§ 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.