§ (1) There shall be established in each of the four provinces of Ireland a provincial Imperial Court, which shall have the sole jurisdiction in the province in which it is established in civil proceedings where any party to such proceeding is domiciled in a different province in Ireland from that in which any other party to such proceeding is domiciled or where any party to such proceeding is domiciled out of Ireland.
§ (2) A judge of a provincial Imperial Court, who shall be a member of the Irish Bar of at least ten years' standing, shall he appointed under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom by His Majesty on the recommendation of the Judicial Committee, of the Privy Council, and every such judge shall hold his office by the same tenure as that on which a judge of the Supreme Court in England holds his office.
§ (3) An appeal from the decision of a provincial Imperial Court shall lie to His Majesty the King in Council.
§ (4) If it is made to appear to the judge of a provincial Imperial Court that any decree or judgment in any such proceedings as aforesaid before that Court has not been duly enforced by the sheriff or other officer whose duty it is to enforce the same, such judge shall appoint some officer, whose duty it shall be to enforce that judgment or decree; and for that purpose such officer and all persons employed by him shall be entitled to the same privileges, immunities, and powers as are by law conferred on a sheriff and his officers.
§ (5) His Majesty in Council may make rules respecting all matters within the jurisdiction of the provincial Imperial Courts.
Mr. SHIRLEY BENNI beg to move "That the Clause be read a second time, 860 and in doing so I will briefly explain its object. I do not think the proposals of this Bill will lead to the peace and contentment in Ireland which we all desire to see. Whether or not this Bill produces civil war there is no one here who knows Ireland who will not agree that it is bound to produce intense irritation for a certain period between the Anglo-Irish and the Celtic Irish. Whilst that irritation exists it is extremely useful for us if we can have Courts which can be held above all politics and sentiment. The chief reason why I suggest the establishment of these provincial Imperial Courts is due to the experience I gained whilst living in the United States. I lived in one of those States for some years, and I found that if you brought civil cases in the State Courts you were very apt to find that the result of those cases were influenced to a considerable extent by the sentiment of the locality. If on the other hand, you brought those cases in the United States Federal Courts you undoubtedly got justice. I can recollect a case that was tried in one of the Law Courts in Mississippi and the verdict was given for the defendants. There was an appeal to the-Supreme Court, and the decision was reversed, and the ease tried again. Again judgment was given for the defendants, and again it was taken to the Appeal Court and reserved, and that happened no less than four times to my own knowledge, and the last time the State Court found for the defendants.
I have never known a case in the United States Federal Court which has the right of trying these cases where one man lives in one State and the other man lives in another State where he did not get justice. The judges were often Southerners, but they were appointed by the President of the United States, and I believe that the jurors who served in those cases always felt that they were serving as jurors of the United States and not as jurors of one State. I cannot help feeling that whilst irritation exists in Ireland it would be far wiser if we had these four Imperial Provincial Courts where the judges would be appointed by the Crown, and where the juries would feel that they were acting for the United Kingdom, and would not be influenced by any sentiment or politics. Irishmen as a rule are loyal to their principles, but they are apt to be influenced by sentiment just as much as any other people in the world. I therefore feel that if the Government could nee their way to 861 allow these four provincial Imperial Courts to be established, it would be good for the peace and contentment of Ireland. The judges under this new Clause are to be men selected from the Irish Bar of ten years' standing, and I am sure you will not get any better judges than they will make. The juries will be drawn in the same way as for the other Courts. I feel that this is not a matter of doing anything to try to kill the Bill, or an endeavour to bring politics into it, but it is a case where I feel it would be better for Ireland as a whole if they had these four Imperial Courts.
