SECOND READING.

HC Deb 31 January 1887 vol 310 cc365-78

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite whether he regards this as the commencement of a series of reforms in regard to the legal administration of Ireland? There is no matter of more importance as affecting that country than reform of its judicial procedure and its extremely costly judicial administration. The extravagance of the Irish judiciary and the legal branches of its administration is in excess not only of anything in England or Scotland, but I think it would be difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to find a parallel for it in any part of the world. I should like to hear from him something as to the views of the present Government on the matter. The views of the late Government and of Sir George Trevelyan, are thoroughly well known to the House. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would let us know something of his own views to-night. I would call his attention to one particular branch of Irish expenditure in connection with the administration of law. The late Government attempted to deal with it; it is with reference to the amounts paid to the Law Officers of the Crown for their services in their legal capacities. I refer particularly to the salary of the Attorney General for Ireland, which was fixed by the late Administration at £4,000 a-year. The matter formed the subject of a long discussion between the late Irish Administration and the Treasury; and the decision of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer was that while the then Attorney General for Ireland could not be displaced, and was allowed to retain the salary of £5,000 a-year, in future appointments it should be understood that the salaries should be reduced from £5,000 to £4,000, in addition to fees. [Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman opposite shakes his head; but if my memory serves me right, the decision of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer was that, in future, the salary of the Attorney General for Ireland should be £4,000 a-year and fees. I have reason to remember this, because the then Lord Lieutenant (Lord Aberdeen) objected to it, and it was reconsidered; and then the Government deliberately, and, as they thought, finally, settled the question, deciding that £4,000 a-year, in addition to fees, was handsome remuneration for an Irish Attorney General. I should like to ask whether the Attorney General for Ireland is receiving at present £4,000 or £5,000 a-year? I throw out this point as a small part of an enormous saving which might be effected in the cost of Irish legal administration, and which could be effected if expenditure on these matters in Ireland were put in the same position as in this country. By this Bill we are wiping out one Judge in Ireland; but I think we could go further than that in the direction of retrenchment without injury to Irish legal administration. I cordially support the second reading of the Bill.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Sir MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH) (Bristol, W.)

There is much in what the right hon. Member has said with which I am disposed to sympathize; but I think he has taken too much a Treasury view of the matter. I entirely agree in considering that this Bill is only a step—and a small step—in the work of Irish legal reform, I think there is a great deal required to be done, both in the way of economy and efficiency, in this. field; and certainly I shall do my best, if it be my lot to remain long enough in Office, to attain these ends. But I will remind the right hon. Gentleman that the right hon. Gentleman who sits near him (Mr. Childers) introduced a measure in 1885 for the general reform of the Irish judiciary; but the measure did not get a very favourable reception from the House—in fact, so unfavourable was the reception that it did not succeed in passing a second reading. That is the main reason why, in bringing forward the present Bill, I have attempted to take but a small step first. Though a step, it will be generally, if not almost universally, admitted that the Bill is a good and necessary step as far as it goes, and I will endeavour to proceed with the matter in the future as soon as a reasonable opportunity offers. With regard to the second point made by the right hon. Gentleman. I would say that my own recollection of the position in which the subject was left by the last Government does not at all tally with his. The right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that the Treasury desired to reduce the salary of the Irish Attorney General to £4,000 a-year; but the Irish Government never consented to that reduction, and when the present Government came into Office they found that the Irish Government had not only strongly protested against the change, but had simply declined to agree to it. I thought there was great force in the contention of the Irish Government; therefore we left the matter in abeyance. The present Attorney General for Ireland receives precisely the same salary as his Predecessor; and though I am far from saying that the question as between the Treasury and the Irish Government ought not to be further considered, still the course to be taken is by no means so clear as the right hon. Gentleman supposes. I am not prepared to say that, in all cases, the Attorney General for Ireland would be adequately paid at £4,000 a-year.

MR. CHILDERS (Edinburgh, S.)

