and elsewhere upon trivial matters completely un- 270 worthy of its application to them. He had long since ceased to be connected with the Bar, and had no personal interest in it, but as an Irishman he reverenced it as having trained men whose genius, eloquence, and integrity shed lustre on his country.

§ MR. CHARLES LEWIS
expressed his regret that the question of bankruptcy jurisdiction was not dealt with in either of the Irish legal Bills before the House, and said that the mere promise of a measure on the subject some two or three years hence was regarded with great dissatisfaction in the part of Ireland which he represented.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER
expressed dissatisfaction at the conduct of the Government in regard to this measure, for this reason—that this was the third time that the Irish Government had attempted to pass this Bill. The Judiciary establishment in Ireland was so overstocked at present that one out of every three bonâ fide practising lawyers in Dublin might fairly count upon filling a Government situation. He did not mean one out of every three called to the Bar, but one out of every three who had the ghost of a chance of being appointed. They had seen the effects in that plethora of appointments in the history of many distinguished Irish lawyers who had got into the House by the eloquence that had distinguished them at the Bar, and who had been placed on the Bench to adjudicate cases arising out of the practical application of principles which they had themselves advocated. What they proposed was to diminish, as far as the scope of this Bill would permit, the Judiciary in a given case, not immediately, but when a vacancy occurred. They should appeal to the testimony of a Royal Commission.

§ MR. MELDON
said, that when a country was prosperous and credit was very extended, they would find that the bankruptcy business increased, and when trade was dull, it decreased. If one of the Judges of the Court of Bankruptcy was ill or away on Circuit, they proposed that the question of filling up the appointment should be left to a Select Committee.

§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING
said, the Joint Commission appointed to consider the subject came to the conclusion that the Judicial Bench in Ireland was not overmanned. He believed the Judges 271 in England were overworked, the consequence being that men died off the Bench in this country much sooner than they did in Ireland. Again, the English Judges were assisted by Queen's Counsel at the Assizes; whereas in Ireland all the judicial duties were discharged by the Judges themselves. He protested against the imputation which had been cast upon his hon. Friend the Member for the King's County (Sir Patrick O'Brien), who had sat in that House for 25 years, and was, he believed, the oldest Irish Member in the House, and was certainly free from any suggestion of dishonour in reference either to his personal, or political character. It was greatly to be regretted that hon. Members should take advantage of their position in that House to asperse others in order to get applause for themselves.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, that Irish Members ought not to be blamed for expressing their opinions. It was impossible for them to agree always. He was in favour of referring vacant appointments to the consideration of a Royal Commission.

§ MR. PARNELL
wished to point out that the Amendment he had placed on the Paper seemed the only possible way of directing attention to the negligence of the Government in dealing with this Bill. The Attorney General for Ireland had alluded vaguely to some future time when he might deal with the law of Bankruptcy in Ireland, with the view, perhaps, of extending to local tribunals the jurisdiction they held in Ireland. At present the poorer class of traders were much oppressed by having to go to Dublin to get their affairs wound up. He thought this was a question which ought to have been dealt with in this Bill—that the Government, in order to simplify matters, had sought to rush through the House a Bill which was nothing more than a series of compromises between the Bar and the Judges on one hand and the Government on the other, in order to carry out this very imperfect Bill, which affirmed a vast number of abuses, and had left untouched many matters of the first consideration to the poorer classes.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)
said, everything had been done by the Government to improve the administration of justice in Ireland. It was with the higher 272 Courts that the present Bill dealt, and the lower Courts would come within the operation of the County Courts Bill, a subject which would no doubt receive the most careful consideration of a Select Committee. The last Bankruptcy Bill had 125 clauses and over 200 general orders. How could such matters be dealt with in one or two clauses?

§ MR. PARNELL
said, that by the English Judicature Act the Bankruptcy Court was included.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)
said, that it was excluded by the Act of 1875, as the provision was found not to work.

