HC Deb 05 June 1884 vol 288 cc1667-78

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 2 (Power to appoint revising barrister).

MR. WARTON

proposed to insert, after "time," in page 1, line 9— Whenever satisfied that the Recorder of Dublin is unable from unavoidable absence or illness to discharge his duties with regard to the registration of Parliamentary voters and the revision of the list of jurors. The object of the Amendment was to provide that a Commissioner should only be appointed when it was absolutely necessary. It was quite clear that the Recorder of Dublin had ample time to discharge his duties; but in case it should happen he had not time, the Amendment provided for the temporary appointment of a person to assist him. The Amendment would have the effect of showing what the real mind of the Government was upon the point.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 9, after the word "time," to insert—" Whenever satisfied that the Recorder of Dublin is unable from unavoidable absence or illness to discharge his duties with regard to the registration of Parliamentary voters and the revision of the list of jurors."—(Mr. Warton.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. TREVELYAN

said, the Government were quite unable to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member, which, if carried, would practically go to prove that the Bill was useless. The contention of the Bill was that the Recorder was at a particular part of the year very greatly overworked. This was not a new story. The Government had been charged, in very plain terms, with having brought in this Bill for political purposes; but he confessed that till the Bill was brought before the House he had not the slightest conception it had the least political bearing. It had been stated that this question was first started during the time the late Government were in Office, and his (Mr. Trevelyan's) object was to prove that that was the fact. The matter was brought before Lord Chancellor Ball, who wrote a letter—a public letter—the gist of which was, that if the duty of revising the list of voters took the Recorder—

MR. GIBSON

asked if the letter referred to were an official letter?

MR. TREVELYAN

said, it was.

MR. GIBSON

Is it on the file?

MR. TREVELYAN

said, it was on the file. It was written in consequence of another letter, dated the 20th of January, from the Recorder of Dublin, and the gist of the communication made by Lord Chancellor Ball was that if the duty of revision took 20 days, he thought that that was too much for the Recorder, as it seemed to him that it occurred at an inconvenient time of year; but he postponed the further consideration of the question, in order that he might have before him the results of further experience. Since then there had been further experience; and the result of that experience of last year had been that the discharge of the duties was found to occupy the time of the Recorder for a period of 23 working days, instead of 20 or 21, which was the time Lord Chan- cellor Ball had named as entailing too severe a demand on the Recorder. Hon. Members were probably unaware of the fact that the period during which the work of revising the lists was carried on was a very short one indeed. The work of revision had to be performed between the 9th of September and the 25th of October, and it could not begin, before the 9th of September. The regular work of the Recorder took that officer until the end of August, and was begun on the 1st of October, so that the burden of the revision work entirely deprived him of any chance of a summer vacation. Last year the Recorder portioned out his time, in the hope of getting the revision work done in 12 working days; but when he really came to the task, he found that it occupied him 23 days. He ought to begin on the 7th of September to record precedents, and he ought on the 1st of October to begin his judicial work, so that this was running the matter very fine. The Recorder had laid his case before his (Mr. Trevelyan's) right hon. Friend the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Forster), and so impressed was the right hon. Gentleman with the strength of that case, that the right hon. Gentleman communicated with the Treasury, and obtained their approval to a Bill of the same nature as that which he (Mr. Trevelyan) now had the honour of submitting. That Bill, however, fell through, as many other Bills had done, owing to want of time in which it could be passed; and the consequence was that the case was brought before him. (Mr. Trevelyan) and the Under Secretary in the course of last winter. He could only say that he had approached the subject without the least conception that there was anything beyond a desire on the part of the Recorder to be relieved of some difficult work which came upon him at a time when it was exceedingly difficult to perform it. The Irish Government were satisfied that the Recorder had made out a case; and in the belief that he had too much to do at that special period of the year they applied to the Treasury, in order to obtain a renewal of its sanction to the arrangement proposed in the Bill before the House. His (Mr. Trevelyan's) belief still was that this arrangement was one that was due to the Recorder, that it was one which could work nothing but good to the public, and one, also, that was not prompted by any political motive, and would not be the means of giving a political advantage to any Party. As to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport, it was one that would, if carried, cut away all the ground on which the Bill was based. At the present moment if the Revising Barrister was ill, or in case of his unavoidable absence, he could, under the Statute, obtain a substitute; and if the Amendment were carried, there would be no use in passing this Bill at all. Believing the Bill, which in reality was a very small matter, although its effect had been very much exaggerated in debate, to be, on the whole, a good Bill, he would ask the Committee to accept the clause as it stood, and refuse to pass the Amendment.