§ Sir J. D. REESI beg to second my hon. Friend's Amendment. In the special circumstances of Ireland, and considering the fact that with regard to one province it might be urged that there was a certain solidarity of sentiment and a similarity of nationality of feeling, I confess that I think in regard to three of the provinces of Ireland it would be quite impossible for anybody to stand up and make the same statement in regard to them. At first sight I confess that I had to study this Amendment before I appreciated the necessity for it, and it appeared to me, upon careful consideration, that this is a very necessary proposal. It would occur to anybody familiar with Wales that the position in this respect is somewhat analogous. I remember a case in Wales in which a judge from England tried a case just as a judge for the three provinces in Ireland might come into Ulster. The case was tried and the jury were Welsh. The counsel for the defence made an extremely short speech, and although the judge summed up dead against the prisoner, he was immediately acquitted. This circumstance so struck the judge that he asked for a translation of what counsel had said. The judge said, "That must be the most eloquent and able counsel who ever addressed a jury, because after I had summed up against the man, counsel in a few words entirely cancelled the whole effect of my summing up." From a translation it appears that the address of the counsel consisted of these, very few words:
Gentlemen of the jury: The prisoner is a Welshman. You are Welshmen. I am a Welshman, the judge is an Englishman,and he was acquitted.
§ Mr. RAFFANWhere did this occur?
§ Sir J. D. REESI must beg the hon. Gentleman to allow me to put this case in my own way. He will have the opportunity of putting his case afterwards with 862 his superior knowledge of the Welsh language.
§ Mr. RAFFANI merely say that it is an incident that never occurred.
§ Sir J. D. REESI beg the Committee to note the arrogance of the hon. Member opposite. He not only asserts that the ease did not occur to his knowledge, but he actually commits himself to the statement that such a case never occurred. Surely no human being on earth, much less a Member of Parliament, ever before committed himself to such an arrogant denial.
§ Mr. RAFFANArrogance is better than falsehood considerably.
§ The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean)I do not think the hon. Member ought to use such an expression as "falsehood" in reference to what has been said by an hon. Member in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]
§ Sir J. D. REESI merely mention this by way of illustration. It shows the whole world of difference there is between the manner in which judge, jury, prisoner, and counsel approach a case in different parts of the United Kingdom. Is there any hon. Member of this House who will assert there is not as wide a difference between the other three provinces of Ireland and Ulster as there is between the border counties of England, or any other counties of England, and the Principality of Wales? I mention this as an illustration, because it gives point to the Amendment and shows how necessary it is that something of this sort should be done. If further proof were needed of the necessity of some such provision, it would be found in the fact that since local government was introduced into Ireland you will not in the three provinces outside Ulster find any other than Nationalists or Catholics who obtained any representation. [An HON MEMBER; "That is not so."] I will withdraw that, and instead of saying Unionists and Protestants obtain no representation, they obtain an exceedingly small and wholly inadequate representation. Those are dividing lines and lines of cleavage, which are not only apparent in regard to local affairs, but equally apparent in regard to civil proceedings. My hon. Friend has provided that the judge of every provincial Court shall be a member of the Irish Bar of at least ten years' standing. That proves the moderation and consideration with which he has approached the subject. I never 863 succeeded in becoming a barrister, but when I studied for the Bar a barrister of seven years' standing was qualified for any office. I believe be still has this statutory qualification.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs) indicated dissent.
§ Sir J. D. REESNaturally I accept correction, but, at any rate, the Attorney-General will allow a barrister of ten years' standing is qualified for anything.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACS indicated dissent.
§ Sir. J. D. REESI am sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman, who is head of the Bar, does not consider a barrister of ten years' standing is qualified for any office. I hope he will enumerate those offices for which a barrister of ten years' standing is not qualified. I do not think he will detain the Committee long by that enumeration. The Amendment goes on to provide that every such judge shall hold office by the same tenure as that on which a judge of the Supreme Court of England holds his office. That also is necessary. It is impossible to get away from the fact that you have in Ireland two sections of the population animated by totally different ideals and requiring totally different treatment. Above all, they require this in regard to civil proceedings, judgments in which absolutely create the legal and even economic atmosphere in which the people pass their lives. I maintain this Amendment is absolutely necessary. A judge being appointed by His Majesty on the recommendation of the Judicial Committee would not be subject to suspicion in regard to his political leanings. I am not here to assert that because a man is a member of the Nationalist party he is not capable of being a just and impartial judge, but I do say such a gentleman, if appointed, would not be regarded as a just and impartial judge by the people of one of the four provinces. It is not enough to be just. You must appear to be just and be recognised as being just. It is really necessary to provide civil judges whose impartiality will be beyond all doubt and above suspicion. Sub-section (2) of the proposed Clause provides in a very satisfactory manner that they shall possess that absolutely necessary qualification. Even the question of language may arise. It has been argued in this House that the Irish language is to come into use again, 864 and may be employed in the Courts. A breeze occurred in this august assembly because an hon. Gentleman sitting on those benches penetrated into the sacred precincts of the House of Lords in the garb of Old Gaul.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI would remind the hon. Member that we are dealing with the Second Heading of this Clause, and I hope he will be good enough to confine himself to the principle of the Clause and not enter so much into detail.
