Lords Sitting of 13 February 1893

REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR IRELAND

  MARQUESS OF DOWNSHIRE AND LORD CASTLEMAINE.
  (Claims to vote for Representative Peers for Ireland)—Ordered and Directed, That a Certificate be sent by the Clerk of the Parliaments to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, stating that the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom has reported to the House of Lords that the right of the Marquess of Downshire and the Lord Castlemaine to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of him and the said Lord Chancellor; and that the House of Lords has ordered such reports to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland: And it is hereby also Ordered, That the said Reports of the said Lord Chancellor be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.
  Several Lords—Took the Oath.

ADDERSS.
The Queen's Answer to the Address of Friday the 3rd instant reported; and Address and Answer to be printed and published.

LORD KIMBERLEY'S DOUBLE APPOINTMENT.
*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYasked the Lord President whether he had applied to the Treasury for the salary belonging to his office; and he also asked the noble Lord, as Secretary of State for India, whether as guardian of the interests of the Indian taxpayers he had remonstrated against the salary of the Lord President being provided out of Indian taxes. He said that shortly after Mr.Gladstone formed his Government his principal organ—or perhaps it would be more correct to say his chief supporter in the London Press, perhaps almost his only supporter among the principal London newspapers—The Daily News, made on August 17th last the following announcement:—
1226
"Economists will observe that the double appointment given to Lord Kimberley (Secretary of State for India and Lord President of the Council) saves the country from payment of the salary attached in the ordinary course of things to the functions of President of the Council."
This was a most unblushing avowal of shabby economy—an arrangement which was discreditable to the country and to the First Lord of the Treasury who has made it. It was part of the too prevalent system of bribing voters with other people's money. On the following day, the 18th August, a letter appeared in The Daily News from Mr.S.Digby, in which he wrote—
"Will you permit me to respectfully suggest for Mr.Gladstone's consideration that his Lordship should draw part of his salary from the English Exchequer and part from the Indian—£2,000 from the former and £3,000 from the latter? A saving to the Indian Government of even £2,000 per annum is not to be despised in these hard times when the rupee is down to 1s. 2¾d. It is sometimes forgotten in England, though never in India, that the entire cost of the India Offiee,£227,985 (…1821–92), is a charge on Indian Revenues The emoluments of the Secretary of State, Under Secretaries, Members of the Council, &c., amount for the last year to £134,070. Some of us who are not adherents of the National Congress fail to see why, in regard at all events to the official Parliamentary representatives, India should be treated differently from the colonies."
To avoid any misapprehension or suspicion of hostility to his noble Friend the Secretary of State for India, he would hasten to say that for his part he thought the best solution of this untoward circumstance would be that his noble Friend should receive the salaries of both the offices which he held, for the following reasons: that the duties of both offices were very onerous. With Mr.Acland in the Education Office and little or no restraint exercised over Her Majesty's School Inspectors, the Lord President would have a good deal to do. He would have to answer questions from the right rev. Bench, except the Bishop of Sodor and Man, who was alone independent of the Education Office. But with a falling rupee, Upper Burma unpacified, and Lieutenant Governors to restrain, a great deal of extra work would fall upon the Secretary of State for India. Though this would not relieve time India Treasury, yet it would remove the feeling of indignation that had been aroused in India by the economy practised by a rich country