The right hon. Gentleman opposite the Chief Secretary for Ireland has referred to a Bill, introduced in 1885, dealing very largely with the arrangements and salaries of Judges and officials in the Irish Courts of Justice. That Bill was brought in by the then Liberal Government after conference with the Irish Executive, and had their entire approval. Some opposition, no doubt, was shown to the measure when it came into this House; but the reason why it did not go to a second reading was that the Government had been defeated on another question, and had resigned. It was one of the Bills on the Paper for discussion, and one which, had we succeeded in our Budget, would, together with other legislative proposals, have been pushed forward. The right hon. Gentleman has stated very excellent reasons why a large measure for amending the arrangements of the Irish Courts of Justice should be carried through Parliament. In supporting, therefore, his view that the present Bill ought to be passed at once, I do so on the distinct understanding that the acceptance of a small part of the measure of 1885 leaves the rest of the question entirely open, and that we expect to have, I do not say the identical Bill of 1885, but, a large and complete reform of the Irish Courts of Justice. With regard to the salary of the Attorney General for Ireland; having listened to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman on the subject, I would remind him that when the salary of a public officer is paid out of a Vote of this House it is settled by the Treasury and no Act of Parliament is necessary; and where the Treasury has passed a Minute to that effect with the consent of the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, their decision is final. I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say not that the decision in this case should be reversed, but that the decision is not complete; but I would point out that if the circumstances have been accurately described on both sides to-night the decision is complete. Of course it can be reversed by a fresh Minute giving reasons, but this is liable to be moved for in Parliament. Probably, however, the right hon. Gentleman was not prepared for the question being raised to-night; and he will, perhaps, look into it, at the same time pardoning me for stating, with some amount of Treasury experience, what is the rule in these cases.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

I am bound to say that I do not look upon this Bill as one of very great importance. It may, perhaps, be held to be an indication of that policy of economy which, if it had been adopted before by Her Majesty's Government, might have saved them the loss of a Colleague; but, in other respects, it is distinctly objectionable. It begins by saying that certain things shall be done which may have the effect of saving about £1,500 a-year, and it leaves altogether untouched the enormous waste of public money which takes place, owing to the present remuneration of the Attorney General and Solicitor General for Ireland. In the good old times of the Crimes Act, and even while the present Crimes Act is in existence, I believe the position of the Attorney General for Ireland to have been and to be, with the single exception of that of the Lord Chancellor of England, the most lucrative position in the Government; and I am sure that if any real economy were intended by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, he would have put into the Bill a clause for reducing the salary of the Attorney General for Ireland, and abolishing the system of payment by results. I do not wish to weary the House with any discussion of the general question; but it is worthy of note that in the month of November last year the Attorney General for Ireland gave an opinion that, in certain cases intimately connected with the Plan of Campaign, it would be impossible for the Government to interfere, for the landlords were well advised that the Executive would do nothing. I trust I am not at all exceeding the limits of relevancy, although I understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is a little anxious on the subject. This opinion, which cost a large sum of money, was finally repudiated; and with regard to this subject I may say that the proceedings ultimately taken in reference to the Plan of Campaign do not seem to have been relevant to the Plan of Campaign itself. I will come now to the consideration of this question of the Supreme Court of Judicature, which Court, I trust, will be very shortly reformed. Clause 2 of the Bill deals with the consolidation of certain Common Law Divisions; and, instead of boldly and openly directing an immediate consolidation of those Divisions, the clause proposes to give power to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, at any time after the passing of this Act, by Order in Council, to direct the fusion and amalgamation of the Common Pleas Division with the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court; and the same with regard to the Exchequer Division after there shall occur a vacancy in the office of Chief Baron of the Exchequer. I presume I shall be in Order in referring briefly to the constitution of the Court of Queen's Bench. It is most unfortunate that three Judges of that Court are men who have been promoted from the other Divisions. I understood the theory of the law to be that when once a person became Judge he was to be above all favour; that he was to accept nothing from either Party; and that everything should be done by him impartially as between the Crown and the people. In this Division—exclusively the Criminal Division—three of the Judges have been promoted, and they have been the three who have made themselves most objectionable, not alone to the people of Ireland, but also, I must say, to professional men in Ireland. I can imagine the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland would have no burning desire now to give the Chief Baron of the Exchequer a criminal jurisdiction. The right hon. Gentleman has had a clear intimation of the manner in which that Judge would exercise his jurisdiction in certain matters which have already come before him; and, therefore, I understand perfectly that it is absurd to expect that any Member of the present Government intimately connected with the late proceedings in Ireland would not object to giving the Exchequer Division criminal jurisdiction. I do not think that any of the three Judges of the Common Pleas Division can in any way be termed a strong friend of the people, and I shall certainly move in Committee an alteration directing the immediate amalgamation of those two Common Law Divisions. I also ask the right hon. Baronet now whether he has any intention of introducing a clause which will limit the emoluments of the Attorney General and Solicitor General for Ireland to a sum more commensurate with their services? Subject to these qualifications, I do not see any reason to object to the second reading of the Bill; but, on the other hand, there is no necessity for rushing the Bill through the House. I am sure that the Consolidation Clause will not be availed of by the right hon. Gentleman in the present state of affairs; and, therefore, I think it right to ask that sufficient time shall be allowed, before the Bill is taken in Committee, to enable us to consider it with a view to its amendment.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

