HC Deb 22 June 1920 vol 130 cc2074-91

The Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland shall cease to exist, and there shall be established in Ireland the following Courts, that is to say, a Court having jurisdiction in Southern Ireland, to be called the Supreme Court of Judicature of Southern Ireland, a Court having jurisdiction in Northern Ireland, to be called the Supreme Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland, and a Court having appellate jurisdiction throughout the whole of Ireland, to be called the High Court of Appeal for Ireland.


I beg to move to leave out the words "and a Court having appellate jurisdiction throughout the whole of Ireland, to be called the High Court of Appeal for Ireland."

Speaking on behalf of my Friends and those whom I represent, I think I can say that we are quite satisfied with the provisions made in the Bill for the local administration of justice. The last words of the Clause set up a Court having jurisdiction over the whole of Ireland, to be called the High Court of Appeal for Ireland. Speaking on behaif of the commercial community, I would say that I think there are too many appeals. Under this Bill, a man goes from the High Court in Northern or Southern Ireland to the Court of Appeal in Northern or Southern Ireland, and then to the High Court of Appeal for Ireland, and, finally, Clause 47 preserves the appeal to the House of Lords. We feel that this High Court of Appeal for Ireland is unnecessary.


I beg to support the Amendment. The Clause as it stands adds another Court and another step, a very expensive step, in litigation in Ireland. It is not in the interests of anyone, certainly it is not in the interests of litigants, that there should be a heavy expense in cases for trial. Why there should be this extra Court of Appeal I cannot see. If a case is worthy of appeal it is taken to the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland or Southern Ireland, as the case may be. In the majority of cases the litigants would probably be satisfied with the decision they got there. In the larger cases litigants would not be satisfied until they had a decision of the House of Lords. At the present time, when a new Bill dealing with judiciary is being introduced, we ought really to be going forward and removing hindrances to the smooth working of the law in Ireland, instead of adding additional burdens and making it more difficult to carry out the law.


I regret to say that the Government cannot accept the Amendment. At present in Ireland the scheme dealing with litigation is this: The case is tried by a judge in the first instance, either with or without a jury. There is at present a right, which does not exist in England, to go in the first instance to a Divisional Court of the King's Bench Division. From that Divisional Court there is an appeal to the Court of Appeal in Ireland, and an ultimate appeal to the House of Lords. What is suggested by this Amendment is to substitute for the Divisional Court what is known as the Court of Appeal for Northern Ireland. Instead of having a direct appeal to the House of Lords it is proposed to have a Court, composed of judges representing Northern and Southern Ireland, who will hear appeals before they go to the House of Lords, so that the number of hearings will be precisely the same as at present in Ireland, in all cases. As I understand the Amendment, it is to leave out the Court of Appeal for Northern Ireland.


The Court of Appeal for all Ireland.


And simply to have a Court of Appeal for Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland, and then direct appeal to the House of Lords. It is obvious that the result of that would be to increase very much the appeals to the House of Lords, which are far more expensive than a hearing in Ireland would be. In addition it is quite easy to conceive, and indeed it would frequently arise in practice, that a plaintiff might reside in Northern Ireland and the defendant in Southern Ireland, or vice versa. In a case of that description I think it would add very much to the confidence that the litigants would have, in the disposal of their case in one set of Courts or the other, to feel that ultimately there was an appeal to a tribunal representing both Courts. In the other case the Southern Ireland plaintiff, if he had to go to the North, or the Northern Ireland plaintiff, if he had to go to the South, would feel a grievance that he was dealing with the Court not representative of the district in which he resided. A tribunal composed of both Courts would go a long way to obviate that difficulty.


Supposing Southern Ireland refuses to work this Bill, how will this Clause work?


There is a new Clause being prepared for the purpose of meeting that difficulty, and I think it is on the Order Paper at this moment.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."


