COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 5 August 1867)

§ LORD CRANWORTH
rose to move the insertion of a new clause. In England each Law Court appointed its own officers, and Lord Coke three centuries ago stated it to be one of the characteristic advantages of the English Courts of Law that the officers of the Courts were appointed by the heads of the Court, who were responsible for their conduct. In Ireland the practice was, and had been, different. Early in the reign of George IV. a revision took place in the Irish Courts, under which the Master of the Courts and one other officer were to be selected not by the heads of the Court, but by the Lord Lieutenant. That was an extraordinary provision, which would not have been tolerated for a moment in England. In the 7 & 8 Vict., when Lord Lyndhurst was Chancellor, further inquiry was made, and a Bill was introduced regulating the Irish Courts. That Bill, which first passed through the other House, made no alteration in regard to the appointment of the Master and the other officer by the Crown. Lord Campbell, when the Bill reached their Lordships' House, pointed out the anomaly 843 that the selection of these officers should be any other than a judicial selection. Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst entirely concurred, and a clause was introduced giving the appointment to the Chief Justices of the Courts. The House of Commons thought, however, that such a clause would rob the Castle of a certain degree of patronage which it ought to possess; but when the Bill came back to their Lordships' House, Lord Lyndhurst, to his great honour, adhered to the clause, and divided against the Government of which he was a Member. The Government, however, obtained a majority and the clause was struck out. A Royal Commission was not long since issued to inquire into the state of affairs in the different Courts of Common Law and Equity in this country and in Ireland; at the head of which was the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland, Mr. Blackburne. That Commission unanimously recommended that in Ireland, as in England, the appointment of chief officers to the Courts should be vested in the Judges of those Courts; but he was surprised to find that in this Bill, for no possible object except that of bestowing patronage on the Lord Lieutenant, it was proposed to continue the old system.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, he found himself in the same position that Lord Lyndhurst occupied in 1844, in being compelled to support the Amendment of his noble and learned Friend. It was most unreasonable to vest in the Irish Government the appointment of these officers. The Bill professed to be founded on the Report of the Commissioners, and he could not conceive any reason for disregarding their recommendation in this respect. The present arrangement was one which ought never to have existed.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
also supported the clause. He could see no reason for vesting this patronage in the Irish 844 Executive. It was more important, even in Ireland than in England, that these officers should have no connection with the political Government.

§ LORD CAIRNS
proposed an Amendment providing that the minor officers in each Court should be appointed by the Chief Judge thereof, instead of by the Judges in common. This proposal was consistent with the practice in England, and with the Report of the Commissioners, and it would avoid divided responsibility.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, he entirely agreed in the propriety of the Amendment.