HC Deb 31 July 1897 vol 52 cc21-8

(1.) The Exchequer Division shall be fused and amalgamated with the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court, and the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer shall take rank in the Queen's Bench Division next after the Lord Chief Justice, and in all other respects shall have and enjoy the same title, rank, precedence, patronage, rights, salary, and emoluments as he had and enjoyed immediately before the passing of this Act; and shall have the same rights in relation to appointments to the offices held by the existing officers of the Exchequer Division (save the office of master) and in relation to any office which may be created in substitution for any such existing office, as if such new office were in the office in the Exchequer Division.

(2.) Any order which may be made, during the continuance in office of the Lord Chief Baron, for consolidating, or reducing the number of the existing offices in the Queen's Bench and Exchequer Divisions, shall state which of the new or continuing offices shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been created in substitution for an existing office in the Exchequer Division.

(3.) All causes and matters pending in the Exchequer Division, and all causes and matters which would have been assigned to that Division, if this Act had not passed, shall be assigned to the Queen's Bench Division.

MR. DILLON

moved to leave out and the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer shall take rank in the Queen's Bench Division next after the Lord Chief Justice, and to insert— the Lord Chief Justice shall take rank in the Queen's Bench Division next after the Lord Chief Baron. He failed to understand on what principle the Government had proposed to give the present Lord Chief Justice precedence over the Lord Chief Baron. He himself was not an admirer of the judiciary in Ireland, but he could not conceive how any one who thought the Irish Judges were an honour to the Bench could reconcile himself to seeing, in the event of this amalgamation, the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench taking precedence over the Chief Baron of the Exchequer. Would it be contended that the legal knowledge or the position as a Judge of the present Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench could be placed in competition for a single moment with that of the Chief Baron? [" Hear, hear!"] The Chief Baron had been for 25 years the head of the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, occupying that position when the present Chief Justice was a very insignificant member of the outer Bar. Was this proposal to place the Chief Justice in point of honour and of precedence over the head of the Chief Baron a reward for his zeal on the famous occasion when he wept in Court while defending himself and 14 other Irish traversers who were charged with criminal conspiracy, and when he declared, with the tears coursing down his cheeks, that the accused were the noblest young men whom he had ever known? [Laughter.] Were the Government so grateful to Sir Peter O'Brien for that noble speech, in which he denounced the Government of the day for their oppressive laws and for their infamous prosecutions, that they were now anxious to reward him by giving him this precedence? [Cheers.] At the time of the prosecutions to which he referred he was himself young and innocent enough to imagine that a barrister who was paid his fee for defending prisoners believed all he said, and when Mr. Peter O'Brien—as he then was—described the defendants as gallant young men who were risking their lives in defence of the liberties of their people he was affected, and his emotion was rendered still more intense when he actually observed the tears trickling down the cheeks of his counsel. [Laughter.] But as they grew older many of the illusions of youth passed away, and he lived to hear the same Mr. Peter O'Brien, as Attorney General, five years afterwards in another Government prosecution, denouncing him and other Irishmen as among the most infamous scoundrels who ever lived. [Laughter.]

* THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS

The hon. Member is aware that if any attack is to be made on a Judge there is a proper way of doing it—by Motion in this House. ["Hear, hear!"] I do not see how the personal question can be brought up on this Amendment. The only question now before the Committee is whether the office of Chief Justice or Chief Baron is to take precedence, and therefore any Debate must be confined to the comparison between the two offices. ["Hear, hear!"]

MR. DILLON

observed that the Court of Exchequer was to be amalgamated with the Queen's Bench, and the question was whether in that amalgamation the Chief Baron ought to take precedence over the Chief Justice. He was perhaps straying a little from the strict rules of order by old recollections. His contention was that this was essentially and largely a question of the personal standing of the two men. He had had to criticise and condemn the action of the Chief Baron, notably in the Woodford cases, when he thought he sentenced men most unfairly, but undoubtedly his Lordship had the reputation of being one of the greatest lawyers on the Irish Bench, and if his Court was to be amalgamated with that of the Queen's Bench it was only right that he should be given that precedence in rank and position to which his reputation and knowledge as a lawyer and his standing on the Bench plainly entitled him. ["Hear, hear!"] He asked the Government what was their justification for saying that Sir Peter O'Brien should be given precedence over a man who could teach him more law in a fortnight than he had ever learned in the whole course of his life. ["Hear!"]

* THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS

The last statement of the hon. Gentleman seems distinctly to trench upon the Rules of the House. The hon. Gentleman is now criticising the legal ability of the Chief Justice, and if he desires to take exception to that there is a proper way of bringing the question before the House. It must be done by a distinct Motion; this is not the proper opportunity of raising it. ["Hear, hear!"]

MR. DILLON

should be glad if it was in his power to bring such a Motion before the House, because he thought he could make out a strong case against the Chief Justice and the whole history of his appointment. He recognised that that was entirely out of order on the present occasion. The Government, however, had brought in a Bill to abolish the position of the Chief Baron by fusing his Court with that of the Queen's Bench, and to place the present occupant of that great office second in rank to his junior in the profession, to his junior on the Bench, and his junior in legal knowledge. The Chief Baron was himself indifferent to this question of precedence and honour, but the Government ought not to take advantage of that to place him in a subordinate position to one who was in every respect his inferior. ["Hear, hear!"] He held that this was a question between persons, and not between offices. He was informed by those having a knowledge of legal matters to which he had no claim that such a proceeding was without precedent in this country or in Ireland. The custom in Judicature Acts had always been to recognise the position of the chief of the Court to be amalgamated until he resigned or died. In these very high offices of State this question of precedence was a matter to which most men attached a good deal of importance, and it was not customary in connection with amalgamation to lower a man from the position of precedence and rank he had occupied for a number of years. The Government said the Chief Baron had raised no objection, and it was to his credit if that was so, but that did not relieve the Government from the responsibility of dealing honestly and fairly with this matter. He did not profess to express the opinion of the Bar, but he believed that this Amendment would give voice to the universal opinion in Ireland of the outside public that the Chief Baron by his long service, his great legal acquirements, and high character in the Court to be amalgamated, was entitled to precedence over a man who could not for a moment compare with him in ability and qualifications.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,) Leeds, Central