MR. GIBSON

said, that when the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary talked about the Bill having been very much exaggerated in debate in that House, he seemed to lose sight of the fact that his own speech had contained the first syllable of debate upon it, with the exception of what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton). It was true that a good many Notices of opposition to the Bill had been put down by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), who had a keen eye for anything in the shape of a job; but, owing to some cause or other, the original blocks to the Bill had got off the Paper, the second reading had passed without notice, and on a day when it was not expected, the debate which should have taken place upon going into Committee having collapsed, the Speaker was got out of the Chair and the Chairman of Committees into it, the result being that the Bill was now in the stage of Progress, the first speech that had really been made on the Bill having just been delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. At the late hour they had just reached, and in the then constitution of the Committee, he did not think he could offer any great amount of opposition to the Bill; but he thought he should be able to demonstrate, in the short space of five minutes, that this measure constituted what was in reality very like a job. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had sought to rest the proposal on the authority of the late Government; but the fact was that the late Government had never seriously touched the question. He (Mr. Gibson) was in Office under the late Administration as Attorney General, and could state positively that he was never a party to such a proposal; and not only was this the case, but with his sanction no such Bill would ever have been brought into that House. Therefore, to suggest that the late Government were answerable for this measure was to make a suggestion as to which he need not detain the Committee for another moment. What, he asked, were the facts? The Recorder of Dublin was paid a salary of £2,500 a-year, while, with the additions that had been made to his duties, his time was only occupied during 100 days out of the 365 which made up the year, so that this left the Recorder 205 days during which he did not sit. If, however, he were to take the work performed by the Recorder of Dublin, and compare it with that which was done by the County Court Judges in this country, it would at once be seen how absurd it was on the part of the Government to say it was necessary to bring in a measure of relief in the case of a man whose work only extended over 160 days, and who got very good pay for it. He would instance the case of the late Recorder of Belfast, a most respected and honoured Judge, who had only died last week, greatly to the regret of everyone who had the honour and privilege of his acquaintance. That gentleman, who was 77 years of age, was old enough to be the father of the present Recorder of Dublin, and, at the time of his death, was in receipt of a salary of £2,000 a-year. Well, what was the amount of work he had to do as compared with that performed by the Recorder of Dublin? As Recorder of Belfast he sat nearly as often as the Recorder of Dublin; but what, on the other hand, was his revising work? And here it should be remembered that this was a Bill which asked, not that any public service was to be curtailed at a corresponding reduction of pay, but that the Recorder of Dublin was to be relieved of a portion of his present duty at the expense of the State. This, indeed, was the whole case; and although the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had tried to attach responsibility to the late Government, he had been unable to point to any Bill brought in by that Government, or to any other document that could be relied on in support of that position.

MR. TREVELYAN

There was the letter of Lord Chancellor Ball.

