§ Clause 1 (Special Commission Court).
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had the following Amendment first on the Paper:—Clause 1, page 1, line 12, before the first word "The," insert—
From and after the passing of this Act, the forty-fourth Victoria, chapter four, shall be and the same is hereby repeated.This Amendment was out of Order, and could not be put.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, that if the Amendment was out of Order on Clause 1, could it not be moved on Clause 2 or 3, or on some other clause?
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the Amendment was within the title of the Bill, and should, therefore, be brought forward as a new clause.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, his next Amendment was in line 12, after "Lieutenant," to insert "with the consent of the Judges of the Supreme Court of Judicature." He considered that the Judges upon whom would devolve the responsibility for the carrying out of the Act should be consulted by the Lord Lieutenant. The Committee knew by the evidence the Judges had given before the Court of Inquiry in the House of Lords that a number of these learned gentlemen, while they had their own views as to the efficacy of the present system of trial by jury in Ireland, strongly condemned any such proposal for its abolition as that in the Bill. Even Mr. Justice Fitzgerald and Mr. Justice Barry were of that opinion, and a Memorial, as the Committee were aware, had recently been addressed to the Government by the Irish Judges, 1757 embodying a request that trial by jury should not be interfered with in the way the Government proposed to interfere with it. If the proposal contained in the present Amendment were adopted, it might have the effect of enabling the Lord Lieutenant to devise some scheme for the holding of trials in Ireland more satisfactory than that of the Bill. Moreover, if the Lord Lieutenant could have the advantage of taking the advice of a number of the Judges, the councils of the Lord Lieutenant would be very considerably benefited. The Amendment was, he thought, a reasonable one. It would place some check on the action of the Lord Lieutenant, and, for that reason alone, should be acceptable. The proposal down to line 16 was of a different character to the proposal in the concluding portion of the clause. The first part of the clause would give the Lord Lieutenant power to issue Commissions for the trial of persons charged with certain offences without abolishing trial by jury—it would give the Lord Lieutenant power to establish Special Commissioners without interfering with the present jury system. That was altogether different from the concluding portion of the clause, which, after the recital of the offences, went on to empower the Lord Lieutenant absolutely to abolish trial by jury. On all grounds, with reference to the first and concluding portions of the clause, he thought it desirable that the Lord Lieutenant should have the advice of the Judges of the Supreme Court of Judicature.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 12, after "Lieutenant," insert "with the consent of the Judges of the Supreme Court of Judicature."—(Mr. Healy.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTThe hon. Member's Amendment would be absolutely inconsistent with, and fatal to, the whole structure of the Bill. The Lord Lieutenant represents the Crown. The Crown, when it issues a Special Commission, issues it as a mandatory, directory, authority, or power to the Judges, commanding them to try certain offences. But to say that the Crown is to exercise the power of issuing a Special Commission "with the consent of the Judges," would be contrary to all conception of the relations which exist be- 1758 tween the Crown and the Judges. Therefore, the Amendment is entirely in admissible. In reference to what the hon. Member has said as to the earlier part of the clause and its concluding portion, I can answer him in a single sentence. The idea is not that the Lord Lieutenant shall appoint a particular Commission for the trial of each individual case as it arises, but that he shall appoint a Special Commission generally, to which each case as it arises will be referred. The Clause says—
The Lord Lieutenant may, from time to time, direct a Commission or Commissions to be issued for the appointment of a Court or Courts of Special Commissioners for the trial in manner provided by this Act of persons charged with any of the following offences.The hon. Member will see the kind of crimes to try persons accused of which the Commission will be issued.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, with regard to what had fallen from the right hon. and learned Gentleman in January last year, they had had a trial—that of "Parnell and Others"—at which Mr. Chief Justice May had refused to be present. Was not that a case in point? After a statement he had made on a previous occasion that showed him to be biassed in the case, Chief Justice May came into Court, and said that under the circumstances he could not proceed with the trial or take any part in the proceedings; and the result was that the case was tried by other Judges of the Queen's Bench. It seemed to him (Mr. Biggar) that it was desirable that such a provision as that proposed by his hon. Friend (Mr. Healy) should be introduced, and for the reason that it might be proposed by the Lord Lieutenant that some Judge who had a strong objection to acting both as Judge and jury should proceed to take part in trials under the Bill, or that some Judge should officiate who might have said, "This is a case on which I have formed a very strong opinion, and I do not consider myself justified in trying it." He thought that where a Judge was biassed—as Chief Justice May had been—he should not be compelled to try a case if he did not wish to.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, everyone recollected the circumstance of Chief Justice May's declining to sit on the case to which, reference had been 1759 made. The learned Chief Justice himself had considered it was more consistent with the due administration of justice that he should not sit on the case, and it was not necessary that he should sit.
