Sitting of 9 May 1877

MINUTES.
— PUBLIC BILLS — Ordered—First Reading—Marriage Preliminaries (Scotland)* [161].
Second Reading—County Courts Jurisdiction Extension [110], put of; Voters (Ireland) [82], put off Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2)* [154].
Select Committee—Report—Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland)* [50–160].
Withdrawn—Employers and Workmen Act (Extension to Seamen) [39]; Homicide Law Amendment [104]; Bar of England and of Ireland [80].

ASCENSION DAY—COMMITTEES.
Ordered, That Committees shall not sit Tomorrow, being Ascension Day, until Two of the clock, and have leave to sit until Six of the clock, notwithstanding the sitting of the House. —(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  EMPLOYERS AND WORKMEN ACT (EXTENSION TO SEAMEN) BILL.— [BILL39.]
  (Mr: Bart, Mr. J. Cowen, tile. Mundella, Dr. Cameron, Mr. Gourley.)
  EMPLOYERS AND WORKMEN ACT (EXTENSION TO SEAMEN) BILL.— [BILL39.]

    SECOND READING. BILL WITHDRAWN.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. BURTsaid, that after the statement which had recently been made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, that the Government had a Bill ready drafted to deal with the question of breach of contracts and the discipline of seamen, he should best consult the convenience of the House by moving the discharge of the Order for the second reading of the Bill which he had introduced. He trusted that the Government measure would be introduced on an early day, and if it should fulfil the promise made by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary last year, and assimilated the laws for breach of contract in the case of seamen with the provisions of the Employers and Workmen Act of 1875, he should not find it necessary to propose any measure on the subject. If, however, the Bill of the Government should not go far enough in the direction which he thought desirable he should have an opportunity of moving Amendments in Committee.
    Motion agreed to.
    Order discharged: Bill withdrawn.

  COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION EXTENSION BILL.— [BILL 110.]
  (Sir Eardley Wilmot, Mr. Forsyth.)
  COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION EXTENSION BILL.— [BILL 110.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    SIR EARDLEY WILMOT,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that he had had the honour of being a Judge of County Courts for 20 years at Bristol and Chelsea, and therefore he had considerable experience of their working. He had also had many opportunities of conferring with men of experience upon the subject. The Bill proposed in all actions of contract or tort to give the plaintiff the opportunity of bringing his action in the County Courts. The jurisdiction of these Courts was at present limited to £50, except by the consent of the parties, for debt, and £500 in administration actions; but he now proposed that they should have unlimited jurisdiction, with power to defendant to apply to remove the action to the Superior Court on giving security for costs. He pointed out that Lord Brougham, who might be described as the founder of the County Courts, was, up to the time of his death, the zealous advocate of the change proposed to be made by this Bill. The Judicature Commissioners had also approved of it. After receiving evidence from various Courts in the Kingdom, they, in 1872, made their Report, and among other things recommended the extension of the County Court jurisdiction exactly in the way his Bill advised. It might be argued that he was proposing to extend the jurisdiction of these Courts far beyond what they were originally intended to cover; but if this were the first time that their jurisdiction had been increased something might be said on that point. The fact, however, was, that the jurisdiction of these Courts had been very considerably enlarged since their formation in 1846. He contended that the County Court Judges might be safely entrusted with the extended jurisdiction proposed to be given to them. Bankruptcy cases in the provinces were now dealt with by the County Courts to any amount, and only the other day a case involving liabilities to the amount of £100,000 was brought into one of the County Courts. They had now jurisdiction in Admiralty cases and salvage cases to the extent of