1227
at the expense of a poor one; and it was well-known that there were none of Her Majesty's Ministers in Office or out of it more hardworking than the Secretary of State for India. But if this might not be, he must ask his noble Friend the question of which he had given notice; and should it be the case that the Secretary of State for India had not yet remonstrated or had failed in his remonstrances, he must ask him to renew them and to refuse to allow the President of the Council to be provided for out of Indian revenue. He had not invented the theory that the Secretary of State was the guardian or protector of the Indian taxpayer. It was one that had been laid down by the late Lord Halifax, and more than once by the Duke of Argyll in a few words which he would read. Lord Halifax said, quoting from Hansard, on March 14th, 1876—
"The circumstances of India make it impossible that an independent local Legislature should be established in India, but the same principle of government is no less applicable to India than to the colonies. The colonies are able to protect themselves through their own Legislatures; and as the people of India have not a domestic Legislature to protect them, I have always held it to be the duty of the Secretary of State for India to protect their interests against any pressure in this country from English interests."
He remembered hearing the Duke of Argyll say that the Secretary of State had to carry on an incessant struggle with the Horse Guards and other Departments to prevent encroachments on the Indian Treasury; and that the Secretary of State was the sole guardian of the Indian taxpayer. He had not been able to find this passage in Hansard, but he had found another which would do as well. The Duke of Argyll said on July 28th, 1870, in connection with the Indian Financial Statement—
"He might remind the House that the Act of Parliament specially provided that the Indian Revenue should be expended for the purposes of India alone, and any expenditure on the British Army, not strictly connected with Indian purposes would be at variance with the Act, adverse to the policy of Parliament, and at variance also with their duty to the people of India."
Under these circumstances, he did not think that the Secretary of State had any choice but to insist, with the First Lord of the Treasury, that he should provide for the Lord President out of the British Exchequer, otherwise the alternative
1228
would be that his noble Friend the Secretary of State for India would reproach himself for not having kept up to the standard laid down by Lord Halifax and the Duke of Argyll. It was very probable that the attention of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for India had not before been drawn to this matter, and very natural that he should not read The Daily News, since he would probably pay more attention to those papers which attacked Her Majesty's Government. It was also natural that his noble Friend should have thought that this was a case similar to that of former Prime Ministers also holding the seals of the Foreign Office; but there was this difference: that both those offices were provided for out of the English Exchequer. The Daily News had taken credit for what was a shabby economy, and the Press of India had cried out against the injustice. He would read only one short extract from The Times of India, an English paper published at Bombay, and leaning more to the Civil Service than to the people of India. That paper on September 16th, 1892, said—
"If it be true, as alleged, that the whole of Lord Kimberley's salary is to be borne by the Indian Government despite the fact that he holds a second office also, there is certainly ground for complaint, though the relief would no doubt be slight enough. The pay of the President of the Council is £2,000; but although the two offices are combined in Lord Kimberley's case, the double office does not carry extra salary, so that it would only be just if a moiety of two-fifths of Lord Kimberley's pay were borne by the Home Government. But the whole question is one that will need looking into in the near future."
He would, in conclusion, move formally for any Papers on the subject.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY): My Lords, I will first answer the Motion of my noble Friend. I am sorry to say there are no Papers on this subject. The only paper I am aware of dealing with the matter is the one my noble Friend referred to in The Daily News; and I am bound to say, though he may think it very extraordinary, I do read The Daily News, and I read the letter he has referred to. And now, my Lords, I must say I am exceedingly obliged to my noble Friend for the kind way in which he has taken up my case, because, as I understand,