§ MR. P. MARTINsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department opposed the Amendment, on the ground that it was inconsistent with the relations that ought to exist between the Crown and the Judges. But he submitted that this dangerous and unconstitutional clause would have the very effect which the right hon. and learned Gentleman deprecated. As the power given to the Lord Lieutenant would be extraordinary and unprecedented, why should not its exercise be checked as proposed by the Irish Judges? The question in substance was—Would the Committee impose on the Irish Bench the discharge of duties which each and every member of that Bench declared would seriously impair public confidence in their judicial office, and permanently injure the administration of justice in Ireland? Last year the matter had been fully considered by the Lords' Committee of Inquiry into the Jury Laws in Ireland, and the evidence of two of the most eminent Judges in that country had been taken on the point. Mr. Justice Barry had stated, in the most emphatic terms possible, that, in point of fact, the thrusting upon the Judges of any such authority would, in itself, be most unfortunate. He had said he should consider it a very unfortunate suggestion; and he was satisfied that sending down Judges to try men without juries would destroy public confidence in them, and he did not think they would be ever able to restore it again. Mr. Justice Lawson had given evidence to the same effect. It would be found that although some witnesses urged on the Lords' Committee the recommendation of the provision of the present Bill, that Committee refused to adopt it, and all they recommended was a special tribunal. The matter, however, did not rest on the opinion of the Judges. When the Bill of 1833 was before the House, the opinions of two most eminent English statesmen were delivered in noteworthy and un-mistakeable terms in respect to a proposal similar to that which they were now asked to adopt. On the 27th February, 1760 1833, as will be found recorded in Hansard, thus did the late Lord Althorp express his conviotions—
It had been mentioned, amongst other things, that a Judge of Assize ought to be Bent down to try offenders without the aid of a jury; but there was not a single precedent in favour of such a course, which would be dangerous in itself, and more unconstitutional than anything which had, up to then, been suggested.That, which was the opinion of one of the greatest statesmen in England, was given after hearing all the arguments which could be urged in the matter. The late Lord Derby—then Mr. Stanley—also delivered in emphatic terms his opinion as to the suggestion. He said—It would be with the greatest alarm and repugnance that I should contemplate the employment of Judges of the land—of men whose characters ought to be beyond stain, or even the imputation of a stain, of men who should strictly confine themselves to the letter as well as to the spirit of the law—in such work as had been suggested.If the late Lord Derby were alive now, he would have pointed out how cases might arise where judgments given from time to time by the Judges would be brought up for discussion in the House of Commons. If the popular Party felt aggrieved in the slightest manner by a judgment, that judgment would, in all likelihood, be canvassed with acrimony in the House. Was that a position in which the Judges ought to be placed? What ought to be the duties and the character of the Judges? Was it not the duty of a Judge to preserve the subject from the inroads of the Executive, and from the attacks which the Executive might make upon Constitutional rights and privileges? It was now proposed to impair that confidence which the public had in his impartiality, to alter that character and position with which he was heretofore invested, and to turn him into a mere tool of the Executive. If the Bill passed in its present shape, he feared that such was the estimation in which a Judge in Ireland would be held. Let not the Committee imagine that the course of justice would be made more secure and certain. He believed there never was a tribunal before which a criminal could more easily escape than from a tribunal composed of three Judges, who were to be unanimous, and from whom there was the power of appeal. So far as the 1761 criminal was concerned, the tribunal of Judges would be just as uncertain as a tribunal of 12 men. He was happy to say that he believed they had in Ireland on the Judicial Bench men as high-minded and as upright as any men who ever honoured the Judiciary of any country. That being so, it was upon other and higher grounds that he objected altogether to this provision of the Bill. If they were to listen to the reasons urged for the establishment of this special tribunal——
THE CHAIRMANI must point out to be hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Martin) that his speech relates to the whole clause, and would be quite in Order, when the Question is that the clause stand part of the Bill. The Amendment now under consideration is as to whether the Lord Lieutenant shall exercise the power "with the consent of the Judges of the Supreme Court of Judicature."