    587
    £300 and also in certain eases of title. The time had now come to extend their jurisdiction, and to give the plaintiff what he might call free trade in law. It was rather hard, if a man living in a distant part of England had an action for £51 just after the Assizes, that he should be compelled to come to London at a great expense and considerable delay. In support of this Bill he would just refer to two cases to show what the costs were in each. In one case at Huddersfield, which occupied 28 days, and when the verdict was for the plaintiff with 40s. damages, the costs were £10; and in the other, which occupied about 11 months from beginning to the end in a Superior Court at Westminster, and where the result was 40 s. damages, the costs were £540. He thought it was clear that suitors would be spared the expenditure of large costs if their actions were tried in the County Courts. It was, moreover, desirable to relieve the block of business in London, and this Bill would have a tendency to lessen the pressure upon the Superior Courts. He regretted to find that the Bill was to be opposed by the hon. and learned Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd), as it was a Liberal measure and was accepted by the country generally. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
    MR. FORSYTHseconded the Motion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Eardley Wilmot.)
    MR. MORGANLLOYD,in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, that as a matter of feeling he would have been glad if he could have agreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Warwickshire, but he could not, as he conscientiously believed that the passing of this Bill would be very injurious to the country generally. No doubt the County Court system required amendment, and he would not object to see a thorough amalgamation of the High Court of Justice and the County Courts, but that would be a matter which would require very serious consideration, and could not be dealt with at present. The County Courts were originally established because it was found inconvenient and expensive to have cases of great importance
    588
    and also actions to recover small debts disposed of by one and the same tribunal. In their working the County Courts had proved to be most beneficial to the country. The expense to the suitor was comparatively small, and justice was not only cheaply, but speedily obtained. If, however, the jurisdiction of those Courts was greatly extended—and the extension would be unlimited under the Bill before the House—they might as well abolish the County Courts altogether, and leave all cases, great and small, to be determined by the Superior Courts. The ordinary business of the County Courts would be set aside if the Bill were passed and the system recommended carried out, and thus their peculiar value and usefulness would be greatly impaired, if not altogether destroyed. If the subject was to be taken up at all it would be better to create additional Judges at Westminster for the purpose of facilitating the despatch of the legal business of the country. Local Courts were good for local purposes; but if Parliament attempted to make Superior Courts of them they would ruin them for all time. What was really wanted was an improvement and extension of the Circuit system and the localizing of actions in the Superior Courts. If that were done the County Court Judges would be more trusted, and would be more responsible to public opinion. Those Judges should not always go to the same places, but should go through the districts as strangers, and. then they would not be disposed to show any undue favour to suitors. He trusted that that subject would not be lost sight of by Her Majesty's Government, more especially having regard to the present press of business in Westminster Hall. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
    MR. COLEsaid, he had much pleasure in seconding the Amendment as he had seldom seen in such a few lines a Bill which if passed would do more injury. He believed that one consequence of the passing of the Bill would be the practical repeal of the Judicature Act of 1875, as by it any action might be brought in a County Court, and could not be removed into the Superior Courts unless the damages claimed amounted to £50, while some of the most important actions were not brought to recover damages at all. To extend the jurisdic-