I had given notice to move the rejection of the Clause, and I ask the Committee whether it is really desirable to have this enormously costly system of a double judicature. The objections seem to me to be very obvious. You are going to have an enormous multiplication of offices. You will have a separate judicial staff, and that involves, as the Attorney-General knows, a multitude of lesser officials. In the two parts of Ireland you are going to have separate judiciaries, and that seems to me to be very objectionable on the grounds of expense. It is perfectly unnecessary to set up a large number of officials to do judicial work in a country which already is privileged with having an excessive number, at least, so I have always understood, of judicial officers to do the work which arises in that country. Under those circumstances, you will really do a grotesque thing by creating a double judicial staff to do work which could easily, it is said, be done by half the present number of Judges. In addition, you will cause great practical inconvenience to litigants, and, so I am told, to the profession. The centre of the profession is now organised in one place. You have the actual judicial body and all the arrangements as to solicitors and counsel concentrated in Dublin far more than they are concentrated in London, because in England there are local bars.

I am much encouraged in my opposition to this Clause by the speech which the Attorney-General for Ireland made just now. In dealing with the question of the court of appeal, he pointed out that there would be no difficulty about arranging that the court of appeal should sit alternately in Dublin and Belfast, in order to meet local requirements or local prejudices. The same might be done with the ordinary courts, as long as you retained them as a central body. They could sit in Belfast if necessary. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out with great truth, that where you had the plaintiff in the North and the defendant in the South, there would be great advantage in having a court of appeal which would speak for the whole of Ireland. Surely it would be a much greater advantage if you had a central judicial body which would speak for the whole of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman recognises there would be considerable difficulty in bringing a Northern defendant into a Southern court, and, conversely, a Southern defendant into a Northern court, and he proposed to provide for that by having an Irish court of appeal. Just consider what that means. In order to get what the litigant will regard as justice, he has to go to either a Northern or a Southern court, and then he can go to a Northern or Southern court of appeal, and from that court, he can go to the Irish court of appeal, which according to the Attorney-General, will be a very real, or at any rate, sentimental security for justice. I could understand the desire to split up the judiciary if there was widespread distrust of the present judiciary. I am always very reluctant to make any statement about Ireland when any Irishmen are present, as they naturally know more about the subject, but it would be new to me to hear, speaking generally, that there was distrust of the present judiciary in Ireland, or at any rate in the North, and I do not think there is much in the South. I never heard of it, except as general distrust of the whole present Government of Ireland. Therefore, you have got a judiciary which has the confidence of the whole country, and you are going to split that up into a Northern judiciary which will be entirely distrusted in the South, and a Southern judiciary which will be entirely distrusted in the North. In any litigation where Northern and Southern are jointly engaged, you will have the most profound distrust on the part of one or the other.

This appears to me to be a silly proposal, and I cannot see an advantage in it except the desire to make as definite and as permanent as possible the division between the North and the South. I am sure I am bound to accept what my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench say, and when they tell us that the whole of their wish has been to prepare a way for the future union of Ireland. I am sure therefore I will receive their gratitude by pointing out that to create a double judiciary is the very way to make it more difficult to bring about that union in the future. I am sure every Member of the House who hears me, and few happen to be present, will agree that the more vested interests you create in the North and the South the greater will be the difficulty in the way of any possible union in the future. From that point of view I am sure this proposal is altogether inconsistent with the Government's own idea. There is one other objection. As time goes on you will have a different system of law in the North and in the South and different forms of legislation. You will have a judiciary to carry out those laws. I do not think it is likely there will be great fundamental changes in all the ordinary legislation in the North and the South. There may be, and I should think there will be, rather advanced legislation in the North of a labour kind, and I am led to believe that there possibly will be what my Northern friends would regard as very retrograde legislation in the South. That, after all, will touch only a very small part of those matters which are dealt with by the ordinary courts in ordinary litigation. Speaking generally, the mass of the law will remain the same, and there will be no difficulty whatever to ordinary skilled judges to administer the slight differences which will exist between the North and the South. No difficulty is experienced now by capable judges in administering far more divergent laws than are likely to exist in the South and the North. The Privy Council for instance administers laws of various descriptions and with the greatest satisfaction. Why then do you propose to create these new places with all the possibilities which they contain when you have a judicial system which can be preserved with the greatest advantage and with much greater convenience to litigants, and with a much greater chance of the full administration of justice in that country?

Colonel NEWMAN

There is no great distrust at present of the judiciary, but let us think of the situation when this Bill becomes operative. To-day I saw in the "Daily Mirror" a picture of the Supreme Court of what is called Dail Eireann. In that picture there were three young men sitting in a very good-looking court. I do not know whether the picture was faked, but they were sitting under a large canopy with solicitors in front of them. I looked at the pictures of those three young men and they were distinguished for three things, their youth, their ugliness and their large ears. I do not know why, but it was so. As far as I can make out those are the men who are going to judge me in the future.