§ MR. HEALYsaid, that for their future guidance, might he ask whether a Member might not discuss an Amendment as it affected the entire clause? The present Amendment, if carried, would affect the clause as a whole; in fact, it would change the sense and character of the clause entirely. He submitted to the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees, whether an hon. Member was not entitled to discuss an Amendment in its bearing to the clause as a whole?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that, on the point of Order, he had to say that if the Judges consented, then the Judges would act. It was a question whether the Judges were to give their consent or not.
THE CHAIRMANUnder certain circumstances, an hon. Member would be in Order in discussing the bearings of an Amendment on the whole clause; but, at the present moment, the question is simply whether the Lord Lieutenant may direct a Commission to be issued with the consent of certain Judges; and I must ask the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Martin) to confine his remarks to that point.
§ MR. P. MARTINsaid, that, of course, he should bow to the ruling of the Chair; but it struck him he had a right to explain what the nature of the clause was. He, however, only rose for the purpose of expressing his intention to support 1762 the Amendment, because, in his opinion, it would, to a certain extent, control, if not prevent, the exercise by the Lord Lieutenant of the power proposed to be left at his arbitrary discretion under the clause.
§ MR. BULWERsaid, the clause provided that—
The Lord Lieutenant may from time to time direct a Commission or Commissions to be issued for the appointment of a Court or Courts of Special Commissioners;and then it went on to say—A Special Commission Court shall consist of three Judges of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland.He would be glad to know whether the Special Commission to be appointed was to consist of only three Judges, or of five or six Judges; and whether the three Judges, who were to try any particular case, were to be chosen exclusively by the Lord Lieutenant, or by themselves? In this country, a large number of Judges were included in a Commission, so that, in case of the illness or inability of any of the members, the Court might not be at a standstill. If each Special Commission was to consist of only three Judges, it might very often happen, on account of the illness of one of the members of the Commission, or through some other cause, that a trial would be postponed, or be abortive.
THE CHAIRMANThat point really arises under sub-section 2 of this clause. It can scarcely be raised on the present Amendment.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, it appeared to him that the Committee ought not to accept the Amendment, because it placed responsibility upon the Judges in the wrong place, and at the wrong time. The necessity of some new tribunal was very generally admitted; but, under the circumstances, it appeared to him that the responsibility of issuing the Commission ought not to be shared by those who were the persons to discharge the duties under the Commission. The responsibility should rest with the head of the Executive Government in the country.
§ MR. R. T. REIDsaid, he did not think the Amendment carried out the purpose its proposer had in view. He understood that no person would be tried without jury, except some Judges should have decided he should be so tried. If that was the purpose of the Amendment, 1763 the proper course for the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) to pursue was to go to line 23, and say—"that no person shall be tried by a Special Commission whenever it appears to the Judges," instead of saying—"whenever it appears to the Lord Lieutenant."
§ MR. HEALYsaid, the Amendment was taken in connection with another Amendment lower down on the Paper. His proposition was that trial should first take place with a jury, and then, if there was a disagreement, the Judge who presided at the trial should be taken into the confidence of the Lord Lieutenant, and should advise the Lord Lieutenant as to the future trial of the accused man. If the Government would indicate to the Committee whether they would allow a man first of all to be tried by an ordinary jury, and then, if there was any failure of justice, by a tribunal of three Judges, he would be prepared to withdraw the Amendment. There had been no such indication on the part of the Government, and it was necessary he should propose the present Amendment, in conjunction with the one he had further down. He admitted the course was unusual; but the Bill was an unusual one. They were bound to meet unusual and exceptional courses in an unusual and exceptional way.