1229
what he would consider the best arrangement is that my salary should be augmented by £2,000 a year. How that would benefit the Indian revenues he did not explain, because I do not see that adding some £2,000 to the £5,000 paid by the Indian Treasury would tend to relieve the Indian taxpayer. But having put that as the best way of dealing with the matter, my noble Friend made quite another suggestion: that the salary should be divided into two parts, and he was good enough to furnish an estimate of what my services are worth as Lord President. It appears that comparing the business which falls upon the Secretary of State for India, who is to some extent responsible for the government of that Great Empire, with the business of the President of the Council, he considers that the proportions are as three-fifths to two-fifths. Well, I think that is rather an inadequate estimate of the work which falls upon the Secretary of State for India, and the responsibility which that Office entails as compared with my duties as President. If I had to make an appraisement of the proportions, I confess I should be puzzled how to do so. But my noble Friend apparently forgets that the President is also a Cabinet Minister, and a considerable portion of his salary is given him on that account. It is quite clear I cannot do double duty as a Cabinet Minister, and I cannot, therefore, claim any particular portion of the President's salary allotted to him as a Cabinet Minister. My noble Friend, perhaps, takes the view that the Indian Government should, as it were, lease me to the Imperial Government, which should pay so much a week to the Government of India for the amount of work which I may perform in my other capacity. Certainly I was rather alarmed at what my noble Friend said as to those duties, and I hope it does not emanate from any confidential information he has received; that is, that I might have to furnish answers night after night to the Members of the right rev. Bench except the Bishop of Sodor and Man. If I had to estimate the amount to be paid to me for that responsible work I should be inclined to put it somewhat high. But, my Lords, the real point is this: What does the Indian taxpayer lose by this arrangement? If it is the
1230
case—and I admit this argument might be used—that the duties I have to perform as President of the Council would prevent to that extent my discharging the duties of Secretary of State for India, then I fully admit that the Indian taxpayer would have a right to complain. But if I succeed in adequately discharging the duties of Secretary of State for India, in what respect can the Indian taxpayer be injured? The salary of £5,000, I may tell my noble Friend, is fixed by Act of Parliament, and it is my duty to perform all the business the Secretary of State for India has to perform to the best of my ability. Though I should be far better pleased personally, I can assure my noble Friend if I had not additional work to perform, yet I believe I can discharge my duties as Secretary of State for India, and even answer those Members of the right rev. Bench who may address questions to me. I have the advantage of having as my colleague Mr. Acland, who is a Member of the Cabinet; and though that fact does not relieve me from responsibility as President of the Council, anybody who knows what the work is will recognise that it does lighten my work. My Lords, I must say that I think a great deal of unnecessary bother has been made about really a very small matter. The whole question is only as to £2,000; and though I am most anxious that no pains should be spared to guard the Indian Treasury against unfair demands upon it, there is nothing hero which, in my opinion, calls for interference on my part.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he was disappointed with the answer the noble Earl had made to the question, which was rather in the form of a conundrum—one felt uncertain whether it was a single question put to two Ministers or two questions addressed to one. As Secretary of State for India the noble Lord had answered the question, but his answer might be attributed to his having spoken in the third capacity of Chancellor of the Exchequer of the English Government. It could not be believed for a single moment that the noble Earl, as Secretary of State for India, would desire that the English Government and English taxpayers should, by this arrangement for his filling two offices, make a clear profit of £2,000

