MR. SULLIVANasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If his attention has been called to the proceedings in the Court of Appeal, Dublin, on Tuesday last, in reference to the claims of Mr. Ball, late Solicitor to the Irish Church Temporalities Commissioners, opposed by the Treasury; more especially to the language of the Master of the Rolls, who, in delivering judgment, is reported to have said—
A more discreditable or more disgraceful course was never pursued than that adopted by the Treasury before Judge Flanagan;and the language of Mr. Justice Deasy, who said—It was one of the most unjust attempts ever made in a court of justice to defraud a man of money due to him for plain services under a contract sanctioned by the very people who now come forward to oppose him;and, if he can inform the House what Government Department or what Government official directed and is responsible for the proceedings thus characterised by the Irish Judges?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERThe Question of the hon. and learned Gentleman is—what Department of the Government is responsible for the proceedings to which he has called attention? I have to say that it is the Department of the Lords of the Treasury. With respect to the circumstances to which his Question refers, I can only say it is a long story, and I could not possibly trouble the House by going fully into it; but I will endeavour, in an observation or two, to make the matter plain. The remarks referred to as having been made by the learned Judges were delivered under a misunderstanding as to the course which the Treasury had pursued. The state of the matter appeared to be this—By the Irish Church Act, the Church Temporalities Commissioners were authorized to pay various officers such salaries as might be recommended and sanctioned by the Lord Lieutenant and approved of by the Treasury. In regard to Mr. Ball there were two alternatives—that he should be paid by fixed salary, or that he should be paid by fees. The Treasury were asked to choose which alternative they preferred, and they preferred the former. They understood certain letters as meaning that the fixed salary was to cover all the services that would otherwise have been paid by fees. A question arose, however, as to whether it did cover certain classes of fees. In the litigation that followed Justice Flanagan upheld the view taken by the Treasury, and the case was so decided; but, subsequently, it was taken before the Court of Appeal, when the former decision was reversed, and the other view taken. I do not express any opinion as to which view was right; but I think the view expressed by the learned Judge was stated under a misunderstanding that could be easily explained.
MR. SULLIVANMight I ask the right hon. Gentleman was the Treasury represented by no one before the Court of Appeal that could explain the matter; and if not, why not?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERThe Treasury was not represented directly at the suit. The suit was one between the Church Temporalities Commission and Mr. Ball, and the Treasury was not represented by anyone. I regret it was not, and I am unable to account for it.
§ MR. MELDONSir, I beg to give Notice that to-morrow I shall ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Treasury intends to appeal to the House of Lords?