said the hon. Member had expressed curiosity to know with what arguments the Government could possibly support the proposal against which his Amendment was directed, and in a few sentences he thought he could convince even the hon. Gentleman, notwithstanding the recollections he had introduced into the discussion, that the Amendment was unreasonable. The question was not one as between man and man, it was a question as between one office and another office. At the present time the Lord Chief Justice as such takes precedence over the Chief Baron, and the Government in their Bill simply left this matter as they found it. They had not raised any personal question, but if the Committee were to accept the Amendment that would be precisely the question that would be raised. If the Amendment were adopted the existing Order would be inverted, substituting a new Order and thereby inflicting a very serious slur on the present occupant of the office of Lord Chief Justice. In whose interest was the Amendment proposed? Certainly not in that of the Chief Baron. He assured the Committee that this clause had the full concurrence of the Chief Baron. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member had spoken as if the Government had forced this proposal on the Chief Baron and had forced the immediate amalgamation of the Exchequer Court with the Court of Queen's Bench, but that was altogether wide from the fact. The Government would never have made the proposal if they had not ascertained beforehand that the Chief Baron was perfectly ready and willing to acquiesce in it, and nobody would be more pained by the acceptance of the Amendment than the Chief Baron himself. He hoped the Motion would not be pressed.

MR. EDWARD CARSON (Dublin University)

thought it was quite evident that the hon. Member for Mayo was simply taking the opportunity of doing what he was always prepared to do—to make an attack on the Judges of Ireland. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] He was sure the Committee were glad that the Chairman's ruling prevented the manŒuvre going to the extent to which no doubt the hon. Member wished to carry it. For many years he had had the honour of knowing both the Judges mentioned, and he could say that if there was one man more than another in the whole profession who would deprecate the Amendment of the hon. Member it was the Lord Chief Baron himself, who he was aware had the greatest possible friendship and admiration for the Lord Chief Justice—[laughter from Nationalist Members]—the greatest possible friendship—intimate friendship and greatest admiration of the Lord Chief Justice for his attainments as a lawyer and a Judge. ["Hear, hear!"] He was perfectly certain that, so far as the Lord Chief Justice was concerned, he would much rather have the words in the Bill giving him his proper precedence struck out than that any proposal of the nature of that suggested by the hon. Member should be entertained. What was the position at the moment of the Lord Chief Justice? As President of the Queen's Bench and as Chief Justice he was chief or head of the common law Bar of Ireland, and this Motion was made, not as against any proposal to take away any precedence the Chief Baron already had, but made with a view to deposing the Lord Chief Justice from the high position he had enjoyed, and it could only be put forward with a view of causing annoyance. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] It was an attempt to give vent to a kind of personal spite against the Lord Chief Justice [Cries of "Order!"]

MR. MACNEILL

rose to order. Was it not contrary to the rules of order to accuse a Member of personal spite?

* THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS

said the hon. Member had not been attacked.

MR. CARSON

said it was to give vent to personal spite, and the hon. Member knew that from his position the Lord Chief Justice could not answer.

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

rose to order. Was it order for an hon. Member to attribute motives to another? The right hon. Gentleman had imputed personal spite as the motive for the course the hon. Member had taken. He had always understood it was not in order to impute motives.

* THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS

It is not in order to impute motives, and if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University has imputed a motive I am sure he will see it is undesirable to do so and will not do so.

MR. CARSON

said he did not want to impute any personal motive, and, if he had done so, did not in the least wish to persevere. If what he had said bore that construction it would be doing exactly what he deprecated the hon. Member doing in relation to the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland. The only argument he had heard put forward for the Amendment was that one of the Judges was senior to the other, the Chief Baron to the Lord Chief Justice. It was an absolutely ridiculous argument, as the hon. Member must know. As well might it be said that the Lord Chief Justice of England ought to be deposed from his high position because he was one of the junior Judges on the Bench. It was said that one was a better lawyer than the other, but it had never yet been suggested that the position of Judge should be filled up after competitive examination. He had only risen to deprecate these attacks, founded on no substantial ground or argument whatsoever, and he hoped the House would appraise at their true value the characters of Irish Judges as given by hon. Members opposite. ["Hear, hear!"]

MR. FLYNN

said that the question of man against man was really raised by the Bill itself. He did not wish to appraise the respective merits of the Chief Baron and the Lord Chief Justice; that had been long since settled by public opinion and the Bar of Ireland. Here was a senior Judge of great reputation and high standing, and the Government put this indignity upon him of placing over him another Judge, whose qualifications he would not discuss, and which, notwithstanding the absence of competitive examination, had been fairly estimated as not equal to those of the Chief Baron on any point. It was unfair to the Chief Baron to put the alternative before him of agreeing or disagreeing with the Bill. The Amendment of his hon. Friend had the approval of public opinion in Ireland, and if any invidious comparison between one who was a great lawyer and one who was not was raised, it was the Government who had raised the issue in the clause.

MR. DILLON

said the answer of the Chief Secretary had not convinced him. At present the Chief Baron was head of a Court, and from that position he was to be degraded. He should certainly proceed to a Division.

MR. DAVID SHEEHY (Galway, S.)

, who was indistinctly heard, was understood to support the Amendment.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 120; Noes, 32.—-(Division List, No. 355.)

Clause 2,—