§ Sir J. D. REESI will do my utmost to obey your ruling. I was endeavouring to point out the difficulties that arise when two languages are spoken in a Court. I instanced a case which occurred in Wales, and I repeat it did occur in Wales.
§ Mr. RAFFANAnd I repeat it did not.
§ Sir J. D. REESThe hon. Gentleman knows all the cases that have occurred in Wales. My knowledge is necessarily less comprehensive.
§ Mr. BUTCHERIs it in order when an hon. Member has made a definite statement for another hon. Member in a disorderly manner to say it is contrary to fact?
§ Mr. RAFFANMay I on the point of Order submit that when a statement which indicts a whole nation with dishonesty is made one is entitled to ask when and where the case occurred?
§ Sir J. D. REESMy indictment of a whole nation consisted of this, that the exceeding great eloquence of a Welsh advocate obtained recognition at the hands of the Court.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI will deal with the point of Order. It is quite in order for an hon. Member to make a statement and for another hon. Member to make a complete contradiction. I did not notice any disorderly manner.
§ Mr. T. O'DONNELLMay I ask whether it is competent for an hon. Gentleman to make a statement regarding a case which in the knowledge of every Member who knows the English law is impossible to have occurred. A barrister whether in Wales or in Ireland must address the Court in the English language. The hon. Member has stated that a barrister addressed the jury in the Welsh language.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANHon. Members in this House make statements on their own responsibility.
§ Sir J. D. REESMay I point out it is absolutely necessary to speak to a jury in words which they can understand, and it is not out of order to address them in any language whatsoever. It is not, however, a real point of Order as is very obvious from the fact that you yourself, Sir, have not called me to order. It is also provided that an appeal from the decision of an Imperial Provincial Court shall lie to the King in Council. Shall I be out of order in again invoking an illustration from a case in my own knowledge in order to show? Why is it superfluous that an appeal should lie to the King in Council? Take the ease of judgments in the Calcutta High Court which are continually reversed by the Privy Council. Why is Ulster to be disallowed an appeal which is provided in the case of every other British possession? At one time the Front Bench is all for pointing out this is a federal Constitution, and that Ireland is a part of it. But directly hon. Members on these benches seek to take advantage of that very contention, they declare that no such safeguard is necessary. Here we have two absolutely irreconcilable attitudes, and I maintain that Section 3 provides a very necessary safeguard. Now I come to the next Section. It is very little use obtaining a judgment if you cannot enforce it. Anybody who has had experience of the Courts knows that a man can spend a good deal of money in getting judgment, and, in the end, be far worse off than if he had never gone to the Court. Therefore I think my hon. Friend has more than justified his case in providing by the fourth Clause that a judge shall be empowered to appoint a receiver whose duty it shall be to enforce a judgment or decree, and further that such officer "shall be entitled to the same privileges, immunity and powers as are by law conferred on a sheriff and his officers." Without some such safeguard the Court which my hon. Friend desires to set up would be absolutely useless. Take for instance the case to which reference has been made. Unless you have some provision for the special execution of the decree passed under circumstances like this the decree obtained will not be worth the paper on which it is written. There remains the fifth and last Sub-section of the Amendment:
His Majesty in Council may make rules respecting all matters within the 866 jurisdiction of the provincial Imperial Courts.If such Courts are to be provided, as I hope they may be, it is absolutely necessary that His Majesty in Council should make such rules, otherwise it would be quite easy for the Irish Parliament or any other authority to make rules which would render the provision of the Court absolutely useless. They may stand in need of such safeguards under the new Constitution. I now submit that the matter is well worthy of the consideration of the Government. It is a very necessary provision. Right through this Bill there is a real fundamental difficulty which pervades every section: there is the fact that there are two different Irelands, and the one will not be ruled by the other. The one will not be satisfied with the Court provided by the other, and suspicion will attach in their eyes to such Courts. I do not say it would be justified, but I do think that special provision of this character should be made, and I hope the Attorney-General will give this proposal serious consideration.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThe Clause is really one of a most extraordinary character, although I give the Mover every credit for desiring to produce something which may be of benefit to Ireland. He drew upon his own experience in the United States as supplying him with a model for this proposal. When I read the Clause first I came to the conclusion not only that it is not necessary, but that it would be extremely mischievous. I really cannot conceive anything more mischievous or more calculated to prove a condemnation of the judiciary. This is what the Clause means: that you will not trust the judges, either those appointed under the régime which at present exists or those to be appointed under the new Bill. It means you will not trust a judge so appointed to try a civil proceeding where one of the parties is domiciled in another province of Ireland. I cannot conceive anything which could be such a strong condemnation of the judiciary in Ireland.