§ MR. O'KELLYsaid, the Amendment was calculated to prevent vexatious legal proceedings on the part of the politicians who would have the power to use the Act. If the Amendment were accepted by the Committee, it would not be in the power of the purely political element in Ireland to institute legal proceedings of a vexatious kind against anyone in Ireland without having the consent of the Judges. He did not exactly share the opinion of his hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Martin) with regard to the Irish Judges; but he considered they were men who would be guided by some rules of legal evidence, and men who would be less likely to act from purely political motives, and with the object of inflicting political vengeance, than the gentlemen who might have the administration of the Act when it became law. If the Committee accepted the Amendment, there would be some protection against the arbitrary use of the Bill; and from that point of view he would certainly 1764 advise his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) to press his Amendment.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he wished to point out to the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) that this Amendment did not at all correspond with what he stated was the view of his later Amendment—namely, that there should, first of all, be trial by jury, and afterwards, in case of a disagreement, a trial by Judges. The present Amendment simply provided that no Commission should be issued except with the consent of the Judges, and there was no mention whatever of any failure of justice.
§ COLONEL NOLANsupported the Amendment. The Bill was a very strong one; in fact, it placed absolutely despotic powers in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant. There ought to be some limit to the powers of the Lord Lieutenant, and they were now discussing whether His Excellency should, of his own motion, have power to issue a Commission. He did not believe the Committee would insist on three Judges, for the Judges had so much distaste for the work that, in his belief, the Judges would not be appointed. He thought it would be right to surround the Bill with as many of the old forms of justice as possible, and in some way to place responsibility on the Judges; and he therefore thought the Amendment very good. The Judges ought, at least, to be consulted on the appointment of Commissions, and the Bill was of such a sweeping character that every possible safeguard ought to be introduced.
§ DR. COMMINSsaid, the question was whether there was to be any responsibility at all for issuing a Commission. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) had mistaken the point of the Amendment, when he said the object of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) was to place the responsibility on the wrong people—namely, on the Judges. The intention of the hon. Member for Wexford was to insure some person being responsible for the issuing of a Commission. The Lord Lieutenant was not responsible to that House; he could not be interrogated in that House, and was not legally responsible for any action that he might take. The Lord Lieutenant was, probably, the only per- 1765 son in the Kingdom, except Her Majesty, who was absolved from all responsibility to the law. Some years ago, there was an unfortunate affray in the Phœnix Park, which resulted from an order of the Lord Lieutenant for the time, and his Chief Secretary, the present Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington). A member of the Press named O'Byrne obtained £1,000 in damages against the Chief Secretary; but a point of law was raised that the action of the police was done under an order of the Chief Secretary, and the Chief Secretary was entitled to plead the direction of the Lord Lieutenant; and the Court of Exchequer decided that the order of the Chief Secretary and the order of the Lord Lieutenant were acts of State, entirely beyond the cognizance of the law, and could not be called in question by a Court of Law any more than an act of Her Majesty the Queen could be. That was the law in Ireland; but in England no person, except the Queen, was beyond responsibility to the law. The law said the Queen could do no wrong, and if wrong was done in Her name, the responsible Minister must be ready to render an account in a Court of Law. Wrong of the most grievous kind might be done in Ireland, not by the Queen, but by a Minister who yet was not responsible. The object of the hon. Member for Wexford was to introduce something like responsibility in regard to these Commissions. The hon. Member might not have taken the best course in that direction; for it struck him (Dr. Commins) that it might have been better to introduce after "the Lord Lieutenant" the words "with the advice of the Privy Council." The Privy Council would then be liable, and there would be some authority that could be brought to the Bar of the House to answer for the issuing of a Commission. At present there was no person responsible, and if the Bill passed in its present form, the Lord Lieutenant might have reasons that would not bear investigation for the issuing of a Commission, and no person could be called upon to answer for that having been done. Therefore, although he believed that would be an imperfect form of responsibility, it would be wiser to insert, "with the advice of the Privy Council," and he should support the Amendment.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTThe hon. Member (Dr. Commins) has stated that there is no responsibility on the part of the Lord Lieutenant, and that the Lord Lieutenant cannot be brought before this House. The Judges cannot be brought before this House, except in the same manner as the Lord Lieutenant. If a Judge misconducts himself or comes to a wrong conclusion, the only way in which you can make him responsible is by an Address to the Crown to remove him from the Bench. Why could you not have an Address to the Crown to remove the Lord Lieutenant? The responsibility of the Lord Lieutenant is as great as that of a Judge, or even greater. The Lord Lieutenant is a Member of the Cabinet, and he and every other Member of the Cabinet is responsible for any acts done; and in these matters you can make him amenable neither more nor less than a Judge. We shall only diminish the responsibility by introducing another authority. If you want the most complete responsibility, have it in a Cabinet Minister, who is responsible to this House, and with whom is also responsible the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who is his organ in this House. It seems to me that as regards responsibility you cannot have it more completely than by placing it upon the Lord Lieutenant.