1231
a year, and that the Indian Government and taxpayers should lose that sum by the arrangement.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: How do they lose it?
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, they really lost it because it was quite clear the Indian Government should not pay whatever salary was attached to the other of the two offices, the duties of which the noble Earl had to perform. Looking at the question from the Indian taxpayer's point of view, which his noble Friend had overlooked, they might tell him, "Year by year the salary of the Secretary of State for India is increasing; it is not at all a fixed sum, because that salary is not paid in rupees of an even standard, but in sovereigns, and we Indian taxpayers have to pay more rupees to furnish it ";and the same thing, of course, applied to the whole expenses of the Government. The sum, it was true, was not large; but this was a matter of justice and equity, and the question was whether there was a disposition to deal with the Indian taxpayer and the Indian revenues in, he would not say a liberal, but a just spirit. This was another instance in which the French proverb might be applied, "That those who are absent always get the worst of it." Complaints were continually being made as to the manner in which questions connected with Indian finances were dealt with by the English Government notwithstanding the constant remonstrances of the Indian Government and of the Governor General in Council, that they were determined with a view to English and not to Indian interests; and this was another instance of the manner in which these questions were treated. He would not have thought it necessary to address their Lordships on this subject were it not that at the present time the Indian revenues were in a condition of great and serious embarrassment, not to say an alarming condition, in consequence of the fall in the exchange and the difficulty of meeting the gold debt in this country; and one of the great burdens of the Indian Government was the payment of the whole expenses of the India Office and of the Secretary of State's salary in this country. He would ask the Marquess of Ripon, who had filled the office of Viceroy of India, and was now Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether the colonies paid his
1232
salary; and, if not, the reason why the Indian taxpayer should pay that of the Secretary of State for India? And, also, the further question whether the colonies paid the £80,000 or £100,000 a year expenses of the Colonial Office? Or whether they made any contribution in either case? He asked the Lord President and Secretary for India who paid the expenses of the India Office, and the reason why the British taxpayer and British Government paid the whole of the expenses of the Colonial Office if the Indian taxpayer had to pay the entire cost of the India Office? He would not go further into this very important question of the distribution of the expenses of the Home Government now paid by the revenues of India; but with regard to the question of the expenses of the Army touched upon by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley of Alderley), his noble Friend the Marquess of Ripon knew very well that Government after Government, in India, and Viceroys and Members of their Councils had represented to the English Government the inequitable nature of the charges paid out of the Indian revenues for the home administration of the Indian Army. The noble Marquess had himself made that representation as strongly as every other Viceroy of India. In this time of grave difficulty, if not danger, to Indian finances—danger and difficulty not in any way depending upon the general condition of the finances of India, but entirely upon the fall in the value of the rupee—these heavy burdens became of immense importance, and he would ask whether Her Majesty's Government had considered whether any, and what, relief could be given to the Indian revenues by a determined effort on their part to reduce the home expenses which were now borne out of them? Although this question was a small one, it created considerable interest in India, which was always watching to see whether Indian claims were dealt with equitably by the Government of this country. He was bound to say the noble Earl's answer had not satisfied him that this matter had been treated equitably. Like others, no doubt, who had been under the harrow of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he might say, "Sufferance has been the badge of all our tribe," when they had had to deal with even the smallest charge upon the

1233
English taxpayer, and he would not, therefore, quarrel with his noble Friend who, doubtless, had done his best. Still he was sorry he had failed, and hoped Her Majesty's Government would consider not only this small charge, but the far larger question of the reduction of the Home charges of the Government of India now paid from Indian revenues.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, my noble Friend who has just sat down has wandered considerably from the minor point raised by the question of my noble Friend opposite (Lord Stanley of Alderley). He has raised a question of great magnitude, which I think it would be exceedingly inconvenient to attempt to discuss upon an occasion of this kind. That question, I admit with him, is one requiring great consideration, especially at the present time; but I can assure him it is the desire of Her Majesty's Government to do everything they can to reduce any expenditure which now presses upon India. My noble Friend knows very well, in regard to the loss in consequence of the depreciation in value of the rupee, that a Committee is sitting upon that subject to see whether, by any Government measures or by legislation, it can be dealt with.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether the question of Home charges is referred to the Committee?
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: Certainly not. I entirely admit that, like my noble Friend, when I was in India I used to grumble at these Home charges, and desire that they should be reduced. My noble Friend knows that is no new question. He talked about the increased salary of my noble Friend the Lord President, but that, I think, is not a fair way of putting the question. No doubt India has to transmit more money for the home charges at the present time than she did when the rupee was at 2s., but that does not mean that the home charges have really increased in amount, but only that—to the great loss and injury, I admit, of India—she has now to transmit larger sums to meet them. My noble Friend the Secretary of State is as well aware of these difficulties as anybody, and they occupy, I am sure, a large share of his attention. I quite admit they are
1234
difficulties of a serious kind. My noble Friend, Lord Northbrook, used strong language with respect to the present state of the finances of India which I hope is not altogether justified to the full extent to which he went; but no one can doubt that this heavy drain on the revenues of India ought to be relieved as far as possible; and there is just ground, I think, for giving to India every consideration in respect of the Home charges. But really, my Lords, when we consider large questions of this kind, is there any connection between them and the exceedingly minute point raised by the noble Lord opposite? I cannot admit for a moment that the taxpayer of India loses, because my noble Friend does not draw £2,000 a year from the English Revenue in respect of the other office he fills. In accordance with custom and practice in these cases, he does not draw salary for the two offices. He draws salary as Secretary of State for India, and I am sure it will not be disputed that he gives to the duties of that office the fullest attention which the people of India can require. My noble Friend speaks of the arrangement which has been made in respect of the colonies. No doubt it is quite true that the whole expense of the Colonial Office is borne by the English taxpayer and not by contributions from the colonies; but my noble Friend knows very well that that has been the practice time out of mind, whereas the practice with regard to India has always been precisely the opposite. There has been no change whatever introduced into that practice of late years, and I confess I should think it very inadvisable that we should embark at this moment without notice upon so large and serious a question as the discussion of the present condition of Indian finance or the mode in which the difficulties of that finance should be relieved.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not think the matter is quite so small as my noble Friend represents. Of course, £2,000 a year is not a matter of great importance either to the English or Indian Exchequer, but it does represent a new departure of principle. The noble Lord appealed with great emphasis to the existing practice, but this is

