HC Deb 26 June 1884 vol 289 cc1500-11

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 2 (Power to appoint revising barrister).

MR. BERESFORD

proposed to leave out, in line 7, "Lieutenant or other Chief Governor or Governors," and insert "Chief Justice." He said, that in England it was the custom for a Judge of Assize to have the power of appointing Revising Barristers. In Ireland it would be much more convenient that the Chief Justice should have the power of appointing the Revising Barristers, instead of the Lord Lieutenant, the Chief Justice being a Crown official, while the Lord Lieutenant was really a Party appointment.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 7, leave out "Lieutenant or other Chief Governor or Governors," and insert "Chief Justice."—(Mr. Beresford.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'Lieutenant or other Chief Governor or Governors ' stand part of the Clause."

MR. TREVELYAN

said, the proposed Amendment was entirely contrary to the practice in Ireland; and he was persuaded that if the practice to which the hon. Member (Mr. Beresford) had referred as existing in England, did not already exist, it would not be adopted now. The whole analogy in Ireland was against the Amendment. In every other county in Ireland the revision was done by a County Court Judge, who was appointed, like all other Judges, great and small, by the Executive. In the City of Dublin there were two Revising Barristers who were not County Court Judges, but they were appointed by the Executive. The Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench had no particular official administrative capacity under the Judicature Act. The only offices to which he appointed were those specially attached to the Queen's Bench, and all other important patronage, except that which was applied by competition, was in the hands of the Chancellor. To place this matter in the hands of the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench Division would be to cast a reflection upon the impartiality of the Lord Lieutenant. He thought Earl Spencer might be safely trusted to make this appointment.

COLONEL KING - HARMAN

pointed out that, in the absence of the Lord Lieutenant, the Chief Justice would appoint. The Bill ran—"The Lord Lieutenant or other Chief Governor or Governors."

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)

said, that the Lords Justices did not include the Chief Justice.

SIR HARDINGE GIFFARD

said, he thought that in England the system of appointing by Judges had given complete satisfaction. No one had suggested that Revising Barristers in this country were actuated by political motives.

MR. WARTON

said, it was clear that a Judge was better qualified than the Lord Lieutenant, who was not a lawyer, to find out who was capable of revising voters' lists. The only argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. Trevelyan) seemed to be that such and such was the practice in Ireland, and, therefore, they must stick to it. He hoped that, on reflection, the right hon. Gentleman would see it was proper that Judges should appoint lawyers. He should certainly support the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Beresford).

MR. GRAY

said, the present system was a most objectionable one in practice; but the proposed arrangement would be equally objectionable. The present Chief Justice happened to be a gentleman of such strong political proclivities that recently he was obliged to retire from the Bench on the occasion of a well-known political trial of great importance. He had to do so because of a partizan speech he made a short time previous. The idea of suggesting that, contrary to the ordinary practice, this gentleman should have the power of the appointment in question, was certainly most extraordinary.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, he wondered whether the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gray) did not consider that the Lord Lieutenant was a strong political partizan?

MR. GEAT

said, it was clear, from what had occurred recently, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel King-Harman) held the opinion that Earl Spencer was a strong political partizan.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. WARTON