§ MR. FIRTHsaid, it seemed to him that the clause was clearly sufficient in regard to the duty of the Lord Lieutenant. His act would be an ex-officio act in his position as the Representative of the Queen; but his responsibility was in setting a Commission to work, and not in nominating a Commission.
§ MR. MARUMthought the proposal of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) was most reasonable, because no one could know better than the Judges whether it was necessary to substitute trial by three Judges for trial by jury. The object of the Amendment was to enable the Lord Lieutenant to come in contact with the judicial mind of the Judges, and to ascertain distinctly from them, and not from the Executive, whether there was any necessity for a Commission. One of the most objectionable features in regard to any Government was that the Executive was obliged to rely on the police—and that was especially the case in Ireland—in order to ascertain whether it was necessary to 1767 substitute a summary process for trial by jury The purpose of the Amendment was to insure that, where the Lord Lieutenant was not associated with the Privy Council, he should be associated with the Judges before issuing a Commission abolishing the right of trial by jury.
§ MR. BULWERthought there was some misunderstanding upon the point. He understood from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department that the purpose of the Government was that the Lord Lieutenant should decide upon the issuing of a Commission. The object was to appoint a Commission of Judges to deal with certain cases should they arise, and he thought he might put an analogous case. The House had decided that Election Petitions should be tried by Judges, and the Judges were appointed by rota; but it did not follow that because Judges were appointed every year Petitions would come up for trial. It might be proper that when a case of treason-felony arose, the Lord Lieutenant, if he desired the advice of more experienced men as to whether such an offence should be tried by a jury or by a Commission, might take the opinion of the Judges. He did not understand this provision as substituting a special tribunal for the ordinary mode of trial in every case dealt with by the 1st clause. It was only authorizing the Lord Lieutenant to issue a Commission; but if he thought it wise, he could direct that any case might still be tried by a jury.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he was not, for many reasons, inclined to support the Amendment. The proposition was that the authority of the Lord Lieutenant should be limited by the consent of the Judges; but, apart from other objections to that, there was this fundamental objection—that, as far as he was aware, the Judges of the Supreme Court of Judicature had not exhibited any quality which would lead to the supposition that the Lord Lieutenant, if advised by them, would be more careful of Irish liberty than without that advice. It would appear, from the discussion of this Bill, that the Irish Party did not believe in the judicial mind of the Judges of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland as applied to Irish Party politics. So the only ground upon 1768 which he could explain his hon. Friend's (Mr. Healy's) Amendment was that he must be relying on the recent declaration of the Judges against having anything to do with this Bill at all. He (Mr. O'Donnell) thought his hon. Friend displayed a credulity quite alien to his usual acuteness of character, when he believed that the Judges of the Supreme Court would long resist the pressure which the persuasions of Her Majesty's Government would exercise on the minds of the Judges. There was already substantial proof that the Government did not believe in the independence of the intentions of the Supreme Court, for, notwithstanding the protest of the Judges against having anything to do with the Bill, the Government had now taken the first steps towards paying the Judges for duties which they had declared they did not wish to take up. That was a proceeding by which the Government could influence the Irish Judges to do something which the Irish people did not wish them to do. He could not but think that, if the Lord Lieutenant was to have a coadjutor at all, the proper person to be his coadjutor would be the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had brought this Bill in (Sir William Harcourt). The right hon. and learned Gentleman was put down on the Bill as having prepared and brought it in; and, from the view of Irish patriotism, it would be much better to appoint the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Adviser of the Lord Lieutenant, instead of the Irish Judges. The Lord Lieutenant, under this Bill, would be the merest puppet worked from Downing Street; he would be the man behind the screen. It would be the English Government who would really be responsible for whatever the Lord Lieutenant did. He fully agreed with two or three of his hon. Friends that if any good was to be got out of this Bill there was a great necessity for having some sort of council of an Irish character, and in some sort of contact with Irish opinion, associated