    589
    tion as proposed by the Bill it would be necessary to have fresh machinery, because the office of Judge of a County Court was not generally filled by the most distinguished members of the Profession. Nothing could be more valuable in the shape of a Court of Justice than the County Courts, as tribunals for the recovery of small debts; but to make them, in effect, Superior Courts with a widely ,extended jurisdiction would be to create delay in the obtaining of justice, to greatly increase expense, and generally to interfere with the proper function of an excellent institution. The Bill was not made to apply to proceedings in Chancery. Why? He should give the Bill his most strenuous opposition.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(.Mr. Morgan, Lloyd.)
    MR. FORSYTHsaid, that he believed that the principle of the Bill was good, and that the measure if passed would be of great benefit to the country. The arguments he had heard urged against the measure had been used against the original proposal to establish County Courts. All kinds of evil had been predicted to the Bar and to the country as likely to arise if the new system were set up; but he ventured to say that no more useful measure had been adopted within the present century than the County Courts Act had proved to be. The original Act limited actions to £20, but in 1856 the jurisdiction was extended to £50 in all cases of contract, and by agreement it was unlimited, except as regarded some particular actions. He maintained that the House would be proceeding in the right direction by now enacting that cases of contract and tort should be tried in the County Court without limit as to amount, except in such cases where a Judge thought the case should not be tried in the County Court. It seemed to be thought that County Court Judges were not fitted to try cases where large sums were involved, but the Recorder of London could try such cases, and they were tried at the Passage Court at Liverpool, and he believed at the Toolsey Court, in Bristol, if the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction. He did not wish to praise unduly the County Court Judges; but from
    590
    the reports of cases which he had read. in The Law Times he was much impressed with the great ability which they displayed in dealing with the cases that came before them. He thought that the County Court Judges should be paid higher salaries. The arrears in our Courts were appalling, and unless something was done to relieve the congestion of the Superior Courts our judicial business would come to a dead-lock. If more important cases were brought before the County Court Judges he believed that greater care would be taken in selecting men to fill the office of Judge. At present, a great deal of the work of the Courts in undefended cases had to be disposed of by the Registrars, and he thought that their jurisdiction might be extended in small cases. It seemed so be thought by some that justice existed for the Bar of England; but he believed that the Bar of England existed for the purpose of allowing justice to be administered to all alike. Ho would never allow that the Bar should stand in the way of what he considered a been to the public—that of obtaining cheap and speedy justice. He looked forward to the time when the great mass of the legal business of the country would be begun in local centres, instead of being brought up to London. In conclusion, lie expressed a hope that the House would sanction the principle of the Bill by affirming the second reading.
    MR. NORWOODsaid, that the County Courts were a valuable institution, as they dispensed even-handed justice at a small expense at the doors of the humblest suitors. He had endeavoured to enlarge their jurisdiction, and would have no objection to see it still further extended, but he did not approve of this Bill. It was not sufficiently comprehensive, and it contained some objectionable propositions. He complained that the Judges were not selected for their legal attainments, but as a means of patronage for faithful services. He thought that the Registrars had too much power, as every subject of the Queen had a right to have his case tried before a Judge, and not by a Registrar. This was a sweeping and revolutionary measure, and he should vote against the second reading.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, that if he regarded the Bill solely in the interests of

    591
    his Profession he should support it, but in the interests of the public he must oppose the second reading. The Alpha and Omega of the Bill was to give unlimited jurisdiction to the County Courts. The present law in respect to County Courts had several defects. He objected, for instance, to the power which the Judge possessed of appointing another person to act for him, who might be more or less qualified. The Registrars, again, who might be practising solicitors, had too much power. It was said the County Courts were a cheap tribunal; but, according to his calculation, the costs amounted to fully 40 per cent of the amounts recovered. This Bill would not amend these defects, but would take away from the defendant his Common Law right of having the plaint against him tried in a Superior Court, for that was what the provision calling on him to give security for costs amounted to. The tendency of litigants was more and more to have recourse to the Superior Courts. This, he thought, was a certain test of the confidence reposed by the public in those Courts, where cases were tried in a more satisfactory manner than they were by the inferior tribunals. This was a good reason for not extending the jurisdiction of the County Courts. If they now gave that unlimited jurisdiction they would have to pay the Judges much higher salaries than at present.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, that while he was ready to support any fair proposal to extend the special jurisdiction of the County Courts, he could not vote for so sweeping a measure as that which was now under the consideration of the House. He hoped that the Government would fully consider the whole question, either by reference to a Committee or in some other way. A Bill might, with advantage, be brought in to extend the jurisdiction of County Courts from its present limit of £50 to £100, or thereabouts. Whether the Bill passed or not, he thought the Government would do well to take into account the additional work which had been thrown upon many of the Judges of late, and propose that their salaries should be increased. Since those salaries were fixed in 1865 the amount of their judicial work had been doubled. When the Bankruptcy Bill was before the House in 1869 he brought forward an Amendment which had reference to the increase of the
    592
    salaries of County Court Judges. He had the assistance of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cross), now the Home Secretary, who seconded the Amendment; but they were not able to carry it, as the question was then under the consideration of the Judicature Commission. Since that time various Acts had been passed throwing additional duties upon County Court Judges, but no addition had been made to their salaries. He did not say that a case could be made out for the increase of the salary of every Judge, because there was a great difference in the amount of work which they had to perform in the various circuits of the country, but he thought it deserved the consideration of the Government whether they could not reduce the number of the circuits, and out of the saving to be effected give increased salaries to the remaining Judges.
    MR. WHEELHOUSEassured the House that it was not without something like pain he felt himself obliged to oppose the Bill of his hon. Friend; but he had come to the determination—one well considered, moreover, before he arrived at it—that so far as County Courts were concerned, and so long as they were constituted as they at present were, the jurisdiction they now possessed was amply sufficient for them. In the first place, it must be remembered that there were, really, two very different classes of County Courts in this country. In the Courts of the metropolis, and of the large manufacturing centres, there was an enormous amount of work, consisting of commercial inquiries, bankruptcies, Admiralty jurisdiction in the port towns, and Equity, more or less, in all of them. On the other hand, there were the country districts, with large territorial interests and acreage, in which the Courts had certainly but very little to do, in the sense of having the larger inquiries referred to them. But while he bore that distinction fully in mind, he, for his own part, could not think it desirable to extend the County Court jurisdiction either in the one case, or the other. It was certainly undesirable to extend it in the larger centres, because, at present, the County Court Judges in those localities had, already, more then enough to do. He was also bound to say—speaking with all due respect for the Judges in the Superior Courts—that in former