1235
an absolutely new departure from any practice which has existed before. It is entirely a new departure. The question is, whether you have a right to use an officer paid by the Indian Treasury to do English work? That is the question. It has not been an unknown practice in other countries or in other ages. Appointments used to be made in the Middle Ages in commendam, as when the Pope appointed persons to good fat English Abbeys. That is exactly a precedent for the proceeding which has been adopted by the noble Lord opposite. Now, I want him to consider, supposing he was dealing with some community less distant and less patient than the Indian, how such an arrangement would be criticised. Supposing, for instance, the Governorship of the Isle of Man were given in the same way to some Minister whose salary it was desired to clear off the English Estimates, or that he was made Chairman of the London County Council. Supposing, again, the Home Secretary were to have no salary at all, but should always be Chairman of the London County Council. I think this practice will necessarily grow, and I venture to commend that consideration to the noble Lord in reference to the payment of salaries to Members of the Indian Council. I think there are four Under Secretaries in the House of Commons, and I do not see why they should not all be appointed Secretaries to the Indian Council.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: They could not sit in Parliament.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Of course, that is a trifle which would have to be altered. But all those are ways of saving the English Estimates, which no doubt might seem very smart and very ingenious to the persons who arrange the figures at the English Treasury, but would not be so satisfactory on the other side of the water. You must not measure a financial injury by the number of thousand pounds involved. If people feel that their money is being taken from them, it matters very little whether it figures as thousands or tens of thousands. I regret the arrangement very much. I cannot see any reason for it. I am sure the services which the noble Lord renders are amply worth £2,000 additional a year, and it would entirely solve the question if he
1236
had an English as well as an Indian salary.
*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, one point had been forgotten. The noble Earl had stated to the House that a division of the salary paid into two-fifths and three-fifths would not be in proportion to the duties he performed in his two offices. No doubt the duties of Secretary of State for India were far more important than those of Lord President of the Council, but that did not comprise the whole question. Wear and tear had to be considered; and however robust the noble Earl might be, it was by no means the same thing to him, after being occupied in reading long Indian Despatches, to be exposed night after night to be baited with questions in his other capacity in this House. The Lord President had already been up three times to the Secretary of State's one, and that was likely to continue. On this occasion the noble Earl's reply might be regarded as a joint affair, but he would keep an account of the noble Earl's appearances in both capacities in case no alteration were made.