You will have a Southern Irish court, but if the idea of the hon. and gallant Gentleman as to the future of Ireland is correct then undoubtedly he will have two gentlemen with large ears.

Colonel NEWMAN

Even if we have any sort of Home Rule, somehow or other those young gentlemen of Dail Eireann are going to see that they become the judges, and I distrust them. If I am going to he judged for my life or my character I want to be judged by a court consisting at any rate of two or three judges from the North of Ireland.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

With small ears.

7.0 P.M.

Colonel NEWMAN

Small-eared people with big brains. I do not want the gentlemen whom I have described, nor do I want on every occasion to be dragged over to London. I would rather take my chance before an appellate court consisting of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and one of the judges I have described, and another of the judges of the North of Ireland. Therefore, I do suggest that the Government will do well to keep this Clause in the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESS

I look upon the attitude of the Government with regard to the judiciary in Ireland as a touchstone of their own faith in the Irish Union, which they profess to expect in the future. If they really believe that partition in Ireland is only a transitory arrangement, there is no justification whatever for setting up these two separate judiciaries. There would be no difficulty in retaining the judiciary, which has earned confidence in Ireland, as a reserve service until Irish Union takes place. Ulster under our present system has never objected to the jurisdiction of the Irish Courts, and if the single judiciary is kept under the control of the Imperial Parliament, it would no more be a Dublin judiciary than at the present time. It would be an all-Irish judiciary, and a judiciary in which everyone would have confidence. If the Ulster party, in obedience to whose views we understand this double judiciary has been framed, fee] nervous as to the conditions in Dublin, there surely would be no difficulty in arranging for the King's Bench Division, and the Chancery Division, and, indeed, for the Court of Appeal, to have alternate session in Belfast, and, quite apart from the question of law and order, I believe there would be much to be said from the point of view of convenience to Northern litigants. But two judiciaries are by no means necessary, and if you set them up, as the Noble Lord pointed out, you institute a lot of vested interests, and you bring about a very strong influence in favour of permanent partition. You create any number of new officials—registrars, chief clerks, taxing masters and a shoal of subordinates whose work is a mystery to those of us who are not lawyers. If you once get these, there will be enormous difficulty in abolishing them, and it may well prevent the re-establishment of a single judiciary if Irish Union ever comes about.

Besides that, it will be a great inconvenience and a very great expense to the public to divide up legal administration in this way. You will have to keep your legal records in two places, erect new buildings, which might be justified if it is a permanency, but certainly is not justified if the Government are right in telling us that divided Ireland is only to last for a few years. It will create very great practical inconvenience, because Ireland is one community, and however we may legislate in this Bill, there is at the present time a great deal of intercourse between the six counties and the rest of Ireland. Is it not obvious that commercial relations must be very much handicapped and must face a great risk of additional expense and delay if legal contracts have to be enforced in different courts of law? Is it not certain that there will be great and unnecessary inconvenience when people get a judgment, say, in the North of Ireland which does not run in the South of Ireland, and they have then to go to a Southern court and get the judgment over again because the litigant has moved out of the jurisdiction of the court? I do not know what the Bar thinks about it in Ireland. It would be only human nature, perhaps, if it were to support the proposal, because undoubtedly it would mean an enormous number of new jobs. I see in the Schedule it is provided that any existing judge in Ireland, under ordinary circumstances, will be transferred to the courts of Southern Ireland, unless he expressly desires to go to the North of Ireland. In other words, all these new judges for the North of Ireland will presumably be appointed from among the Bar, who will naturally, in some ways, be glad to see all these new appointments. I do not know one way or the other about the Bar, but I do know that the solicitors in Dublin, and I believe the solicitors throughout Ireland, view with grave misgivings this proposal. The Incorporated Law Society of Ireland passed a resolution at a meeting of their Council on 12th May: The Council of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland desire to record their disapproval of the proposed duplication of the judicial system in Ireland. The Council concur in the view that the setting up of a second judiciary is not a necessary consequence of the other proposals of the Bill. The High Court of Justice in Ireland has enjoyed the confidence of all classes, and there is no doubt that these local courts, which will be looked upon as only enjoying inferior jurisdiction, will not get the same consideration as the courts which now exist. Therefore, both from the point of view of efficiency of legal administration, and for the convenience of litigants, and to give effect to the Government's avowed policy of affording facility to the Irish Union, I beg the Government to reconsider this question.