    593
    years it had been the practice of the Courts above to send down to the Judges sitting in the large centres a number of records to be tried which did not belong, properly speaking, to the County Courts as such, but which the Judges of the Inferior Courts were obliged to take, because because they had been sent down to them under statutory order. By these means, the time and opportunities of the Judges, which ought to be at the disposal—or rather for the use of—the poorer class of County Court suitors, for whose cases these Courts, be it always remembered, were introduced and intended, were displaced to make provision for the trial of these records. He was quite aware that of late the Judges of the Superior Courts had been somewhat more careful than formerly in sending down cases to the County Courts, because they knew perfectly well that the County Court Judge generally had more than sufficient work of his own to which to attend. There was another reason why he thought it very undesirable that the jurisdiction of the County Courts should be extended in the direction towards which the present measure seemed to point. The reason had been slightly glanced at before, but it was one which, with all due respect to those hon. Members who had spoken on the measure, he ventured to think they could not, and did not, appreciate as fully as those who had had a large practice in the County Courts. The objection was this, and it went far deeper than the mere superficies—In many localities, a sort of family feeling pervaded, not merely the Court itself, but the people in attachment with the tribunal, from the Judge down to the lowest official, and this feeling rendered it very undesirable to extend the jurisdiction of the tribunal. It was far better, indeed, absolutely necessary, that these things should be thoroughly and widely known. He himself was personally acquainted with one instance, where a County Court Judge, almost simultaneously with his own appointment to office, brought down and established his own son, then a mere boy, as one of the practitioners in his own Court. It was, of course, in a case like this, scarcely possible to put a finger upon any particular instance in which absolute wrong could be proved to have been done to any named suitor; but
    594
    there was the Judge, and there was the advocate, and it must inevitably be considered desirable to get hold of the latter as counsel wherever it was practicable. It was almost more than mortal to imagine that such should not be supposed to be the result; and, even if there were no reality in the proposition, there was, at least, an undesirable semblance of truth about it. He need not endeavour to impress upon the good sense of the House that this feeling not only might be, but actually was, of more evil consequence than the reality itself. He repeated, there was the father sitting as Judge, and there was the son constantly engaged before him, in the small, and—if he might venture so to name them—the half irresponsible local tribunals of the country districts, and, it was needless to tell the House that, though the justice administered there might be absolutely pure, nothing would induce the litigant who lost, and scarcely anything could convince the outside public, under such circumstances, to believe it so. He would only ask—Could such a state of things be desirable or conducive to the public welfare? For his part, he had no hesitation in pronouncing, from his place in that House, that such occurrences as these were a living scandal. There were, he believed, other instances to which the same principle applied, although, perhaps, not so strongly. Still, however, it did apply, and he was desirous, therefore, that under no circumstances whatever, should there be any chance of such family influences henceforward being allowed to permeate our local Courts of Justice, or that it should be possible, by any accident, to suppose that the fount from which justice sprung was tainted in the slightest degree. He also further objected to every Bill which gave any such power as the present measure sought to do—namely, that of enabling a suitor to throw unreasonable expenses in the way of a defendant. A suitor by a Common Law proceeding—whatever that might be—in a County Court could, at his own instance, although he had not the shadow of a ground of action against a defendant, set the law in motion, and the unfortunate defendant, before he could remove the hearing from the County Court jurisdiction, in order to take the opinion of the Court above, must be provided