MR. GIBSON

said, he had not the least hesitation in stating that when the eminent and distinguished person, who wrote that letter heard that it was regarded as conveying a statement that the Government with which he was connected was party to any such proposal as that contained in the present measure, a very sharp reply would come from him, and the effect of that reply would be that the late Government never proposed anything of the kind. Well, what did the Lord Lieutenant's proposition amount to? Why, that a man who was only occupied during 160 working days would like to be relieved of a portion of the duty which occupied only 23 working days, and would like to be relieved of this while at the same time retaining his full salary of £2,500 a-year, which, it should not be forgotten, was an increase on the former stipend. Originally, the Recorder of Dublin only received £2,000 a-year; but a few years ago the salary was raised to £2,500 a-year, on account partly of the very increase of duty from which it was now not only proposed to relieve him, but to relieve him at his full stipend—this proposal I being made by a Government that was; pledged to economy. Such was the present position of the Recorder of Dublin. What, he would ask, was the duty of that officer in regard to the Revising Sessions, the work of which, the Committee had been told, took up 23 working days? What was the extent of the list he had to revise which it took 23 days to go through, and of which it was proposed by this Bill that the Recorder should be relieved, not only now, but for all future time, so that any Recorder who might be appointed hereafter would be disgusted to find any alteration or modification of his position introduced by the Government under which he would not be allowed to retain his full salary, although relieved of a portion of his duties? The present Recorder had only to revise an elective list of 5,000 persons; and yet it was proposed by this Bill that a person in receipt of £2,500 a-year, part of which was an increase of salary made on condition that he was to perform revision duty, should be relieved of that particular part of his work at the expense of the State, although the whole of the work thrown on the Recorder during the entire year only occupied 160 days. Surely this was not a very strong case; in fact, it seemed to him to be a case open to a very substantial amount of observation; and if the matter were under discussion in a full House, and in the presence of those on the Government side who usually acted as checks in favour of economy, it would not stand five minutes' investigation. As he had already said, let them compare the case of the Recorder of Dublin with that of the Recorder of Belfast. The Recorder of Belfast discharged all the duties of a County Court Judge in the great town of Belfast as well as in the great county of Antrim; and, whereas the Recorder of Dublin only revised a list of 5,000 electors, the Recorder of Belfast had to revise a list in the county of Antrim containing over 12,000 names, while, in addition to this, he had also the revision of the electoral roll of the borough of Belfast, which contained 21,000 names. Beyond all this, there were two other boroughs in the county of which he had also to revise the lists—namely, the borough of Carrickfergus, with 1,420 electors, and the borough of Lisburn, with 1,885 electors. In other words, he had lists containing something under 40,000 names to revise, as against 5,000 names on the lists to be gone through by the Recorder of Dublin, the Recorder of Belfast receiving £500 a-year less salary, and neither asking for assistance from the State, nor getting the promise of any; while the Recorder of Dublin, on the other hand, got £500 a-year more than the Recorder of Belfast, and, although only having to revise a list of 5,000 names, requested assistance from the State, which, immediately rushed in and gave him the benefit of a Bill, proposing to relieve him of his revision duties, and leaving that officer with his present salary—the highest received by any similar official in Ireland—not only during his tenure of office, but continuing the same arrangement for all future time. He might, if he had time, range through the whole list of County Court Judges in Ireland, and show a similar condition of things to that which he had already pointed out in the comparison made between the Recorders of Dublin and Belfast. The Recorder of Cork received a salary of £2,000 a-year, and revised the lists for the greater portion of the county of Cork—one of the largest counties in Ireland—as well as for the city of Cork, which was one of the largest boroughs in Ireland. He also dealt with the lists of two subsidiary boroughs. The Bill, nevertheless, left the Recorder of Cork without any relief. With regard to the Recorder of Dublin, personally, he had no wish to say one word, except that he knew him to be a most excellent and able lawyer, and that he was a friend of his own. He had known that gentleman during the greater part of his (Mr. Gibson's) professional life, and could say that, in his opinion, there was no more high-minded, upright, or honourable man to be found throughout the whole of Ireland. Indeed, he would go further, and say that if he had the honour and privilege of being in the position occupied by that gentleman, he should, in all probability, do exactly what he had done. There were very few who would not like to retain their present emoluments, and, if possible, increase them, while, at the same time, side by side with this state of things in regard to income, they would be glad to see their duties diminished. This, after all, was only human nature, and human nature would be human nature even in the case of the best Irishmen that ever lived. These few observations had been conceived in a candid spirit, and without the slightest want of respect or regard for his valued friend the Recorder of Dublin. He could not help being struck by the painful emotions expressed by the countenance of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney), which indicated, at the moment he (Mr. Gibson) was speaking, something in the nature of agony and anguish. He should not be at all surprised to find that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury was working out some mode of escape from the subsequent stages of the Bill. He did not, of course, know whether this really was the case; but he had no doubt that, by the few statements he had ventured to make, he had brought conviction clearly home to the mind of the hon. Gentleman. It might be the case that the hon. Gentleman had been convinced before; at any rate, it was not for him (Mr. Gibson) to assume to be the discoverer of what might reside within the mind of the Secretary to the Treasury; nevertheless, he gave the hon. Gentleman credit for having ingenuity and wit enough, if he would only set about it, to circumvent a transaction which had very correctly been denominated "a job" by his hon. and learned Friend who had moved the Amendment.