Both my Noble Friend who moved the Amendment. and my hon. and gallant Friend who spoke last opposed this on the ground that it means that vested interests will be created which will be a bar to future Union, and, indeed, my hon. and gallant Friend suggested this was really the touchstone with regard to the sincerity of the Government in their statement that they hoped these two Parliaments would, by consent, unite and become one Parliament. I hope to be able to show the Committee that there is nothing inconsistent in the plan which the Government has adopted in this Bill. It follows very closely the plan adopted in Canada. In each of the Canadian provinces there is a Provincial High Court with a court of first instance, and a court of Appellate jurisdiction, and there is the Federal Court of Appeal, to which appeals come from the Provincial Appeal Courts, so that the precedent of Canada has been closely followed. Of course, that does not prove that the creation of separate judiciaries might not be a bar to Union, but I can give an instance which, I hope, does prove conclusively that it is not a bar to Union, because in South Africa the same thing happened. In Natal, in Cape Colony and elsewhere there were High Courts and Appeal Courts, and even when the Union of South Africa came, those High Courts became divisions of the Supreme Court of South Africa, and the Supreme Court of South Africa became the Appellate Court of the Divisional Courts which had previously been independent. Vested interests there did not prevent union, nor will vested interests here prevent union, if union is desired.

Let me take another point that my Noble Friend made. He said, "Consider the expense." I think he expected a large number of extra judges and all their attendant officials. At the present moment in Ireland there are fifteen judges, and under the scheme of the Bill there still will be fifteen judges, no more and no less. There is, therefore, no increase, as I understand it, in the number of judges, and nobody who realises that the great business community of Belfast cannot institute any legal proceedings without sending a writ to Dublin can possibly say that the present system could, in any event, be allowed to go unreformed. That a great city like Belfast should not have the same facilities as Liverpool or Newcastle, and have legal Registries, is indeed absurd. Additional officials are not created because of the scheme of the Bill. There will be some additional officials, but those officials are necessary, and would be exactly the same if you started a Registry in Belfast. There must be greater facilities given to Belfast, and there will be no more judges, and, I think, no more officials, because, in any event, the present system could not be allowed to stand. Then it is said that it is extremely inconvenient for the barristers to be split up in this way. In England there is no difficulty, and why should there be difficulty because there is a Bar in Belfast and one in Dublin? With regard to solicitors, at present there is one Incorporated Law Society for the whole of Ireland. When this Bill becomes law, what the Belfast solicitors will do, no doubt—there is already a Law Society, although not incorporated, in Belfast—will be to make their own Incorporated Law Society, and they will then have the same facilities with regard to their practitioners as the solicitors practising in Dublin. So really, whether it is looked at from the point of view of expense or the point of view of practical difficulty, there is really nothing, it seems to me, in any of the difficulties that have been advanced. When we come to the question of whether the plan prevents future Union, then, I think, the example of South Africa is quite sufficient to show that there is nothing inherent in this scheme which will hinder Union—and Union, of course, will come in spite of any judicial scheme if Union is indeed desired.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I really must say one word in support of this Amendment, on which, I hope, the Noble Lord and his friends are going to divide. If they do, and carry the Amendment, it will remove one more attempt to divide the two districts of Ireland. That is why I shall vote with them if they divide. Apart from that, I think one word is required in answer to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley (Colonel Newman). Why should he go out of his way to jeer at the alleged picture in the "Daily Mirror" of the Sinn Fein Court? It has been stated at that Box by the Attorney-General for Ireland that these Sinn Fein Courts are functioning and administering a rough form of justice, and, as a matter of fact, I have seen in the Irish papers a great many cases in which they have carried out the functions of preserving the law. There is one particular case in which a bank was robbed of £16,000 in one of the Southern towns, and the bank robbers were rounded up and the money recovered, and the men were tried before one of these courts, and the whole thing was carried out by officials of these courts. They are illegal courts, I know, but it shows that it is possible that they can be just, and the fact remains that Unionists are going before them to-day in order to get protection for their farms. I only make these remarke as perhaps an ineffective protest against the whole attitude of mind of such a typical Southern Unionist as the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley, who thinks that nothing good can come from any judicial court set up in the South of Ireland. Events in the last few weeks and months have, I think, proved that these courts can function, in spite of the continued persecution of the Executive in Ireland, and what is the use, therefore, of conjuring up all these bogeys? It is not because I am afraid of any injustice being done in the Southern judicature that I shall support the Amendment, but I shall support it in order to attempt to sweep away one more artificial effort of the Government to divide Ireland.