proposed to insert, after "time," in 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. He very much regretted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) was not present, because he had most conclusively proved that the present Revising Barrister was not overworked. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had shown that the Recorder of Dublin was not occupied in his official duties more than 160 days in the year; but English Judges worked 220 and 230 days in the year; and it had been shown by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) that in Belfast the Revising Barrister worked many more days a-year, and sat longer on each day, than the same official in Dublin. Besides, it had not been proved that on a single day the Revising Barrister was not able to attend to his double duties, because he could so arrange his time that he could perform his different duties at the proper time. As a matter of fact, the Revising Barrister could not take his vacation at the time of the year he would like, and this was the reason of this monstrous joke to give another piece of patronage to the Lord Lieutenant. The Revising Barrister was not overworked, and there was no justification whatever for this new appointment. It was possible that at times the Recorder might be unavoidably absent, and it was only at such times that this Bill ought to be brought into operation.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 9, after "time," 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 objection to this and the following Amendment was, that they would result in nothing better than a sort of fiction. If the main contention on which the Bill was founded was right, the Lord Lieutenant would, annually, have to be satisfied that the Recorder required relief. The justification of the Bill depended upon this point—that, according to the ordinary routine of the criminal and civil sittings in the city and county, the business of the Recorder was so heavy up to the month of revision that he could not possibly get through his revision work without breaking up his ordinary sittings, and sitting continuously from June to Christmas. If the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) were carried, all the Recorder would have to do would be to decline to break up the sittings that he had subsequent to the 1st of October, and to state to the Lord Lieutenant that he was unable, in a satisfactory manner, to get through the heavy revising business which must begin not earlier than the 9th of September. Consequently, every year, a substitute would be appointed, and they would lose the great advantage of having a permanent officer for the business of registration. He did not think the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member would work.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, it was much to be regretted that this was the first time there had been anything like an attempt to justify the introduction of the Bill. The measure passed the second reading and into Committee sub silentio; and against the adoption of such a course the representatives of the taxpayers of the country had a right to protest. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Warton) had stated what he knew to be the view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), and, therefore, it was evident there was much difference of opinion as to the engagements of the Recorder of Dublin being such, as made the appointment of a new officer necessary. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. Trevelyan) had offered his justification or his explanation of the Bill at the proper time—namely, upon the second reading—there would have been an opportunity of comparing his statements with those of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin. He (Mr. Tomlinson) was not at all satisfied, after hearing the remarks of the Chief Secretary, that there were sufficient grounds for the creation of the new office which was proposed; in fact, the whole affair seemed very like a job.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH

confessed that he heard with considerable surprise the statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan). He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had occasion to look into this matter very carefully in the years 1877 and 1878, during the preparation of a Bill dealing with the Irish County Courts, which was about that time carried through the House. At that time the offices of Recorder of Dublin and Chairman of Dublin County were consolidated. A salary was allowed to the Judge holding both offices, and it was understood that he should do the duties of Revising Barrister as well. He could answer for this, at any rate, that at that time, and for some little time afterwards, the duties of the Recorder were by no means so heavy as to prevent him fulfilling completely and satisfactorily the duties of Revising Barrister. Probably, there were complaints that the Recorder did not hold Courts enough; but the remedy was to direct him to hold Courts at more places. Of course, he did not know what was the case now. It might be that the civil and criminal business of the Recorder had so much increased that it was im- possible for him to perform the duties of Revising Barrister; but the Chief Secretary (Mr. Trevelyan) had not given them sufficient evidence in support of that position. He understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), than whom no one had a better acquaintance with the matter, had distinctly denied that that was the fact. If the Recorder could satisfactorily perform the duties of Revising Barrister, it seemed to him (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) that it was proposed to create an entirely unnecessary office, and to throw an unnecessary burden on the taxpayers.

MR. TREVELYAN

was glad the hon. Gentleman had started this question, because it gave him (Mr. Trevelyan) an opportunity of saying two or three words in regard to a subject which had been so often referred to. The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) had said he (Mr. Trevelyan) had offered no explanation of the Bill upon the previous stages. As a matter of fact, he made a distinct statement the last time the Bill was in Committee; and on that occasion the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), speaking with much emphasis, characterized the Bill as a political job. He (Mr. Trevelyan) could not but believe that the right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), who arranged for the consolidation of the offices now held by the Recorder of Dublin, was slightly incorrect in thinking that the Recorder actually discharged his duties as Revising Barrister without remonstrance. In January, 1880, the Recorder wrote a letter to Mr. Burke, the late Under Secretary, in which he said there was one portion of the functions, lately discharged by the Chairman, which he could not undertake—namely, the revision of the list of Parliamentary voters; and he respectfully asked the Government to take steps to relieve him of that part of his duties. He had read a very carefully composed Minute of Lord Chancellor Law, the gist of which was that, if the statement by the Recorder, that this work would take 21 days, were correct, something must be done. The right hon. Gentleman was as well acquainted as anyone with these matters. But it was thought well to wait, in order to ascertain whether the period of 21 days was required. Well, the Recorder tried in vain to cut it down; and he found, in spite of everything attempted to shorten the time, the work took 23 instead of 21 days to get through. He need not go through the subsequent proceedings, and would simply observe that his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) was so convinced of the necessity for an alteration that a Bill was prepared. Both Mr. Hamilton and himself had considered the matter without any political ideas whatever; and it never occurred to him that he was doing anything more than carrying out the traditional policy of the Irish Office by introducing the present measure.