§ Sir J. D. REESWould it be possible to make a distinction between Ulster and the three other provinces?
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI think I shall be able to show the hon. Gentleman that not only would that be unnecessary, but that it would be absolutely futile as a remedy for the state of things he refers to. The object of this proposal is that in case you 867 have a Nationalist in litigation with an anti-Nationalist you are to have a judge appointed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, on the advice of His Majesty, and you are to have a judge set up in each of these provinces who is to be the only judge entitled to try such a case. Where is it that two people are mostly in antagonism? As the hon. Member said just now, it is in Ulster. Does he realise that this provision would not operate at all in Ulster? Has he appreciated that fact? Let me make it quite plain. In the province of Ulster, if you have an anti-Nationalist in litigation with a Nationalist, the ordinary Courts would have jurisdiction to deal with the matter. It is only if you get a Nationalist in one province and an anti-Nationalist in another that you bring in this new judge who is to be appointed as the sole judge who shall have jurisdiction. Therefore the point which the hon. Gentleman says is at the root of this is absolutely untouched by this provision. I cannot help thinking that this proposal is framed under a complete misapprehension of what would be the real result. Let me call attention to some other aspects of this matter. The hon. Gentleman who last spoke asked why there should not be, for example, in Ulster, a power on the part of the litigant to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council if he were dissatisfied with the judgment.
§ Sir J. D. REESThat was accepting, for the moment, the assumption which has been put forward, that Ireland is being placed in the position more or less of a self-governing Colony under this Bill.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI know, but what I want to point out to the hon. Gentleman, and I am dealing with the very point, is this: He says, "Why should not he be allowed to do it, and ought he not to have an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council?" Is he unaware of the fact that in this Bill we give it to him? The hon. Gentleman has evidently not paid particular attention to this Clause. If he had, he would see by reference to the Clauses in the Bill as originally introduced into this House, and as it is now, that there is an appear given to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in all cases where there is an appeal. He is a man of quick intelligence, and when he read the Clause he saw at once that it was unnecessary, but foe some reason, which I do not at- 868 tempt to define, and which is not so relevant to this Clause, he thought it desirable to take a view favourable to the Clause. I am quite sure that he has come now to his original view that the Clause is unnecessary. The hon. Gentleman who moved it did so thinking it was a means of reaching an evil which he thinks exists, but which I utterly deny. I cannot conceive that any judge, when he is trying a case, can be supposed to be influenced against one of the parties because he happens to be domiciled in a different province from that in which the judge who is trying the cause. That is impossible. The last observation I will make is, that if it is true that there are these prejudices, and that you have to make such provision—which I utterly deny—it is no more true of Ireland than of England. If it is true, what an extraordinary result you would arrive at if you accepted this Clause. You take away from the judges, who are the trained experts in sifting evidence and dealing with matters which come before them in litigation, the right to try a civil proceeding, but yon allow juries, who are not trained, to try the case. Although the hon. Gentleman had an excellent object in view, he does not really attain it by this Clause, and there is no reason why we should accept it, but, on the contrary, every reason why we should reject it.
§ Question put, and negatived.