§ MR. DUNBAR
moved, in page 8, line 8, after "Chief Justice," to insert "Master of the Rolls." His object was to make the Master of the Rolls a member of the Appellate Court, and thus put him in the same position as the Master of the Rolls of England. He objected to anything which would lower the office of Master of the Rolls.

§ MR. LAW
supported the Amendment. He said he did not think the position of the Master of the Rolls in Ireland should be lowered, especially having regard to the desirability of maintaining an efficient Court of Appeal. The only objection he had ever heard to the proposal of his hon. Friend, was that the Master of the Rolls might have a difficulty in attending the Court of Appeal without causing inconvenience to the suitors in his own Court; and this, of course, it was desirable to avoid. But it was clear that unless they could have in Ireland a sufficient number of permanent Judges to constitute the Court of Appeal, they must rely on the services of ex-officio Judges. It would admittedly be necessary, on certain occasions, to draw the Chief Justices and Chief Baron from their Courts in order to form a strong Court of Appeal; and that being the case, it was plain that the larger the area from which they selected the Judges of that tri- 273 bunal, the smaller would be the impediment placed in the way of the business of the Courts from which they were drawn. Then it was extremely desirable to have as great variety as possible in the constitution of the Court of Appeal, and that object would be best promoted by retaining the Master of the Rolls as an ex-officio Member of the Court. To do so would, moreover, be not only in harmony with the English system of Judicature, but also consistent with the precedence over other Judges which it was proposed still to leave to the Master of the Rolls. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.

§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING
said, he trusted that the Committee would agree to this Amendment. He thought it would be matter of regret that a Judge of the eminence of the Master of the Rolls should be left out of the Court of Appeal. His presence there would be regarded with great satisfaction in Ireland, and it would only be in conformity with the course followed in England. There was a rumour in Dublin that this step had been taken out of regard to the feelings of the Vice Chancellor; but he was sure that the Vice Chancellor was too high-minded a man to feel any jealousy at the Master of the Rolls being a Member of the Court of Appeal, although he was not himself.

§ SIR EARDLEY WILMOT
was also favourable to the Amendment. If the Master of the Rolls was not allowed to be a Member of the Court of Appeal there would be an undue preponderance in it of Common Law Judges, while the Equity element would be weak.

§ MR. COGAN
also trusted that the Government would re-consider this point. It would strengthen the Court and be most agreeable to the Bar of Ireland that the Master of the Rolls should be a Member of the Court of Appeal.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IEELAND (Mr. GIBSON)
said, that no one entertained a more profound respect than he did for the present Master of the Rolls in Ireland; but the question before the Committee must be discussed on a more comprehensive basis than that involved in personal considerations. The salary of the Master of the Rolls and his high dignity were preserved. No attempt was made to detract from the precedence he had enjoyed; but this Amendment proposed to give him a 274 jurisdiction which the Master of the Rolls had never at any time enjoyed. The ex-officio Members of the Court of Appeal were the Lord Chancellor and the Chiefs of the three Law Courts. If the Chief of the Queen's Bench, of the Exchequer, or of the Common Pleas were withdrawn from his Court to hear appeals, he would leave his own Court with three other Judges fully constituted to transact its ordinary business. But if the Master of the Rolls was withdrawn to sit in the Court of Appeal, his Court and its Chambers must be shut up. Its business could not go on, and the greatest inconvenience would be inflicted on suitors. This would be a most serious matter, seeing that the Master of the Rolls was now one of the most hard-worked Judges in Ireland, and his Court one of those most resorted to. It was said that there would be an anomaly in the Master of the Rolls remaining a Judge in the first instance, while he retained a precedence before the Judges who would sit in appeal from his decisions. But that anomaly existed now. Then he must remind the House that it was proposed to reduce the salary of future Masters of the Rolls from £4,000 to £3,500. This would be inconsistent with his presence as a member of the Court of Appeal. He did not think that it was a sufficient argument in favour of the Amendment that the Master of the Rolls in England was a member of the Appeal Court in this country.

§ MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCK
said, he was in favour of the Amendment, as he thought that in the interests of the public, it was expedient that they should have as strong an appeal as possible. When they considered the eminence of the men who had held the office of the Master of the Rolls in Ireland for the last half-century, it was clear that the presence of the Master of the Rolls would add greater strength to the Court of Appeal. He did not think that any inconvenience would arise from the occasional absence of the Master of the Rolls from his own Court while sitting in the Court of Appeal; because during such absence his duties, whether in Court or in Chambers, could be discharged by one of the Judges from the Landed Estates Court. It was most important to maintain a similar organization of the Judicial Body in England and Ireland, and this would not be done if, while the 275 Master of the Rolls in England was a Judge of the Court of Appeal, the Master of the Rolls in Ireland was not. He protested against the reduction of the salary of Masters of the Rolls from £4,000 to £3,500.

§ MR. MELDON
could not join in the statement that the two Chief Justices would be better spared from their Courts than the Master of the Rolls. Much inconvenience would result from Chief Justices being withdrawn from Nisi Prius cases with a host of cases waiting for trial. He thought there ought to be a larger number of ex-officio Judges to guard against the contingency of not being able to form a Court.

§ SIR HENRY JAMES
said, that the Master of the Rolls now ranked before the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and before the Chief Baron. If these two Judges were made Judges of the Appeal Court, and they declined to make the Master of the Rolls also a Judge of the Appeal Court, it would be a slight to the latter if these Judges could reverse his decision and he could not reverse theirs.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that the opinion had been expressed on both sides of the House, and by hon. Gentlemen exceedingly competent to speak on the subject, that by the arrangement which was proposed in the Bill something in the nature of a slight would be cast upon the Master of the Rolls. Nothing could have been further from the intention of the Government than to cast any slight upon a person of such high rank and position as the Master of the Rolls; and having regard to the opinion expressed, not only by hon. Gentlemen from Ireland, but by so high an authority as the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken, the Government had come to the conclusion that it would be better to accept the Amendment, so that the Master of the Rolls in Ireland should be put upon the Court of Appeal, in the same way as the Master of the Rolls in England.

§ MR. PARNELL
then proposed that only one ordinary Judge should be appointed on the Court of Appeal, instead of two Judges, as provided by the clause. He observed that if there was any contention that the Irish Judges were unable to 276 perform their work, he could understand such a proposal; but he held in his hand a comparison of the relative amount of judicial work performed in Ireland and England from 1862 to 1873. They had in Ireland 12 Judges, and if they were to distribute the same amount of work among the English Judges, it would give employment to 50. If they were to double the number of Judges in Ireland, instead of halving them, he did not think their taxation would be increased. The charge would fall upon the Consolidated Fund, for the English Government were drawing every farthing of taxation out of the country, and it would be perfectly impossible to get any more. The question was, whether an engine of bribery and corruption was to be maintained. He knew the Bar of Ireland, and he knew it was perfectly impossible for any Profession to withstand the corrupting influences that had been brought against the Bar of Ireland. They were, therefore, doing a service to that Bar, as well as to the people of Ireland, in pressing such an Amendment as this.

§ MR. COGAN
desired to protest in the strongest terms that the Rules of the House would permit against the statement of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), that judicial appointments in Ireland were premiums given to the eminent men of the Irish Bar for corruption. He deeply regretted that any Irish Representative should have thought it part of his duty to make such an imputation on the members of the Irish Bench. The character of the Irish Judges stood too high to require any defence from him; and he therefore contented himself with protesting againt the language of the hon. Member, which was deeply to be deplored.

§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING
pointed out that the statistics quoted by the hon. Member for Meath were altogether fallacious as a test of the business done in the Courts of the two countries. He joined in the protest of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cogan) against the attacks of hon. Members on the purity of the Bench and honour of the Bar.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)
pointed out 277 the necessity for having a strong Court of Appeal, one which would command the confidence of the country and prevent the necessity of constant and costly appeals to the House of Lords by dissatisfied suitors. The real strain of the business of the Court would fall upon the Lord Chancellor and the two ordinary Judges of the Court of Appeal. There would always be three Judges sitting in the Court, and he could assure the Committee that the appointment of this additional Judge had not been lightly made. He would receive a salary of £4,000 a-year, and he would occupy an analogous position to that of Lord Justice Christian.