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN

said, it appeared to him that the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland would remove any difference of opinion which had existed as to the necessity for this measure. Hon. Members opposite seemed to be opposed to anyone connected with Ireland getting anything in the shape of increased pay, and he believed the hon. Member for Wexford would confirm that view. They had to consider whether or not they could obtain a proper revision of the jurors and voters lists in the county of Dublin, and whether or not the small payment to be made for it was required. For his own part, he was always delighted to meet with a proposal for the remuneration of gentlemen of the Irish Bar; and although hon. Gentlemen opposite, for right reasons, no doubt, were opposed to it, he thought the Committee ought to carry out the views of the right hon. Gentleman as proposed in the Bill.

MR. HEALY

said, that applications on this subject were made by the Recorder of Dublin as far back as the time when the Duke of Marlborough was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. The Committee should bear in mind that persons had to come a distance of 15 or 16 miles, and that, too, at harvest time, to Kilmainham Court House, in order to secure the privilege of the franchise. He noted as a peculiar circumstance that while the Notice Paper contained Amendments in the names of the hon. and learned Members for Sheffield, Bridport, Plymouth, and other hon. Members, not a single Amendment had been put down by the Members for Dublin, who were more connected with the Recorder than any other Members of the House. Under the circumstances, he could only congratulate hon. Members who had given Notice of Amendments upon their new born zeal in this matter.

MR. WARTON

said, his recollection was that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin had proved, with mathematical clearness, that there was no necessity for the Bill. On the other hand, the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had not ventured to say that the Recorder had in any single year been unable to discharge his duties owing to unavoidable absence or illness. Therefore, he maintained that there was no reason for the Bill; but if the right hon. Gentleman would get up and say that the various duties of the Recorder called him in different directions at one time, and prevented his getting through this work, he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. TOMLINSON

remarked that in England the Revising Barrister, having revised the county list, went on with the borough list; and he thought it was for the Government to explain why they should not adopt in Ireland a custom which had been found to work very well in England, especially when it appeared that the system in operation in Ireland was not satisfactory.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, that very little could be urged in favour of this proposal. If the hon. Member had looked further into the question, he would have seen that £100 was a very little payment for the work required to be done; five guineas a-day being the smallest pay of a Revising Barrister— that was to say, if you were desirous of securing the services of a good man. Again, the revision for the county and for the borough ought to take place simultaneously, and it was for that reason that one man could not carry on both operations.

COLONEL KING - HARMAN

asked whether the amount of £100 stated in the Bill was the only amount to be paid for this new office. One reason for his objecting to the Bill was that it gave an appointment to some supporter of the Government. If the matter was to end with the £100 he should not oppose it; but he strongly objected to being told hereafter that the payment was to be five guineas a-day for as long as the Revising Barrister chose to keep the list before him. He wished to guard against the work being unnecessarily prolonged, which might happen through a briefless barrister being employed upon it, by fixing the amount at £100, and no more.

MR. WARTON

said, that 200 guineas was the proper and usual fee for a Revising Barrister in England, and it ought to be the fee in Ireland.

MR. HEALY

thought the Government might adopt the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport by making the payment £200 a-year.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, he was willing to agree to the insertion of the words "not exceeding one hundred pounds."