The right hon. Gentleman alluded to the position of solicitors under this double judiciary. I do not profess to know the details of the position of solicitors, but I am informed that under the Bill as it stands a solicitor practising in Southern Ireland would be debarred from practising in the North.




I understand the right hon. Gentleman safeguards the position of existing solicitors, but that solicitors qualifying after the passage of the Bill will only be able to practise in one or other of the areas. I cannot believe that so ridiculous a proposal could be contemplated by the Government, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to satisfy me that that is not the intention of the Government, and that if it is not they will insert an Amendment in the Bill making it quite clear that even under this ridiculous system of a double judiciary a future solicitor will be able to practise both in Southern and in Northern Ireland.


As I understand it, all the rights of existing solicitors are preserved. As regards the men who are newly admitted, they will be admitted to the roll either of the northern or the southern area or both if they choose to qualify for practices in both courts. There is nothing wanted in the Bill. If the qualification in the north was the same as in the south and an individual fulfilled the other conditions, there need be no question about his practising in both. It does not depend on us. If the local legislatures are to have power to legislate, they must have these powers as well.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS

I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is not in agreement with the Council of the Incorporated Law Society in Dublin, who have carefully considered this matter.


I will certainly look into it.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS

As the law is at present, a solicitor cannot be on the roll in Dublin and in London. If he wants to be entitled to practise as a solicitor in London, he has to have his name struck off the roll in Dublin before he can do so, and the Incorporated Law Society in Dublin have no doubt in their minds that unless some further provision is put in the Bill it will not be possible for them to practise in both places, and that they will have to take their choice between Belfast and Dublin, just as at the present time solicitors have to take their choice between Dublin and London and cannot possibly practise in both.


If we are going to have a Division on this Clause, which I hope we shall not, I should like first to ask for some information. I do not know any case in which there are two Parliaments with one single judiciary, and it seems to me that from the mere fact of establishing two Parliaments we should have two judiciaries. I speak as a layman, and the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) is a King's Counsel, but it seems to me, as a layman, that it would be extremely difficult to have only one judiciary in a case like this, where one judge would be supposed to know the law of two Parliaments. As to the question of this being a touchstone of the general principle, I will point out that we have two judiciaries in Scotland and England, and I think I am right in saying that when the Union between Scotland and England took place in the earlier part of the 18th century, one of the strong points in favour of Union in Scotland was that they were not going to have the judicial system altered. Again, I speak with some hesitation, but I think I am right in saying that all the States of America have different judiciaries, and yet I never heard it said that that was a touchstone in any degree whatever as to their being united on the general principle. If we come to Ireland and England itself, we find that in the Act of Union of 1801 again there are the two judiciaries, but that has not prevented the Act of Union being put in force. I should like to know whether the Noble Lord can tell me of any case in which there have been two separate Parliaments and one judiciary?


I cannot charge my memory with any particular case, but all the cases cited by my hon. Friend are cases of independent or semi-independent communities coming together. They then retained their judiciaries and a great number of other things because they desired to remain separate. The whole point of the Scottish demand to maintain their judiciary was because they desired to maintain their national life separate. I believe personally that these provisions are put in because the authors of this Bill desire to emphasise the difference between the North and the South of Ireland. They desire to keep alive as far as possible, to entrench, as some of my hon. Friends on these Benches have said, the North as far as they can so as to make it more and more difficult in future for there ever to be union in Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] An hon. Gentleman sitting on those Benches said so, and welcomed the existence of the Northern Parliament because it would make the Union of Ireland less likely to come about.