    595
    with the means of offering security for the payment of costs. Was that fair? Was it just? For example, suppose he himself chose to bring an action against any one of his fellow-Members in that House? It was perfectly true, thank goodness, that he had no right to do so, and had, most assuredly, no wish or expectation of doing it to the extent of one single farthing; but if, under such circumstances, he thought fit to do so, under this Bill the defendant, if he were desirous, for any reason, of seeking the opinion of a Superior Court, must first find security for costs. Why should such a system prevail? It was suggested that every plaintiff had some right, and that if he had not some grounds for suing, he never would proceed. His experience told him that this was by no means always the case. A man was too often dragged into a Court to defend something which he ought never to be called upon to answer. Then, there was another objection to this Bill. If anyone supposed that when a man sued, in the first instance, in a Court of limited jurisdiction from which there was an appeal—and in the event of enlarging the extent, they could scarcely do so without granting the right to appeal in such cases as these—he was at all likely to save expense, he counted sorely without his host. The moment the jurisdiction of a County Court was exercised, one side or the other was sure to be dissatisfied with the views expressed by the Judge, or taken by the jury. It was bad enough that any man should be at liberty to sue another really causelessly; but the hardship was intensely magnified when he was enabled to drag his opponent through a long series of Courts, and at no end of cost. But, even that was not the whole of the evil. In the language of this Bill, he did not see exactly how they were to make out the County Courts in which the plaintiff was entitled to sue. Surely a defendant had a right to know where he was to be sued, and under what circumstances he was called upon to answer. It was said this Bill intended that you should confine yourselves to debts and damages; but what about those other cases, the number of which was very great, where debts and damages did not enter. These points ought to be better defined than they were in this Bill. He thought that if this Bill was passed, they would not
    596
    only repeal the present Judicature Act, but upset the whole system of judicature, and introduce a totally new state of procedure. If anyone knew what these County Courts were like—what they were—what Registrars did—how often there was just the opinion of one person to guide a decision—they would feel that it was not desirable to extend the system as it was at present. If they had a jury in all cases, that, indeed, might mitigate the evil. Then there was another matter arising out of this Bill. He had long thought it was necessary to increase the Judicial power in this country. The sooner they did this, so much the better; but he did not hesitate to affirm that, in his opinion, it was to be done by increasing the Judicial Staff in Westminster Hall. In the meantime, if any action was to be taken, let them, if they so pleased, go to a Select Committee. Instead of having any extension of the County Courts as they existed at present, let them go on totally different lines. There were three or four other matters with which he might deal, but he thought the limit had already been reached in respect to County Court jurisdiction under present arrangements. He hoped that limit would not be extended; but if there was to be any extension, he hoped it would be in an altogether different direction from that proposed in this Bill.
    SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENhoped that the hon. and learned Baronet who had brought forward the Bill would withdraw it and not put the House to the trouble of a division, as it was impossible that he could go to a division with any chance of success. The matter had better be left in the hands of Her Majesty's Government. The hon. and learned Member for Leeds had expressed an opinion that the jurisdiction of the County Courts ought not to be increased. He, on the contrary, thought it ought to be increased very considerably. In matters of debt he would give the County Courts both in England and Ireland an unlimited jurisdiction, as was the case as regarded the Sheriffs' Courts in Scotland. One fatal objection to this Bill was that it contained a clause which would compel a defendant to give security for costs in order to get the opinion of a Superior Court in a case in which he thought he ought to get such an opinion. That clause, no doubt, might be