MR. JUSTICE MATTHEW'S APPOINTMENT AS COMMISSIONER IN IRELAND.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONasked the Lord Chancellor by whose authority a. Judge of the Superior Courts in England could be relieved of his judicial duties in order to undertake non-judicial duties in Ireland; whether during his absence he continued to draw the salary assigned to him by Parliament for the performance of his judicial duties in England; and out of what funds the expenses of the Commission presided over by Mr. Justice Mathew would be defrayed? In putting the question he wished to disclaim any intention of discussing the objects of the Commission over which Mr. Justice Mathew had presided, or the manner in which those objects were pursued. The Commission had not yet reported; or, if it had, the Papers were not before the House. When they were produced it would be time to criticise them. He did not deny that Parliament had full power to detach Judges from their judicial functions and charge them with other duties. That was done in the case of the Corrupt Practices at Elections Act. A still

  1237
  more recent instance was the Commission which was appointed, however, not by the Government of the day, but by Parliament, to inquire into certain charges against Members of Parliament, and three Judges had been placed at the head of that Commission. The first instance in which without the authority of Parliament a Judge had been detached from his judicial duties to discharge duties which were not judicial was that of Baron Dowse, who was placed on the Bessborough Commission. In that case, considering how much the Irish Bench was overmanned in comparison with the English Judiciary, it would, perhaps, be pushing matters too far to say that any very serious, he did not say that any public, inconvenience was thereby caused. But it was a very different matter when Mr.Justice Day was taken from this country over to Ireland to preside, no doubt impartially, over the Belfast Commission; and matters reached a climax when Mr.Justice Mathew, without the consent of Parliament, was taken away from the duties imposed upon him by Parliament at the very beginning of the Michaelmas Term, at a time when there was an immense amount of legal business to be got through, when the arrears were most serious, and when six Judges had to leave their judicial duties to try the numerous Election Petitions which had sprung up out of the late Parliamentary elections. The practice of detaching Judges from their official duties, as Mr.Justice Mathew had been detached, without the sanction of Parliament, ought to be put an end to. He would like to know by whose authority Mr. Justice Mathew had been released from his judicial duties in this country and sent over the Channel to exercise non-judicial duties? There must be some authority to prevent Judges from taking whatever work fell in their way. There must be someone competent to exercise control over their movements. Was it the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack or the Lord Chief Justice? Was it not possible for a Ministry who had been hoisted into power by a majority of the Irish Representatives, and who expressed the utmost confidence in Irishmen, to find on the Irish Bench, or at the Irish Bar, or in the ranks of the Irish Civil servants, a single individual competent to deal with an essentially Irish question to
  1238
  be viewed from an Irish standpoint. Surely it was the irony of fate that a Ministry which was maintained in power by the majority alone, and which expressed the most unbounded confidence in the ability of Irishmen to govern themselves, should be compelled to send an English Judge to perform this duty. With regard to the second point, he wished to know whether Mr. Justice Mathew, during his absence on non-judicial duties in Ireland, continued to receive the salary assigned to him by Parliament for the discharge of judicial duties in England? If he did, a very great hardship was inflicted upon English suitors. Every one knew that a great grievance was inflicted on suitors by the law's delays, and that a large part of the salaries of the Judges was derived from the suitors' fees. If, therefore, a Judge devoted his time to the performance of other than judicial duties elsewhere he did a wrong to English suitors. With respect to the third question, there was no doubt that the expenses of the Commission would be very heavy. He had himself been a member of more than one Royal Commission, and they bad been obliged to hold their investigations in a very modest room. But in this case a house had been taken in one of the most expensive quarters in Dublin, for how long he did not know. Upon whose authority and from what funds were the expenses of this Commission to be drawn? Whether those expenses were to be sanctioned or not was not a question for their Lordships' House—that was the function of another place; but he might fairly ask whether Mr. Justice Mathew had continued to receive his salary during the time he had been detached from his official duties in England? His reason for putting this question upon the Paper was that he felt it was a very serious thing indeed if, under any authority except that of Parliament, one, or any number of Judges of the land, could be taken from their duties and have delegated to them others which had not been assigned to them by the Legislature.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): My Lords, the noble Lord is no doubt aware that it has not been infrequent to appoint learned Judges as members of Royal Commissions. It is hardly necessary for me to cite instances to him, though I will give him one or

