[BILL 1.] COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 28 February 1887)

§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH) (Bristol, W.)
The Notices of opposition to this Bill standing in the names of several hon. Members have been withdrawn; and I, therefore, conclude that there will be no opposition to the formal Motion that you, Sir, do now leave the Chair. It is not intended to take the Bill through Committee to-night, and I will name a day for it, when Questions and Amendments having reference to the subject-matter of the Bill can be raised.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)
On a point of Order, Sir. Was it not a ruling of your Predecessor in the Chair that, under the circumstances, a Bill could not be read a second time—could not, in fact, be proceeded with?

§ MR. SPEAKER
I do not know to what the hon. Member refers.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
To the Notices of opposition on the Paper.

§ MR. SPEAKER
But there are no Notices of opposition on the Paper.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)
I am really surprised that the right hon Baronet should have received a false impression from the disappearance of Motions that stood in the names of several hon. Members. So far as the Bill proposes to fuse the Divisions of the Irish Law Courts into one there is no objection whatever. But, while making that fusion, the Bill proposes to allow existing Judges to remain, and to create an extra Judge. Now, for the last few months the Court of Common Pleas has consisted of only one Judge, the other being engaged in trying criminal cases in Green Street. For the entire sitting, which terminated on Saturday, Common Pleas was worked by one Judge, and no difficulty was experienced; so that it is clear we can work the Division with one Judge. Now it is proposed to fuse this Division into the Queen's Bench, and to appoint another Judge—that is to say, you will have four Judges where three would be ample. A more corrupt and palpable job was never attempted to be perpetrated. The real method for carrying out the purpose would be to fuse the three Divisions; in that we all agree; but do not fill up existing vacancies, and provide for the extinction of future Judgeships. To appoint the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland as a Judge is one of the grossest jobs ever perpetrated. We do not want him in Ireland. I do not say we want him here; but here, at any rate, he is, to some extent, earning the large salary he gets. But when you have two Judges in Queen's Bench and two in Common Pleas, to go and appoint the Attorney General—that is to say, to make the total number seven—is a good example of the state to which English government in Ireland is reduced. What interest have English Members in continuing this corruption in Ireland? What interest can Members of the Bar who represent English constituencies have in keeping up this system of Bar bribery that exists in Ireland? Why should they assist in the job by which the Irish Attorney General gets £3,500 a-year for political services very badly done? This Bill might be attributed to a desire on the part of the right hon. 847 Baronet to get rid of his Attorney General. Is he sick of him? He cannot be more sick of him than we are; but, whether he be or not, to appoint him an additional Judge of Common Pleas is a huge job. There is not work for the existing Judges in Ireland, and why, then, appoint another? Unless we get a guarantee that this is to be a fusion Bill merely, we shall fight it to the death. The Queen's Bench got on for a considerable period without a fourth Judge at all. You appointed a fourth in 1883, under Lord Spencer, needlessly, and for the purpose of giving promotion to a distinguished official in this House, now Mr. Justice Johnson, and now you are going to continue that system of jobbery, because your Attorney General has expressed an unfortunate opinion on the Plan of Campaign, and you wish to shunt him. Have English Members of the Legal Profession any idea of the work to be done by the Judges in Ireland? How many writs are issued, how many causes moved, how many motions, as compared with the work in the English Courts, and then say why you want another Judge? How many actions at Nisi Prius are there, how many motions on appeal, as compared with England? This is simply a system of spoon feeding; it is corrupting members of the Bar by bribing them to fight for Her Majesty's Government for a brief period, that they may afterwards be translated into a higher position. I am not surprised at the appointment of the Attorney General, for we have vivid memories of the appointment of Judge Ormesby, a most inefficient Judge, as he was previously a most incompetent Law Officer. He has now retired, and what I may say is in the air—a mere historical reference. He was admittedly an incompetent man, and I challenge the Chief Secretary to deny it; and he was got rid of by being pitchforked into a Judgeship. Ormesby never held a brief in his life, or a suit more than the one a counsel gets from a friendly solicitor when he is called. For reasons no one but the right hon. Baronet could fully understand it was necessary to get rid of Ormesby, and he was got rid of, as now he is trying to get rid of the Member for Trinity College, because he gave an inconvenient opinion that the Plan of Campaign was a matter the Executive could not interfere with. Beyond that there is no reason why the 848 Government should proceed with the Bill. It is a job—a gross job. Contrast it with the course the Liberal Government pursued. You transported Sir Robert Hamilton to Van Diemen's Land—["Question!"] I will show the pertinency of this presently, though to move the adjournment of the debate would be more germane to the circumstances. Sir Robert Hamilton was sent to Van Diemen's Land, because he had incurred the hatred of members of the Bar in his endeavour to prevent jobbery and injustice. He set his face against it; he reduced legal fees; and he was transported to Van Diemen's Land. Sir Robert Hamilton drew a Bill for fusing the three Divisions into one, and he proposed to cut down the number of Judges. True it is, the blocks have been taken off the present Bill; but that is not a sign that we want the Bill to pass in its present form. We want to fuse the two Divisions, but we do not want to appoint an extra Judge. Take the power to fuse the two Divisions; but keep your Attorney General earning his ample salary by doing indifferent work in the House. We think also that some guarantee should be given that if these Divisions are fused, the Chief Justice of Common Pleas should have a seat in the Court of Appeal. But the Bill leaves the question of the Court of Appeal absolutely untouched—leaves it weakened by the loss of one Judge. It is a Court of very good repute; we have no fault to find with any of its decisions; and then you take power to destroy the Court of Exchequer. This is the honest Court in Ireland. Every attorney who desires to get law issues a writ for the Exchequer, for there you have Judges who give the law absolutely, even though you have the Queen against you. This is the Court the late Prime Minister, in his Home Rule Bill, intended should be the means of dealing with certain questions in relation to the scheme. You propose to destroy the Court of Exchequer, practically the only honest Court that exists; a Court all the Judges of which are trusted, so far as the popular Party are concerned, in the belief that they will administer the law impartially to Crown or subject. And you leave the Court of Appeal untouched, with the Lord Chancellor always a partizan—I use the word not in an offensive, but in a Party sense. 849 How desirable it is that you should strengthen the Court of Appeal. The Chairman of Committees—I hope I am committing no breach of confidence—advised us that our Amendments were not strictly germane to the Committee stage, and that they should take the form of Instructions to the Committee, though I am at a loss to know why. We should have no objection to your leaving the Chair, if the Chief Secretary would accept the Instructions; or we could move them as Amendments in Committee. The present Attorney General for England, two years ago, promised to consider whether the Petty Sessions Act—granting appeals from magisterial decisions—should be extended to Ireland; and the present Under Secretary of State for the Home Department gave us something less than a positive pledge in the same direction. But we have still only the means of appealing by means of certiorari, and there is no appeal from the Queen's Bench in matters affecting the Crown side. The Queen's Bench is the Government Court, the Government taking care to appoint no Judges there but "true blues." For instance, when Lord Fitzgerald went to the House of Lords, Justice Lawson was appointed to the Queen's Bench; and, in the same way, Judge O'Brien was taken from the Common Pleas to the Queen's Bench. Each Government takes care that the Judges of this Court shall consist of" Stalwarts," and they make it a rule to refuse all Motions for certiorari, so we have no appeal from the Queen's Bench, nor have we, as you have in England, appeals from the Magistrates. Why is it out of the purview of this Bill to move the Amendments we proposed in Committee? I should be glad, if the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Courtney) would take part in the debate and inform us—