The Motion for the second reading of this Bill has afforded Irish Members an opportunity of offering their sincere condolence with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland for the somewhat hard measure he has received. There has been a vacancy in the office ever since the present Government came into power, now nearly 12 months ago, and the Queen's Bench Division in Ireland has been regarded as the almost certain reward of the principal Law Officers of the Government in power. I am aware that the present Government have good reason for their action, for the Attorney General for Ireland, in the past few months, has considerably helped to increase their embarrassments. My hon. Friend the Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) has referred to the celebrated opinions obtained by the right hon. Baronet from the Attorney General for Ireland, and we well remember the feeling in Ireland when it was known that the Plan of Campaign had received the legal endorsement of that right hon. and learned Gentleman. We say now that his opinion has considerably added to the difficulties of the Government in Ireland, and no doubt, also, to the embarrassment of the situation there; but sitting on these Benches, and having the circumstances of the case before us, I think it is only proper for us to say that we think it a somewhat severe mode of censure for the Government to adopt the course of depriving the right hon. and learned Gentleman of an important and distinguished office, which I think the whole of his Colleagues and the Irish Bar generally believed was almost certain to fall upon him. With regard to the principle of the Bill I have no complaint to make; but I say that the Bill itself does not go far enough. The proposal, so far as it goes, is one which I think will be received with approval by everyone in Ireland. Everyone who is conversant with the Irish judicial system knows that, in the first place, the work of a Judge in Ireland is not sufficient to keep him engaged during a fourth part of the year; and. in the next place, although the Irish Judges have probably less to do than any other officials in this country or in Ireland, the work they do get through is, perhaps, worse done than that under any political system in Europe. It is well known that although the Common Law Divisions of the High Court of Justice, during many months of the year, rise after a few hours' work, cases of importance are postponed from month to month, and I may say from year to year, in consequence of the judicial system, which does not permit the Common Law Courts to be fully constituted for more than a few weeks during each sitting. I approve the provisions of this Bill, therefore, so far as it tends to consolidate the Common Law Divisions; but I say that when these Divisions have been consolidated in the manner proposed, the amount of work which the Judges have to do will place three-fourths of them in the possession of sinecures—that is to say, they will be practically idle. Under the present system they enjoy offices of emolument and dignity; they are highly paid for the discharge of their offices; and they are left, to all intents and purposes, with nothing to do. Under the new system the work will be divided, and they will have still less to do; and, therefore, I say that the proper complement of this Bill would be to cut down the Judicial Bench in Ireland to one-half of its present strength, and it would then be quite strong enough to get through all its work. Unless this is done, we think the measure of the Government will be inadequate; whereas, if they make proper proposals in the direction indicated, they will be received with favour by the Irish people. There is one other subject to which I desire to refer before closing my remarks, and I now refer to the effect of making the Irish Judges Privy Councillors. We are aware that, under the present arrangement, they are both Privy Councillors and Judges; the effect of which is that on one day in the Privy Council they may direct the initiation of a prosecution, and on the next sit in Court to try the individual directed to be prosecuted. I have only referred to this subject for the purpose of asking the Government whether they will use the opportunity which this Bill gives them for remedying this evil state of affairs by providing that the Irish Privy Coun- cillors shall be Privy Councillors, and the Irish Judges, Judges only?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)