    597
    removed in Committee; but the principle of that clause was so much interwoven with other parts of the Bill, that the House ought not to give it a second reading. He certainly thought the salaries of the Judges ought to be increased, and recommended the Attorney General for Ireland to bear in mind in the preparation of his Bill in reference to the Irish County Courts what had just fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham.
    MR. MELLORdenied that the County Court Judges were underpaid. They received £1,500 per annum for two and three quarters' days' work in each week, with travelling and subsistence allowance. He thought they were scandalously overpaid. In fact, the Registrars did all the work, or, at least, a large percentage of it. This Bill emanated from lawyers. He always looked with suspicion on members of that class in the House, because the tendency of all their legislation was to swell our annual expenditure; and unless the measures of lawyers in the House were checked, instead of having a national expenditure of £78,000,000 a-year, it would rise to £90,000,000 in no time.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman who introduced the Bill did not seem to have had enthusiastic support even from those who, according to the hon. Member who had just spoken, were always ready to support anything that would cause an increase of expenditure. While many hon. Members were in favour of the extension of the jurisdiction of the County Courts, it was admitted that this Bill contained grave defects. In the first place, he questioned if, since the passing of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, in which Common Law had been swallowed up by Equity, if any such thing as a Common Law action could exist. He considered, too, that the provision calling upon the defendant who might wish to have his case tried in a Superior Court to give security for costs was one in favour of the rich and adverse to the poor client. The principle of the Bill, as he understood it, was to give extended and exclusive jurisdiction to County Courts in all cases where the defendant who was sued could not remove the suit to a Superior Court, and that was, in his opinion, a principle which instead of approving they should altogether discoun-
    598
    tenance. Reference had been made to the extent to which the business of the County Courts was now in the hands of the Registrars. However small the cause might be, he thought the parties had a right to have it decided, so far as possible, by the Judge, and not by the Registrar; and they ought not, by any Bill like the present one, to intensify the existing evil. If they passed this Bill the time of the County Court Judges would be occupied in trying important cases, and they would be overwhelmed with that business which now found its way into the Superior Courts. It was said that this would relieve the press of business which now existed in these Courts. No doubt that would, to some extent, be the case; and he was not prepared to say that it would not be desirable to extend the jurisdiction of the County Courts to a certain extent. He was not in a position to pledge himself or the Government to such a measure; but it was well worth considering whether, under existing circumstances, they should extend the concurrent jurisdiction of the County Courts to all cases exceeding £50 and under £100, as had been suggested by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert). That was a very different thing from establishing an unlimited jurisdiction; and rather than take that means of relieving the pressure on the Superior Courts, he would support an increase in the Judicial Staff of the High Court of Justice.
    SIR EARDLEY WILMOTreplied, answering in detail the various objections which had been taken to the Bill, and warmly defending the character as well as advocating the claims of the County Court Judges—a class to which he himself had had the honour to belong. He expressed his satisfaction that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had given his approval to the principle of extending the jurisdiction of the County Courts to £100. He was ready to withdraw the Bill, the main provisions of which, he believed, would sooner or later become law. That day's discussion, he was confident, would yield solid fruits; and he urged on the Government and the House the expediency of appointing a Select Committee to see how far and in what manner the civil business of our Courts could be more satisfactorily despatched.
    MR. WHALLEYwished to call attention, by way of protest and warning, to the state of civil business in the Courts, which was becoming worse and worse, and which had been aggravated by the Judicature Act. The cause of the block of business and of the delay and confusion in transacting it was due in a large measure to the fact that Common Law had been swallowed up by her sister Equity.
    Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
    Words added.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Second Reading put off for six months.

  HOMICIDE LAW AMENDMENT BILL. [BILL 104.]
  (Sir Eardley Wilmot, Mr. Whitwell.)
  HOMICIDE LAW AMENDMENT BILL. [BILL 104.]

    SECOND READING. BILL WITHDRAWN.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    SIR EARDLEY WILMOTsaid, he should not proceed with the Bill, as he understood that Her Majesty's Government did not intend to give him support. He therefore moved that the Order be discharged, and asked leave to withdraw the Bill.
    Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.

