QUESTION. (Hansard, 22 April 1864)

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE

rose to call Attention to the First Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the English and Irish Courts of Common Law and Chancery; and to ask, Whether the Government intend to introduce Bills in accordance with the Recommendations of that Report during the present Session of Parliament: also, whether a further Report of the Commissioners is likely to be presented soon: and when we may expect to have the Irish Judicial Statistics? The noble Marquess said, their Lordships were aware that notice was given last year by his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland of a Bill to carry out the recommendations of the Commissioners with respect to the Common Law Courts in Ireland. It was subsequently withdrawn; but he had no doubt it would be carried through this Session, and that a similar course would be taken with respect to the Irish Courts of Chancery. The Report to which he referred had been considerably misrepresented in Ireland, and so had the objects of the Motion which he had made on the subject, and therefore he wished to address a few-words to the House in explanation. It had caused him no regret to find that the Commissioners recommended that there should be no diminution in the number of the Irish Judges. He was, however, astonished at the great importance attached to that part of the Report by a certain portion of the Irish Bar, for he attached but very little to it himself. He did not care whether the number of the Judges was to be twelve, fifteen, or twenty-five, but he did care for the saving of the money of the suitors, and for the improvement in the practice of the Courts of Law of the United Kingdom. It was not because the Report contained anything new or original that he considered it valuable. Indeed, one of its great merits was, that it recommended nothing which had not been approved by former Commissions and by 1486 the highest authorities that had inquired into the subject. One of his complaints had been that the alterations which had been, introduced in the Irish Courts were founded upon the opinion—he might call it the crotchet—of an individual; whereas in England an entirely different course was taken, and the Reforms there introduced were the result of ample inquiry. The Commissioners appointed in 1851 in England reported— It seems to us that the combination of the writ and declaration together would lead to greater expense than is at present incurred. It would render a declaration necessary in every case, while we have seen in one-half the actions actually commenced no declaration is prepared or required. And yet in the teeth of that Report a Bill was introduced, in 1853 and an Act passed which made summons and plaint combined the foundation of every action at common law in Ireland. Their Lordships would not be surprised to hear that one of the strongest recommendations of the Commissioners was that the provisions of the law in England on that point should be extended to Ireland. All the changes which they recommended had the character of assimilating the laws of the two countries, the changes which had been recognized in this country as improvements being recommended to be extended to Ireland, while a few alterations in English practice in accordance with the practice in Ireland were suggested, especially in some minute details where the Irish practice was beneficial. The case with regard to the Courts of Chancery was infinitely stronger The Commissioners said at page 23— In November, 1851, a Commission was issued to inquire into the Irish Incumbered Estates Court, and whether its powers should be transferred to the Court of Chancery, and by their Report the Commissioners recommended that the office of Master in Chancery in Ireland should be abolished, one Master being retained for the management of the business of receivers and for auditing certain public accounts under statutes provided for that duty. They also stated their opinion that it would be for the interest of the public and of the profession that the practice of the English and Irish Courts of Chancery should be assimilated as closely as circumstances would permit, so that the decisions of each should be applicable to both, and thus tend to establish a uniform system of equity in the two countries. We have come to a unanimous resolution in favour of this assimilation. We think it is of paramount importance to restore and preserve as far as possible an uniformity of system in the equity jurisprudence of the two countries. 1487 Again, at page 24, on the general question of assimilation of equity practice and procedure, and the changes connected with it, they said— We are of opinion that the practice and procedure of the Court of Chancery of England are generally to be preferred to the practice and procedure of the Court of Chancery in Ireland. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland now was the Lord Chancellor of Ireland ten years ago when the Report of the Commission of 1854 was drawn up, and one of the names signed to it was Chancellor Brady. He hoped, therefore, he should receive an assurance that in the present case the Report of the Commissioners would not be allowed to remain a dead letter. The Master of the Rolls, one of the highest authorities upon the matter in Ireland, was the only person that made any objection whatever. The Commissioners said— The Master of the Rolls in Ireland, in the paper which he submitted to us, indicates only one objection to his undertaking the carrying out of the share of a new system of Chancery practice which would, under our recommendations, devolve on any new holder of that office. He objects to work out the arrears of business now in the office of any of the Masters. Their Lordships were aware that it had been shown that the Chancery business in Ireland was not one-fifteenth of the business in England, and yet so full of arrears was the Court that the Master of the Rolls suggested the great difficulty of altering the system to be the working out of the arrears. The noble Marquess concluded by putting his Question.