  1239
  two by way of illustration presently. He must be aware the learned Judges who had been placed upon Commissions have, in discharge of their duty as Commissioners, undoubtedly attended from time to time to the work of those Commissions, although their doing so has, to some extent, interfered with the performance of their judicial functions. Those Commissions have been appointed upon the recommendation of Ministers of the day. There has never, as far as I am aware, been any express authority relieving any such Judge from his judicial duties; but down to this moment it has never, so far as I know, been questioned that a Judge appointed upon a Commission on the advice of the Ministry of the day is justified in discharging his duties as a Commissioner, even though, to some extent, that might interfere with the performance of his ordinary judicial duties. That has been done for many years, as far as I know, without question or complaint. Although I say there are many such cases, I may allude to one which occupied a considerable amount of the time and attention of a Judge. That was the Commission on the Abolition of Purchase in the Army, over which Vice Chancellor James presided. Of course, there have been many eases of Royal Commissions connected with matters where the administration of the law was concerned or affecting the Judicature; but my noble Friend would, I suppose, agree that those stand in a somewhat different category. Although even upon those Royal Commissions the work done was not judicial, nevertheless the Judges who served upon them had no authority to relieve them from the discharge of their judicial duties, except the fact that they had been appointed members of those Commissions. The noble Lord has put his question, especially with reference to the undertakings of non-judicial duties in Ireland. I am not aware of any difference in this respect between a Commission of Inquiry, which is considered by the Ministry of the day in the interests of the public in Ireland, and one whose appointment is recommended by them concerning English affairs, in regard to the fact of the appointment upon such Commission justifying the learned Judge in devoting such attention to it as is necessary. Undoubtedly,
  1240
  in the case of the Commission over which Mr. Justice Day presided, Parliament assumed that there was power to appoint an English Judge to a Commission in Ireland, and that he might lawfully attend to the duties of that Commission although he was an English Judge; but it is a great mistake to suppose that the Act relieved Mr. Justice Day from his duties or provided for their performance. He was named an additional member of the then existing Commission for trying the Belfast rioters. The Act only said it was desirable to give that Commission further powers, and powers were given them to compel the attendance of witnesses and to examine them upon oath. It was, therefore, clearly recognised that it was legitimate for the Lord Lieutenant by warrant to appoint an English Judge as a member of such a Commission, and that he might lawfully act on that Commission. With regard to the next question, undoubtedly the Judge during his absence continues to draw the salary assigned to him, as has been the case with all the judicial persons—and they are many—who from time to time have served upon Royal Commissions. The noble Lord is mistaken in supposing that the salary of a Judge comes out of the Suitors' Fee Fund; it is borne by the Consolidated Fund, whether he is an English or an Irish Judge; and had an Irish Judge been appointed to do this work, his salary during his absence from his ordinary duties would have come out of precisely the same fund as in the case of the English Judge, so that to the taxpayer it would not make the slightest difference in the world. The noble Lord asks why it was not possible to obtain a Commissioner from the Irish Bench. I am not going into that question beyond saying that I should have thought it would have been equally possible to do so in the case of the Belfast Riots Commission. Then as to the question, out of what funds the expenses of this Commission will be defrayed, they will be paid out of the Vote for Temporary Commissions. This will form no exception, and will be dealt with in the same way as other Commissions. My Lords, I have answered the questions of my noble Friend, but I should like to say this in addition. I am quite alive to the objections to, and inconvenience of, taking Judges from

  1241
  their judicial duties to attend inquiries except such as are immediately concerned in the administration of the law, and I hope the occasions on which this is done will be rare. The question more particularly deals with the appointment of English Juence of the broadest considerations, and in the belief that the inquiry is in the common interest of all parties, it may nevertheless be drawn into the region of acute Parliamentary controversy; and that no doubt, will be taken into account if the question of appointing an English Judge in Ireland should again come under consideration.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.