COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 9 August 1867)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, that inquiry had been made, no such correspondence could be found, and the belief was that no such correspondence existed.

§ LORD CRANWORTH
said, that the Judge of the Admiralty Court in Ireland held office under an Act of Parliament 1213 which made him irremovable, except upon an Address from both Houses of Parliament; his tenure was therefore the same as that of the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench; yet, for the first time in the annals of English history, the enactment which fixed his tenure on this footing was to be repealed by this clause, in order that he might be immediately removed. If this gentleman was an unfit person to discharge the duties of the office, it would be proper to say so; but the Judge defied anybody to show this. There had been a constitutional safeguard against the removal of Judges, and it was now proposed to take it away. He had stated the case, and he appealed to their Lordships to consider whether they ought not to pause in what they were doing.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, when his noble and learned Friend spoke to him on this matter he stated that he felt placed in a position of the greatest embarrassment, because he was desirous of sparing the feelings of the gentleman who was involved. He believed there was no such correspondence as the noble Marquess alluded to in reference to the conduct of this gentleman with regard to a will and acquitting him of any impropriety, nor indeed was there in the minds of those who had considered this subject any suspicion in regard to his conduct. He quite admitted that this was an exceptional case, and it might perhaps be the first in which it had been necessary to act in the way proposed by this Bill. The late Government introduced a Bill upon this very subject, and there was in it a clause with respect to this gentleman which was much more offensive than the clause of this Bill, for it actually removed him by name from office. This clause provided that in case the gentleman should not be re-appointed he was to retire upon his full salary which was as far as he was concerned, a little improvement in the way of dealing with him. He took upon himself the responsibility of saying it was absolutely necessary this gentleman should be removed, or it was impossible the Bill could be allowed to pass. The Bill would introduce great improvements into the Court, extend its jurisdiction find bring within its cognizance matters connected with the Common Law, of which this gentleman had had no experience; therefore he would not be competent to perform the large duties which would be thrown upon him. There was a little mistake about this gentleman having given up a 1214 large practice to accept the office of Judge. He gave up the position of stipendiary magistrate at £600 a year for that of Judge of the Admiralty Court at £500 a year, making a sacrifice for an advance of position. However distressing it might be to him, it was absolutely necessary be should take upon himself the responsibility of dealing with the question in the manner proposed by the Bill, and it was done in the least offensive manner, because the gentleman was to retire upon his full salary. Let it not be understood he held out any hope that the gentleman would be re-appointed for there was no intention of re-appointing him. It was considered that this was a better way of dealing with him than that proposed by the late Government. He was most anxious to avoid saying anything which might hurt the feelings of this gentleman, but he must insist on the clause being retained in the Bill, or the Bill must be given up altogether.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE
said, that if no correspondence such as that referred to did exist it made the case of this gentleman much stronger, because it showed the Irish Government had not been consulted on the question whether he ought to be removed or not. Both he and his predecessor in the office of stipendiary magistrate had had private practice, and clearly he would not have given up his office and practice fur an office with less salary but that he believed his new office was a patent one for life. He relied upon the Acts of Parliament and the Act of Settlement, which, having been extended to Ireland, placed Judges on the same footing that they occupied in England, and he knew that he could not be removed except upon Addresses from both Houses of Parliament, This was a constitutional point of the highest importance. If the objectionable clause of the Bill were agreed to, it would be a precedent for introducing into any Bill to amend the practice, procedure, and jurisdiction of the Court of Queen's Bench, a similar clause removing Judges of that Court. The course proposed was totally at variance with all previous practice, and its adoption in this case would have the worst possible effect in Ireland. In all other respects the Bill was an excellent one. In the Report of the Commission which inquired into the Court of Admiralty it was distinctly stated that the office of Judge was a patent office, and that the Judge could not be removed, except upon an Address to the two Houses of Parliament; and there was a precedent 1215 of proceeding in the constitutional and lawful mode, in the case of Sir John Barrington, who, in 1829, was removed from this Judgeship for malversation of suitors' money. If this gentleman was incompetent, as was alleged, the matter could have been settled by private arrangement. There was one aspect of the case which was not a good one, and that was that this gentleman was to be pensioned at his full salary, and that another gentleman was to be appointed at £1,000 a year. At all events, the change, if necessary, ought to be made in a more regular manner. The gentleman was not aware of this Bill until it was actually read a first time in this House. The Bill of the late Government was a very different measure. By it the Court was to be united with the Court of Probate, and one Judgeship was to have been done away with; and the removal of this gentleman in that manner would have been a constitutional mode of proceeding. He had no alternative but to move the omission of so much of the fifth clause as related to this matter.

§ LORD CRANWORTH
put it to his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, whether he would really insist upon this strong measure. This gentleman might be removed in a proper manner if there were a good reason; but he could not imagine why the security for the independence of Judges should be sacrificed. At any time this would be an extraordinary proceeding, and it was especially so in the last days of the Session, when there were few except the Members of the Government in attendance. He put it to his noble and learned Friend whether the course proposed was a proper one. The reference to the Bill of the late Government was an argument ad hominem, but his "withers are unwrung," for he never heard of such a Bill.

§ LORD ROMILLY
was understood to support the clause, and to assume that the gentleman to whom it referred had been guilty of no misconduct, but that his removal was contemplated entirely because it was believed that he would not be equal to the performance of the new duties.

§ LORD CRANWORTH
said, that since he had last spoken he had received, he presumed from the gentleman to whom this matter referred, a card, on which was 1216 written, "I demand an inquiry into my conduct." If the Government thought he was not competent to perform the functions of Judge they should have stated so on the face of the Bill.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
maintained that the course contemplated in this Bill was a much preferable one to that which had been contemplated by the Bill of the late Government, The clause had been framed in the way least offensive to the gentleman's feelings—it would have been most offensive to have stated on the face of the Bill that he was incompetent. It certainly was the impression that this gentleman would not be equal to the new duties, although he might be, and no doubt was, fully competent for those at present assigned him.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE
said, that whether the object proposed were right or wrong, there could be no doubt that by the mode of removal which was now proposed the security for the independence of the Irish Judges was struck at. Such a thing would not, he would venture to say, be attempted in England.

CONTENTS.
Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Hawarden, V. [Teller.]
	Bagot, L.
Beaufort, D.	Churston, L.
Buckingham and Chandos, D.	Clinton, L.
	Colville of Culross, L. [Teller.]
Marlborough, D.
Richmond, D.	Crofton, L.
	Denman, L.
Amherst, E.	Redesdale, L.
Bathurst, E.	Romilly, L.
Derby, E.	Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)
Devon, E.
Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)	Skelmersdale, L.
	Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)
Haddington, E.
Malmesbury, E.	Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Cranworth, L. [Teller.]	Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde) [Teller]
Foley, L.
Lyveden, L.	Stratheden, L.