COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 3 February 1887)

§ MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)
I feel I shall have to move an Amendment to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman on the Question of the day for going into Committee on this Bill. This even- 633 ing, I and some of my Colleagues felt it to be our duty to put down on the Paper several very important Amendments, and two Instructions to the Committee; and I think it only reasonable that these Amendments and Instructions should be circulated for at least two or three days before the House resolves itself into Committee so that lion. Members may have an opportunity of discussing the matters amongst themselves, in all their bearings upon the Bill, before the measure goes into Committee. The Bill is a very important one; and, without going into the subject of it, I may mention that at present the judicial system of Ireland is conducted in a most extravagant manner. I do not think the House can even have the slightest idea of the enormous extravagance that obtains in connection with the judicial system in Ireland. For all these reasons, I would move that the House on Thursday next resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOE IRELAND (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH) (Bristol, W.)
I have already stated that the attempts of hon. Members to extend this measure, so as to make it a general Irish Judicature Bill, will lead to its withdrawal; and if that is done the vacant Judgeship in the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland will have to be filled up, If that takes place the fault, of course, will lie with hon. Gentlemen opposite, and not with us. I cannot undertake to put the Bill down on a day when it will be reached before half-past 12.

§ MR. M. J. KENNY (Tyrone, Mid)
I know no necessity for the appointment of a new Judge to the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland, except it be to give a place to the present Irish Attorney General, who has been most unfortunate in the discharge of the functions of his present Office.

§ MR. BIGGAR (Cavan, W.)
Sir, I am more or less astounded at the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the 634 Chief Secretary for Ireland. Does he really and seriously mean to say that he is going to throw away the money of the State in the way he suggests, in a moment of petulance, merely because he fails to obtain a certain stage of the Bill on the day he desires? This is a measure which requires very careful consideration and considerable amendment, and, certainly, is not one that we should endeavour to pass through the House in a great hurry. We are told that a very able Member of the Government has left it on the score of economy, and I would, therefore, appeal to the Government to say whether it would not be more discreet not to fill up the vacancy in the Common Pleas, than to incur an altogether unnecessary expenditure in the adoption of an opposite course? They should say that there should be no appointment made in the room of Mr. Justice Morris, who has been moved from the Court of Common Pleas to the Court of Queen's Bench. I can remember when it was customary for Queen's Counsel, in cases of necessity, to sit as Judges; and when it was customary also for a Judge of Appeal, in case of pressure, to go on Circuit. I therefore trust that, as no inconveniences are likely to arise, that the adjournment moved by my hon. Friend will be agreed to.

§ MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)
The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has thrown out to us what I can only describe as a threat. He has said that if the House is not pleased to pass this Bill by a certain time, he will proceed to fill up the vacancy in the Court of Common Pleas. As I understand it, the reason he gives for that view is that, unless some such step is taken, and unless the vacancy is filled up in some way, the Court of Common Pleas will not be able to sit for the transaction of the business before it. But I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that that is not the case. Under the Judicature Act one Judge constitutes a Court, and one Judge can sit as a full Court, and has authority to act and give decisions. Not only can one Judge sit, but if one can sit, two can. As the House is aware, there is only one vacancy at present, and there are two Judges of the Court of Common Pleas still in being.

§ MR. SPEAKER
I must draw the attention of the hon. Member to the fact 635 that the Question before the House is that the words "next Thursday" be substituted for "this day," and that, therefore, general remarks on the subject of the Bill are irrelevant.

§ MR. MAURICE HEALY
Then, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude with this: There can be no urgency for this Bill, inasmuch as the Court of Common Pleas will be fully constituted without the third Judge—the two Judges will be fully competent to sit in the name and with the authority of that Court. I venture to say that nine out of every ten decisions given by the Court of Common Pleas since it was created, now nearly 10 years ago, have been by two Judges and not by three.

§ MR. HENRY H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)
I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland will reconsider his decision, and without, perhaps, consenting to postpone the Committee stage until Thursday, will fix Monday for it in order that there may be an interval of more than 12 hours for the Amendments on the Paper to be considered. I cannot believe that he is altogether serious in the course which he intimated would be taken in the event of the Committee Stage being postponed beyond "this day," as I feel convinced he will not allow this opportunity to slip by without taking advantage of it to bring about a very much needed reform. If I have an opportunity of speaking on the Bill, I shall endeavour to show that it would be a monstrous waste of public money to fill up this vacancy in the Court of Common Pleas at all. I hope hon. Members below the Gangway on this side of the House will be content to allow the Committee Stage to be taken on Monday, and I would ask the right hon. Baronet opposite to name Monday instead of "this day."

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH
The matter is, perhaps, not worth wrangling about, and if it would be more convenient to hon. Members, I should be glad to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. If all hon. Gentlemen want is discussion of that which lies within the scope of this Bill, I shall be willing and ready, and even anxious, to give an opportunity for it. But if hon. Members from Ireland wish to turn the measure into a general Irish Judicature Bill, it would, 636 as I have said, be impossible to proceed with it. If we cannot pass the Bill with expedition, we shall be obliged, though much against our wish, to fill up the vacant Judgeship. I merely state this as a fact, and not as a threat. I am, however, quite willing to defer the Committee stage until Monday.

§ MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)
I think it would be found that Thursday would be a more convenient day. [Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: No; I will not consent to a postponement until Thursday.] Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to state my reasons. In all probability, the very important Amendment to the Address, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), will come on on Monday; and it is extremely unlikely that that Amendment will be disposed of at such a time as it would be proper to take up the consideration of this Bill. This Bill raises a very important Constitutional question—the question of the promotion of Judges; and therefore it ought to be considered at a time when the House is able to give proper attention to it. The warning or threat which the right hon. Gentleman casts out to us, that if the Bill is not passed immediately it will be necessary to fill up the Chief Justiceship, does not impress us very much, because, after the valuable opinion which the present Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) has given of the Plan of Campaign, we think he would make as good a Chief Justice as anyone else.

§ MR. SPEAKER
Does the hon. Member press his Amendment?

§ MR. CHANCE
I fear I must press it.