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 3, insert, after "paid," the words "a sum not exceding one hundred guineas per annum."—(Colonel King-Harman,)

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

MR. HEALY

said, he was no advocate of giving large sums of money to Irish barristers; but in this instance he thought the Government would act wisely in refusing to put these words into the Bill. Dublin included several large Metropolitan areas. At the next revision there would be 50,000 voters to deal with; and the probability was that, if this hard-and-fast line were drawn, no one would take the office. He suggested that it would be far better to leave the matter in the discretion of the Treasury, and that the Government should decline to admit the proposed Amendment.

MR. WADDY

pointed out that the Amendment should properly follow the "salary."

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, he cared not where the words were inserted; all he wanted was to have the words of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland embodied in the clause in such a manner that his object would be secured. He was willing to withdraw the Amendment for the purpose of its being inserted at another place.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in line 3, after the word "salary," insert "not exceeding one hundred guineas."—(Colonel King-Harman.)

MR. HEALY

said, he earnestly hoped the Government would consider what they were about in this matter. Irish Members on those Benches had always taken a stand in that House in favour of economy. How could they expect to get an efficient man to sit, perhaps, for six weeks revising 40,000 or 50,000 votes, and to do the work even decently, for 100 guineas? They might get a man just called, and who, perhaps, never held a brief—the son of a Tory Judge, perhaps—who would give his decisions all one way; but what they wanted was someone in whom the people could trust.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, as long as the franchise remained as now in Dublin, he should be decidedly of opinion that the business ought to be done for 100 guineas, and to that sum he should adhere. But there might be changes in the course of years which would render the payment too small to secure a proper revision of the list in Dublin County. Personally, he would suggest that no sum should be named, on his assurance to the House that the 100 guineas should not be exceeded as long as the work to be done remained as at present.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, he was satisfied with the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman that the sum of 100 guineas should not be exceeded, being at the same time open to the argument that, in the event of there being more work, there should be more pay.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 (Provision for absence of revising barrister) agreed to.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, he would now ask the Committee to agree to the following clause:— (Deduction from salary of future Recorders.) When first after the passing of this Act a vacancy occurs in the office of Recorder of Dublin, there shall be deducted from the salary of the person appointed to he Recorder, and of his successors in that office, the sum of one hundred guineas.

New Clause (Mr. Trevelyan) brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

MR. T. C. THOMPSON

said, the Committee had not heard the amount of the Recorder's salary and he was averse to reducing the salaries of Judges who were generally not overpaid—certainly without knowing all about the matter. He understood that the Recorder was to be relieved of the work of revision, because his time was so fully occupied in other ways that he could not give his attention to it. If that were so, it seemed an odd arrangement to reduce his salary.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, he could not express any opinion as to whether the salary of the Recorder was small or not; but the amount of the salary was £2,500 a-year.

MR. WARTON

said, the Recorder of Dublin was not overworked, and the Government knew this very well. They said he was overworked when they made the new office, and they said he was not when they made a deduction from the salary.

MR. PARNELL

said, that the clause, as it originally stood in the draft of the Chief Secretary, provided that the extra charge which would be thrown upon the Treasury should be deducted from the salary of the Recorder; but as the clause had now been altered, the only amount thrown on the Treasury would be 100 guineas. He should be glad to learn what was the reason for this proposition, and he thought the pruning knife might very well be used with regard to the salaries of these officers.

MR. TREVELYAN

pointed out that he had not named 100 guineas; and while sympathizing with the hon. Member in his interest on behalf of the Treasury, he thought the proposal could not be adopted.

MR. HEALY

said, he was dissatisfied with the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, and asked for some further explanation.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. PARNELL

thought it would be in the recollection of the Solicitor General that last year a Memorial was addressed to the Lord Lieutenant on this matter, and he declined to interfere, on the ground that the revision was to take place in a short time. He thought the Government ought to make some inquiry into the matter.

MR. TREVELYAN

promised that the points of difference should be carefully considered.

Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.