The Noble Lord has not cleared up my point. Supposing I asked a barrister or lawyer in Dublin for his advice, how could he possibly be expected to give me a legal opinion as to the laws in another part of Ireland under another Parliament?


I do not think he would have the least difficulty. He constantly has to do it now, as a matter of fact. A lawyer constantly has to advise as to what is the true position, for instance, in South Africa, where the law is totally different. It is not a question of minor differences, but it is a distinct law—Roman-Dutch law. He may say, "I would rather you consulted a South African lawyer," but I do not think that in the near future the two legal systems of the North and South of Ireland will be likely to become so divergent as to make it a serious difficulty for a lawyer in the one part of the country to advise as to the law in the other part. I venture to think the whole thing really rests on this fundamental difference—are you going to set up two different countries in Ireland, as different as Scotland and England, or as one State of America and another State of America? If that is your purpose, it is intelligible, but the Government should say so frankly, that they desire to make the division, and to make it permanent. That is one policy, but the policy they advocate is the opposite, that of making Ireland all one country, union being deferred for a few years in order to get rid of local difficulties. If that is the case, you ought to keep a central administration wherever you can, and I think it would be perfectly easy to keep the central administration of justice as it is at the present time, arranging, if you like, for sittings in Belfast or in Dublin according to convenience.

As far as I am concerned, I am not satisfied with the answer of the Government. My right hon. Friend said they were not going to create new offices or new expense, but he knows very well that that is not so. Of course he is going to create new offices. You cannot create a new centre of justice in Belfast without creating a number of new offices. You are going to have new buildings and a number of new offices, without doubt, and to tell me you are only going to keep the same number of judges as at present is playing with the, question. You are only going to keep the same number of judges because you have a great many too many in Ireland at the present moment, and, therefore, you have some you can spare for Belfast, but if you reduced the judges to the proper economic number in Ireland, you could not possibly carry out your scheme without an increase of judges, so that in effect you are going to increase them. My right hon. Friend did not deal for a moment with the really substantial legal point, namely, that you are going to set up two courts, a northern court, which will have the confidence of the North, and a southern court which will have the confidence of the South, and, consequently, two courts which will not command the confidence of the other province, and wherever you have litigation in which a northern and a southerner are engaged, whichever court they go to, one litigant will be profoundly dissatisfied and suspicious of the justice of the court. Nobody can deny that, and nobody knows it better than my right hon. Friend, and that is why he did not deal with that point. This is one of the points on which, as I am told, there is considerable feeling in Ireland, and it is the kind of point on which the real distinction between the two policies rest. I do not myself care very much whether we divide or not, because I think the Bill is hopeless in any case, and I do not very much care what Amendments are put in, but if there are any hon. Members who desire to divide on this, I shall go into the lobby with them.


I hope the Committee will divide on this Amendment. It is rather a test of what the Committee thinks of the real tendency of this Bill. The idea of the Bill was that there should be sooner or later a united Parliament for Ireland, or, at any rate, that is adumbrated within the ambit of the Bill. Here in this special provision we are told that immediately this Act comes into operation you will have in the administration of justice a division and an irritant. Is that the way to begin a new measure of conciliation for Ireland? That it will be an irritant there can be no doubt at all to anyone associated with the administration of justice in Ireland. The present position is that whatever may be the general difficulties of Ireland on the whole, the administration of justice has worked with comparative smoothness. You have this interesting position, that strong partisan Unionists have been appointed to the Bench, and strong partisan Nationalists have also been appointed, only they are fewer in number. On the whole there has been acquiescence and growing authority up to quite recently which is very satisfactory. That is a comparatively going concern, and if the object of the Government is to have a united Parlia-

ment it seems to me to be extremely foolish to at once break up this system, have this division and set up this new irritant. For these and other reasons I shall certainly vote for the Amendment.