MR. GRAY

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had with perfect accuracy described the Recorder of Dublin as a most excellent gentleman. No one who had the pleasure of the Recorder's acquaintance would dispute that fact; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman, although he had spoken of the Recorder of Dublin as one whom he had known for a long period, had not said anything with reference to the capacity of the learned gentleman in the transaction of his official duties. In not having discussed that question the right hon. and learned Gentleman had shown his customary prudence. There were exceptions to every rule, and he thought the Recorder of Dublin might be regarded as one of those exceptions. He should not like to say anything that would give pain to the Recorder of Dublin, who was a gentleman for whom he entertained all due respect. Neither would he discuss the question as to whether a man of ordinary capacity, occupying the position of a high legal functionary, had his time sufficiently employed by discharging duties which filled up 160 working days; but he did happen to know that among the people of Dublin there was, with reference to the manner in which the duties were at present performed by the Recorder of that city, a wide-spread feeling of discontent at the great delay which occurred, and the consequent trouble and worry experienced by those who had occasion to attend his Court. The Recorder was in the habit of entering into long and discursive dissertations upon questions which had in reality very little to do with the business before him, and in this way the suitors in his Court were so wearied by the amount of trouble and inconvenience they were put to, and the loss of time they incurred, that many of those who would otherwise be glad to seek the Recorder's Court for the recovery of small debts, which was the simple function of that Court, were constantly, to his (Mr. Gray's) own knowledge, as well as that of every man in Dublin, obliged either to abandon their claims, or to take a compromise, rather than subject themselves to the dilatory process which attended the enforcement of their demands. It had been somewhat amusing to witness the extreme anxiety of die right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin at the prospect of the passage of this Bill, and the extreme tenacity with which lie had defended the public purse. He (Mr. Gray) was driven to the conclusion that the right hon. and learned Gentleman believed there was something in the Bill beyond what applied to the more discharge of the business devolving on the Recorder of Dublin. It might be that one of the results of the measure, should it be passed, would be that the duties appertaining to the revision of the list of voters would be better and more efficiently and properly discharged than was the case at present; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not suggested nor hinted that whoever might be appointed to perform these duties— and he (Mr. Gray) had no idea who would have the appointment—would not discharge the duties in a satisfactory manner. One of the questions they ought now to consider was whether the Recorder was able to discharge the duties in a satisfactory manner. He (Mr. Gray) asserted that that officer did not so discharge thorn. Although the right hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to have carried conviction to his own mind, it did not seem to him (Mr. Gray) that he had touched the real argument of the Chief Secretary in regard to this question. If they were to ask the Recorder to discharge the duties of the Revision Court during a period not covered by his 160 working days, he could agree with the suggestion that to require that officer to work for 23 days more would not be unreasonable; but the point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was that the Recorder had to perform the duties of revision during a portion of the period in which he was required to discharge the duties of the Recorder's Court. He did not think that any hon. Member who had an intimate knowledge of Dublin affairs would contradict him in the statement he had made, that widespread discontent existed among the traders o; that city owing to the delay and inconvenience experienced by those who had to transact business in the Recorder's Court. If the Recorder were to be relieved of the duties of the Revision Court which he now had to discharge during the period he was occupied in performing his ordinary work as Recorder, it would be a great boon to the traders of Dublin, because the Recorder of that city had to transact business which in England was transacted in the Small Debts Courts. They had not yet got in Dublin the Small Debts Court, which was one of the things the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had promised to take into consideration, at the time he had recognized the necessity of a better system of small debts collection in Dublin, though it would seem that he was determined that that promise should not be redeemed. It was admitted on all sides that the means of obtaining payment of small debts in Dublin at the present moment were very unsatisfactory to the trading community. The decisions of the Recorder frequently failed to give satisfaction to either party, although, as he had already stated, he fully recognized the fact that personally the Recorder was a most excellent gentleman. The appointment of Law Adviser at the Castle was the usual and natural step to that of Solicitor General and Attorney General for Ireland. The Recorder of Dublin, however, had been quietly shelved because the Government could not so appoint him. It was a fact that he was a most painstaking and competent Recorder, the duties of which office were quite enough to occupy his attention, and it would be a great relief to the trading community in Dublin if he were required to confine himself to those particular functions which he discharged to the satisfaction of the public.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, there appeared to be a desire on the part of the Committee to hear from the Secretary to the Treasury what explanation he had to offer of what appeared to be a personal matter. It would seem that this gentleman, finding himself unable to discharge the duties of Revising Barrister for Dublin and also of the Recordership required an Act of Parliament to relieve him from the discharge of his statutory duties. One would have supposed that the Treasury would have told him to surrender £200 a year of his salary for the purpose of paying someone else to do the work. He thought it was incumbent on the Secretary to the Treasury to say that that arrangement had the sanction of the Treasury, and that they saw no other way out of the difficulty.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he thought there was something suspicious in the circumstance that the Conservative Party appeared as defenders of economy. He ventured to say that the ground of economy put forward by the right hon. Gentleman was a mere pretext.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members not being present,

Mr. Speaker resumed the Chair:— House counted, and 40 Members not being present,

House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.