§ MR. SPEAKER
The hon. and learned Member will see that that is in the nature of an appeal to the Chair from the Chairman of Ways and Means, and is quite out of Order.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
I recognize the force of your objection, Sir, and will not continue the appeal, except to say that perhaps, as a skilled master of the Act, the right hon. Gentleman will at some future time, in the course of the debate, favour us with his views as to the sub- 850 ject generally. At this hour of the night I think the right hon. Baronet will recognize that it is not advisable to proceed with such an important measure, and that it contains much for careful digestion. Why, we are now seeking to case the English taxpayer. I see English Members connected with the Bar, and I ask them why will they, because the Government ask them, throw away £3,500 a-year? We will give it you from our bounty, and I guarantee that no Irish interest shall suffer thereby. We offer you this sum in the fulness of our hearts. But the Government will recognize that a matter of this extreme importance cannot be debated at this hour of the night. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) has an important Amendment on the subject. Under all these circumstances, I think the Chief Secretary will not deem it unreasonable to adjourn this debate. We do not desire to block the Bill; we wish to have it discussed, and have given an earnest of our wish in withdrawing our blocks; we are moving with a view to cut down expenditure. I beg, Sir, to move an adjournment of the debate.

§ MR. HENRY H. FOWLER
I have to say to the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down that the course he is most anxious to pursue in the matter—that is, economy in the judicial power in Ireland—will be best secured by following the course suggested by the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary. What we have to deal with now is not what is desirable, but what is practicable. Hon. Members below the Gangway will see it is not practicable for the right hon. Gentleman to go into the whole discussion of the administration of the law in Ireland on a Bill of this description. The hon. and learned Member wants to effect a reduction of the judicial staff in Ireland, and the Bill affords a fair opportunity. The proposition of the Government is to abolish the office of Chief Justice of Common Pleas and Chief Baron of Exchequer; and my Amendment is that no Judges be appointed in their place, a saving of £7,000 a-year. The only way, having due regard to business to secure 851 a debate, is now to agree to the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair, asking the right hon. Gentleman to fix such a time for the next stage as will insure a full discussion. I am sure a great number of English. Members sympathize very strongly in my view, and I am sanguine that if we make out a good case the Government will have to accept it. I would suggest that we now accept the Motion of the Chief Secretary and allow the Speaker to leave the Chair. Let us endeavour, on the lines of this Bill, to effect a real and genuine Irish reform. If we attempt something beyond the scope and purview of this Bill, I am afraid that we may, in grasping at the shadow, lose the substance.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
If the right hon. Baronet will give us his view or consent to the proposal for cutting down the number of Judges I will withdraw my Motion.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH
That I cannot do. What I would undertake to do is to afford a fair opportunity for discussion, when I will express the views of the Government. I cannot undertake to accept proposals that may be made.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
Will the right hon. Gentleman state the Government views on the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair?

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
No, Sir.

§ MR. PARNELL (Cork)
I do not gather from the Chief Secretary whether he has definitely made up his mind to reject Amendments. I think it might be reasonable for him to say so.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
I am sorry if I did not convey my meaning clearly. I introduced the Bill without the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henry H. Fowler), and do not believe it would be right to insert it. When he comes to make his proposals I will meet them.

§ MR. PARNELL
Under the circumstances, and as this is the first time we have had the right hon. Gentleman's views on this important matter, the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton, it would be right to agree to an adjournment until to-morrow, in order that we may consider whether we ought to sacrifice the Bill, or accept it and obtain 852 the limited gain it undoubtedly gives us.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
I do not wish to prolong this discussion at this hour. I agree to the adjournment.