I understand the position is that if we are to have two Parliaments we are to have two systems of law, and we must have two judiciaries. I submit that at the present time in our own Empire we have one judiciary administering two different sets of laws. Take the House of Lords. We have the judicial members drawn from both England and Scotland, and indeed from the Dominions. If there is a Bill from Scotland we have deciding it, not merely Scottish lawyers, but English lawyers as well, and indeed we may have even Dominion lawyers who have no special knowledge of Scottish law in the sense that they have been trained in it. They are simply lawyers, and they are able to interpret the law when it is argued before them. The same applies to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. We have English and Scottish lawyers continually interpreting questions of Hindu and Mohammedan law, and to gay that a lawyer must be trained in the law of any particular part of the Empire before he is able to try a case involving a point of law arising in that particular part of the Empire is wrong. It seems to me that there is no difficulty at all in a lawyer in Ireland following the developments of law in both the different parts of Ireland. As far as I am concerned I shall support the Noble Lord in the Lobby.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 181: Noes, 29.

Division No. 155.] AYES. [7.36 p.m.
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte Borwick, Major G. O. Coates, Major Sir Edward F.
Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Cobb, Sir Cyril
Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W. Breese, Major Charles E. Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. Bridgeman, William Clive Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Atkey, A. R. Brittain, Sir Harry Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Bagley, Captain E. Ashton Britton, G. B. Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Brown, Captain D. C. Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Banner, Sir John S. Harmood- Brown, T. W. (Down, North) Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals) Bruton, Sir James Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Barnston, Major Harry Butcher, Sir John George Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Barrie, Charles Coupar Campbell, J. D. G. Dawes, Commander
Barrie, Rt. Hon. H. T. (Lon'derry, N.) Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. Dixon, Captain Herbert
Barton, Sir William (Oldham) Carew, Charles Robert S. Doyle, N. Grattan
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Carr, W. Theodore Edge, Captain William
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h) Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington) Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Betterton, Henry B. Casey, T. W. Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.
Blake, Sir Francis Douglas Clough, Robert Farquharson, Major A. C.
Fell, Sir Arthur Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale) Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L. Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.) Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A. Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales) Rodger, A. K.
Ford, Patrick Johnston Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd) Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund.
Forestier-Walker, L. Lister, Sir R. Ashton Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Forrest, Walter Lloyd, George Butler Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot Long, Rt. Hon. Walter Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Fraser, Major Sir Keith Lonsdale, James Rolston Seddon, J. A.
Gange, E. Stanley Lort-Williams, J. Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C. Loseby, Captain C. E. Simm, M. T.
Gardiner, James Lynn, R. J. Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P. Stanley, Major H. G. (Preston)
Green, Albert (Derby) Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray Stanton, Charles B.
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) Starkey, Captain John R.
Greenwood, William (Stockport) Mallalieu, F. W. Sturrock, J. Leng
Greer, Harry Middlebrook, Sir William Sugden, W. H.
Greig, Colonel James William Mitchell, William Lane Surtees, Brigadier- General H. C.
Gretton, Colonel John Moles, Thomas Sutherland, Sir William
Gritten, W. G. Howard Moreing, Captain Algernon H. Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Hallwood, Augustine Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Mount, William Arthur Tickler, Thomas George
Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar Murray, John (Leeds, West) Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)
Hamilton, Major C. G. C. Murray, Major William (Dumfries) Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.
Hancock, John George Nall, Major Joseph Watson, Captain John Bertrand
Hanna, George Boyle Neal, Arthur Weston, Colonel John W.
Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Whitla, Sir William
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) Wild, Sir Ernest Edward
Harris, Sir Henry Percy O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H. Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston) Parker, James Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.) Wilson-Fox, Henry
Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E. Perring, William George Wood, Major S. Hill. (High Peak)
Hinds, John Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W. Woolcock, William James U.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato
Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n, W.) Purchase, H. G. Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian) Rae, H. Norman Yate, Colonel Charles Edward
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) Ratcliffe, Henry Butler Yeo, Sir Alfred William
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Reid, D. D. Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)
Jesson, C. Remer, J. R.
Johnson, Sir Stanley Rendall, Athelstan TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell) Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.
Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)
Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster) Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Bramsdon, Sir Thomas Lane-Fox, G. R. Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin) Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian) Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)
Entwistle, Major C. F. Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross) Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)
Galbraith, Samuel Raffan, Peter Wilson Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)
Gould, James C. Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Hayward, Major Evan Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil) Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) Lieut.-Colonel W. Guinness and Mr. Ormsby-Gore.
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

Question put, and agreed to.

Clauses 37 (Divisions and constitution of Supreme Court for Southern Ireland) and 38 (Divisions and constitution of Supreme Court for Northern Ireland), ordered to stand part of the Bill.