Sir, I am very glad there is to be a commencement made in the direction of economy in the Irish judiciary. On this side of the House we shall give it every support. I only hope this is a small beginning of reform which is extremely wanted. It is perfectly true, as stated by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Maurice Healy), that the staff of the Irish judicial establishment is enormously beyond the work it has to do; and I believe that the salaries of the Irish Judges are enormously high, considering the relations they bear to the incomes of the Bar. We have had very useful lessons on economy read to us from those Benches, and I hope they will be applied, and that without distinction of Party, to this question of the Irish judicial establishment. I know—and I venture to say the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks - Beach) knows very well—the strength of the legal trades-union in Dublin. It is one under which successive Irish Governments have suffered. Its members are the masters of the Castle, and until that is thoroughly understood we shall get no sound and good reform, either in the judiciary or in some other matters. If anybody will only take the trouble of summing up the amount which is spent upon the limited numbers of those who constitute the Irish Bar, he would find that the emoluments in which they must necessarily share would make the mouth of the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Matthews) water, either in his present or in his former profession. Now, a Committee was appointed by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), when he was an economical Member of the present Administration, to look into the abuses in, and the unnecessary waste upon, the Public Service; and I venture to say that the richest of all the fields which will be found in the form of abuses will be found in the Irish legal establishment. Assuring the Government of every possible support in the commencement of a reform of this character, I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson), with reference to what has passed between my right hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry Fowler) and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Minute of the Treasury on the subject of the salary of the Irish Attorney General? I was not in the House when the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) spoke; but I understand he advanced the rather singular argument that the Irish Government had not accepted the decision of the Treasury. [Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: The late Irish Government.] Now, if every Department was at liberty to say it did not accept the decision of the Treasury, you would have uncommonly little control over the Expenditure of the country. I am sure I should have been very glad, when I was at the Home Office, if I could have refused to accept the decision of the Treasury with regard to the salaries of that Department. To say that the Irish Government never accepted the decision of the Treasury, is opening up a vista of unlimited extravagance such as I never heard of. I do not wonder at the resignation of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington, if this doctrine is to be laid down by a Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant who was once Chancellor of the Exchequer.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

What I meant to convey was this—that the question was not settled. According to the best of my recollection, the Question was the subject of correspondence between the two Departments: the Treasury took one view, and the Irish Government another. When we came into Office, we found the Attorney General vacating Office receiving the salary which the Irish Government thought he ought to receive.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

My memory is quite clear on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman says that the final Minute of the Treasury has not been made on the subject. No doubt, if the final decision of the Treasury has not been given, the position of the right hon. Gentleman is quite correct; but if there was a final Minute of the Treasury on the subject, it was, of course, decisive. All I wish to ask the Secretary to the Treasury is, as I said before, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Minute of the Treasury? There could not be a Minute of the Treasury until the correspondence was finished. If my right hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton is correct, there was a Minute of the Treasury on the subject; and I wish to know whether the hon. Gentleman will lay that Minute on the Table?

THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)

If I can ascertain clearly what it is the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) wants, I shall be very glad to comply with his request. My own recollection of the circumstances rather leads me to the conclusion that to say there was a Minute passed, would not convey a correct description to the House. I think my right hon. Friend (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) will remember that the Question was the subject of correspondence between the Treasury and the Irish Government; and I believe my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was quite right in saying that, in the end, the salary was maintained at the same rate; the Irish Government, I will not say declining, but being unable to accept the view of the Treasury. I believe there is also a letter from the Treasury, in which they express the opinion that the view of the Treasury must be taken to be final; but I will look into the matter, and I shall be very happy to do what I can to meet the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt.)

MR. ILLINGWORTH (Bradford, W.)

I would really recommend the Government to enter as soon as possible upon economical courses, for we all know that the longer Governments remain in Office the more extravagant their expenditure becomes. While the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) is in this communicative mood, I would suggest that a Return be given to the House of the fees which have been paid to the Irish Attorney General. In almost every other public Department there is a possibility of knowing what the charges are; but in regard to the Legal Offices of the Crown there is always a great deal of mystification. In past times no one has known what Bench officials have got; but at last we have reached the richest preserves of extravagance, and I sincerely hope that before this Bill passes through Committee we shall be informed what the salaries and emoluments of the Offices of the Irish Attorney General and the Irish Solicitor General are really worth. It is not alone the money question I look at; but my impression is that the high emoluments given to the Irish officials have been intended as bribes.

MR. SPEAKER

I must call the attention of the House to the fact that there is no mention in the Bill of the Office of the Attorney General for Ireland. Therefore, it is not permissible to continue a discussion which is not relevant to the principle of the Bill.