§ MR. BIGGAR
did not believe that if the number of ordinary Judges were reduced to one the Court of Appeal could be at all considered a weak Court. With one ordinary Judge he thought the strength of the Court would be quite sufficient for all ordinary purposes, especially after the decision of the Committee in adding the Master of the Rolls to the number of ex-officio Judges. He objected to this multiplying of officers, and saw no good grounds for paying a lawyer £4,000 a-year for doing little or nothing.

§ MR. PARNELL
thought the Government had failed to make out a case for the appointment of this extra Judge. Why could not the ex-officio Judges of the Court of Appeal do the work? If these last were to be considered merely as ornaments, it were better to strike them off altogether. If the Master of the Rolls, whose appointment had just been the occasion of an hour's use, not to say waste of time, if the appointment of the Master of the Rolls was not a real one, and if there was another Judge appointed to do the work of the ex-officio Judge, it would have been better not to have lost an hour in the last discussion. [Ironical cheers.] He reminded hon. Members that he did not take part in that discussion. It appeared to him that Irish Members, to whom he listened, represented the desire of the nation that the Master of the Rolls should be appointed on the ground that that Judge should do the work and add to the strength of the Court of Appeal. But if another Judge was to be appointed, why appoint the Master of the Rolls? The consequence would be that the work would be in a great measure left to the 278 ordinary Judges, the ex-officio Judges would neglect the Appeal work, and not take the pains with their work which the public had a right to expect.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he understood the salary of this appointed ordinary Judge was to be £4,000 a-year, but he saw no provision in the clause to that effect. He asked under what portion of the clause that was enacted.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)
referred the hon. Member to the words of the 10th clause, and said the Bill followed the Act of 1856, under which the salary of Lord Justice Christian was fixed at £4,000.

§ MR. PARNELL
asked why such a high salary as £4,000 a-year should be given to an ordinary Judge in the Court of Appeal? It was double the income of barristers of the first rank, and certainly there were not five barristers at the Irish Bar receiving £3,000 a-year. In making appointments in the English Courts the rule that salaries should bear some proportion to the emoluments of the Profession was observed; but in Ireland the salary of a Judge seemed to be twice, or, in some cases, three times the amount he would earn by practising in his Profession. Further on he had upon the Paper an Amendment to reduce these salaries, and he now moved the reduction of the salaries of the ordinary Judges of Appeal to £3,500 a-year. In all probability there would be an additional charge thrown upon the Consolidated Fund by an increase in the salary paid to the Master of the Rolls. He would ask if that was not so?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)
said, he saw no reason for a change in that respect.

§ MR. PARNELL
observed that an Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) proposed to increase the salary of the Master of the Rolls by £500. In that he saw an additional reason for reducing the salaries of the ordinary Judges by a like amount.

THE CHAIRMAN
reminded the hon. Member that the Amendment was not relevant to the clause under discussion.

§ MR. PARNELL
gave Notice of his intention to introduce the subject on Report.

§ DR. WARD (for Mr. BUTT)
moved, in page 9, line 30, to add— No Judge of the High Court of Justice, while he continues such Judge, shall hereafter he appointed to any place of profit under the Crown. No Judge of the High Court of Justice, other than the Lord Chancellor, shall he or continue to he 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. He gave instances of Judges holding positions as Commissioners of Education, and in consequence subjecting themselves and their officers to a great deal of suspicion of partiality in matters in which, from their position as Commissioners, they were interested. The respect for the law was not increased by such a state of things. One of the Judges in Ireland, in addition to his salary of £3,500, received £2,000 as a Member of a most important Commission. That would tend to show that the Judges had not a sufficient amount of judicial work. It was most undesirable that administrators of the law should come into contact with public opinion upon agitated questions, and this was recognized in England and Scotland.