with the Lord Lieutenant. No Lord Lieutenant, for a very long time to come—during the whole time in which the Liberal Party would be in fear of the Tory Party, and he saw no immediate prospect of the Liberal Party emancipating themselves from the control of the Conservative Party in Irish affairs—there was no probability of the Lord Lieutenant 1769 coming in contact with Irish opinion. The Secretary of State for the Home Department, his name being on the back of this Bill, would enjoy the advantage in regard to Irish administration that, in case of necessity, he might receive the respectful rebuke of the Irish Members. There could be no doubt that even the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. W. E. Forster) owed much to the kindly councils which continually attended his steps, and which were continually tendered to him from the Benches of the Irish Party. Irish Members would have no hold on the Lord Lieutenant or the Irish Judges, and neither the Lord Lieutenant nor the Irish Judges would be responsible to Parliament; but if the Secretary of State for the Home Department was introduced in the Bill, instead of the Irish Judges, then there would be a responsible Minister to whom the Irish Party could directly address their observations of complaint; and he confessed that he should by no means be without hope that the silent character and independent and firm will of the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be of very great use in this matter. The Amendment introducing the Irish Judges would be quite useless; and, for his part, as the whole of the rest of the action of the Irish Party would be directed against trusting the Irish Judges with any exceptional powers, he should feel bound to follow the general action of the Irish Party in this matter, and vote, if necessary, against his hon. Friend.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he did not desire to go to a division on the question; but he would like to have some idea from the Secretary of State for the Home Department upon the point he had raised. He had put down, later on, an Amendment, to which this Amendment was consequential, with regard to trial by jury, and upon the point of dispensing with trial by jury. No reply had been given upon that point, and he should be glad to have some information before deciding whether to take a division or not. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), the Irish Judges had given evidence in the House of Lords, and had presented a Memorial which led to the supposition that they objected to the abolition of trial by jury; and, therefore, he thought they would constitute an admirable 1770 check on the functions of the Lord Lieutenant. He had no desire to waste time; but he should like some information from the Government as to whether their minds were open upon this question of trial by jury.
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member has asked for information on an Amendment which comes later on in the Paper, and it is not in Order to discuss or explain that subject now.
MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, the object of his hon. Friend's (Mr. Healy's) Amendment was simply to put on the Judges a share of the responsibility with the Lord Lieutenant for this unconstitutional action. The hon. Member for Wexford proposed to insert the Judges in the Bill, while the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) proposed to insert the Secretary of State for the Home Department; but neither proposition seemed to him (Mr. Joseph Cowen) satisfactory. He would suggest that they might insert the Privy Council. The Privy Council was supposed to advise the Lord Lieutenant on any proceeding be might take; but it was not often that the Lord Lieutenant consulted the Privy Council. In this matter, under special circumstances, the Lord Lieutenant might issue a Commission "with the consent of the Privy Council," and if the hon. Member for Wexford would withdraw his Amendment he (Mr. Joseph Cowen) would move to introduce these words instead.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, there was one argument that had not been advanced. It had been pointed out earlier in the evening that Mr. Clifford Lloyd had been a very confidential adviser of the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. W. E. Forster), and he thought it was very much more desirable to have gentlemen of position who were known and could be pointed out as advisers of the Government, than obscure men, such as were consulted by the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, in whom the Irish people could have no confidence whatever. It was very likely that, in many cases of that sort, no one would know who the persons consulted were. They knew who Mr. Clifford Lloyd was; but there might be men quite as bad as he, and yet could not be pointed out. He was not giving a certificate of character to the Irish Judges—it was no part of 1771 his duty to do so; but he thought it desirable that gentlemen of official position, who were before the world, should be the advisers of the Government, instead of obscure men.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday next.