MR. M. J. KENNY (Tyrone, Mid)

Mr. Speaker, I think that this Bill, as far as it goes, will commend itself to every Member of the House, with the exception of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the junior Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Holmes). This Bill cannot be altogether satisfactory to him, and, at the same time, we have a right to maintain that it is hardly satisfactory to our Party, because it does not go far enough. It will effect a saving of £800 a-year in the Irish Estimates; but, as a matter of fact, when there is an amendment of the Judicature Act, we have a right to expect that the reform should be of a thorough character, especially as the present Government came into Office with the profession of economy on their lips, which, somehow or other, they do not seem anxious to fulfil. There are many Judges in Ireland who practically have no functions to discharge, while they receive large salaries—as large salaries as those paid to Judges in England. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland receives £8,000 a-year for doing very little; one Judge receives £5,000 a-year, and the lowest salary paid—that to the Puisne Judges—is £3,800 a-year. Everybody knows that these sums represent in Ireland twice as much as they do in England; and every person knows, also, that English barristers accepting seats on the Bench do so at a pecuniary sacrifice. When barristers in England are promoted to the Bench, it almost invariably happens that they have been making by private practice considerably greater annual incomes than they will receive as Puisne Judges. As Judges they receive £5,000 a-year, or considerably less than they have made, as a rule, in following their profession at the Bar. In Ireland, however, the case is exactly the reverse. I venture to say there is not a single barrister in Ireland who is, at the present time, making £3,000 a-year; while in England there are men at the Bar making £15,000 a-year—£3,000 a-year would be an enormous salary in Ireland. I believe £1,500 a-year is regarded in the Four Courts as quite a princely salary; and the result is that the high salaries paid to Judges are nothing more than bribes to Members of the Bar for their political services; such has always been regarded as the case in Ireland. That the Lord Chancellor should get £8,000 a-year is a relic of the corruption of the Union. It is one of the many legal abuses which exist at the present time, and is a matter of disgrace and discredit to the Irish Executive. The Supreme Court of Ireland could be cut down to less than half its present numbers, and, at the same time, the legal work of Ireland could be satisfactorily performed. I was recently speaking to an Australian lawyer, and he told me the Judges in Australia have worked as long as 12 and 14 hours a-day. That, of course, is excessive; but there are Judges in Ireland who will not work two hours a-day, and yet for such services they receive from £3,800 to £5,000 a-year. I maintain that that is a scandal; and I say that if the Government wish to set an example of economy, there is no more suitable field to start upon than that of the judiciary in Ireland. I should be in favour of the Government appointing no other Judges in Ireland until the present number has been reduced to one-half what it is, and then I should be in favour of cutting the salaries of the Judges down to about one-half. There is not a Judge in Ireland who is worth more than £2,000 a-year. Considering the condition of Ireland and the class of lawyers in the country, £2,000 a-year would be equal to the deserts of any of the Irish lawyers. If the Government intend to adopt a policy of retrenchment in this particular direction, I think I may safely assure them of every support from the quarter of the House in which I sit.

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed for Tomorrow."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

As an Amendment, I move that the Bill be committed for this day fortnight. The Bill will have to be considerably altered. Its title is a wide one, and a great many subjects would be relevant to it. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to give me at least a fortnight to consider the Bill. There is no urgent necessity to press it on. The Queen's Bench Division will now, of course, have a great deal of work to do in reference to the criminal prosecutions pending; and as to the civil work of the country, I assure the right hon. Gentleman there is no pressure. There may be a few cases to be tried by jury, but they can be taken before one Judge. There is no urgent necessity for the sitting of Judges as a Divisional Court.

Amendment proposed, to leave out "To-morrow," and insert "this day fortnight."—(Mr. Chance.)

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

That is the most extraordinary statement I ever heard in this House. [Mr. CHANCE: It is nevertheless true.] I said, in introducing this Bill, that if it was delayed either on the ground of objection or in regard to its scope—if there was any attempt to tack to it other reforms—it would be impossible for the Government to proceed with it, and that we should be compelled, much against our will, to fill up the vacant office. We ask the House to take this little step in judicial reform; but if hon. Members treat the Bill in the manner which the hon. Member (Mr. Chance) has just suggested, our object of economy will be defeated, and they will have defeated it. I am quite willing to postpone the Committee stage until Thursday; but I decline to postpone it longer. This is a small measure. As I said last week, it is a measure which, as far as it goes, everyone agrees with. It is a measure which, if it is to be passed at all, it is essential should be passed at once.

MR. CHANCE

With the permission of the House I will withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Motion withdrawn.

Bill committed for Thursday,