  BAR OF ENGLAND AND OF IRELAND BILL.— [BILL 80.]
  (Sir Colman O'Loghlen, Mr. MacCarthy Downing, Mr. W. Johnston, Mr. Meldon.)
  BAR OF ENGLAND AND OF IRELAND BILL.— [BILL 80.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its object was to enable a member of the Irish Bar to practise in England and a member of the English Bar to practise in Ireland. It did not propose to abolish either Bar, but provided that the Benchers of the King's Inns in Ireland should admit members of the English Bar to practice in Ireland and that the Benchers of the English Inns of Court should admit Irish Barristers to practise in the Courts of this country. It was an extraordinary thing that the distinction between the English and the Irish Bars should have been maintained so long. Any man
    600
    having a medical or surgical degree in Ireland could practise his Profession in England, and our English medical man could practise in Ireland. An Irish clergyman could be appointed to a living in England, and a graduate of the Dublin University could obtain an ad eundem degree from the University of Oxford or of Cambridge. He could not understand, therefore, on what principle it was that a distinction such as now existed should be kept up between the Bars of the two countries, and why an Irish barrister should not be admitted to the English Bar, or an English barrister to the Irish Bar without the necessity of eating dinners or passing an examination. The Bill proposed that a roll of English barristers entitled to practise in Ireland should be kept at the King's Inns, Dublin, and that rolls of Irish barristers entitled to practise in England should be kept at the English Inns of Court. The Bill did not propose to give any absolute right to an English barrister to practise in Ireland, or an Irish barrister in England. It only provided that a member of either Bar might present a memorial to the Irish or English Benchers to practice in Ireland or England, as the case might be, and the Benchers would have power to grant this permission. The moment a man was so admitted to practise at the Bar of either country he would become subject to the Benchers of that country, and might be disbarred or prevented from practising in the same way as if he had been originally a member of the country in which he was allowed to practice. English barristers would have the same rank in Ireland as they had in their own country, and the same rule would apply to their Irish brethren practising in England. The Bill, however, provided that no member either of the English Bar admitted to practise in Ireland, or any member of the Irish Bar admitted to practise in England, should be allowed to hold office in the country of the Bar to which he was admitted ad eundem. Thus the measure did not amalgamate the Bar of the two countries—it merely conferred a right to practise, and he did not see why this right should be denied when it was granted in the case of all other Professions. He did not think for a moment the English Bar could imagine that a few barristers from Ireland could deprive

    601
    the English Bar of any portion of their practice. Under the Judicature Act a right was given to sue an Irish resident in Westminster Hall, and although that had been protested against the fact remained. He thought it hard that an Irishman so sued should be deprived of the right to have Irish counsel for his defence. The Irish Bar generally approved the first part of the Bill, in favour of which a resolution had been passed by the Munster Circuit. But he must admit that the same unanimity did not extend to the second part of the Bill, which enabled Her Majesty, if she thought fit, to send an Irish Judge to go Circuit; or sit in banco in England, when from the press of business there was not enough of English Judges to dispose of it. It was often said that there were too many Judges in Ireland and too few in England. For this state of things this provision would supply a remedy. In like measure the Bill would give power to the Queen to send over an English Judge to go Circuit or sit in banco in Ireland; but, although this power was formally given, everyone knew that it would never be exercised, as the English Judges had quite enough to do to dispose of their own work. In this respect he admitted that the Bill would practically be one-sided. It was said that one effect of the Bill would be to abolish the Bar of Ireland. Nothing could be further than this from his wish. As the son of an Irish Judge he would be the last to propose as to advocate any measure that would abolish the Irish Bar. He did not believe that would be the effect of the measure, and he certainly thought the time had come when the distinction between the two Bars should be done away with, and that they and the Judges of the two countries should be rendered interchangeable. The right hon. and learned Baronet concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Colman O' Loghlen.)
    SIR HENRY JAMEShoped his right hon. and learned Friend would be satisfied with the courtesy shown him by not entering Notice of opposition to his Bill, in order that he might be enabled at any time to obtain a discussion upon it, and that he would not be disappointed if he did not receive any further
    602
    support from the Members of the English Bar in that House. If his right hon. and learned Friend's proposal were of equal advantage to the Bars of both countries, why was it that there was not the name of a single English Member on the back of the Bill? He found, however, it was introduced by four Members of the Irish Bar. His right hon. and learned Friend had, ho believed, expressed a desire for Home Rule. He wished Irishmen to have the regulation of the internal affairs of their own country. [Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN: Hear, hear!] Why, then, was the right hon. and learned Gentleman not satisfied with the Home Rule which Ireland possessed in respect to her Bar, which was exclusively under the management and control of the Benchers of the King's Inns and of the Bar itself? He should have thought that the principle of Homo Rule was altogether opposed to the introduction of English Judges and barristers into Ireland in the manner here proposed. He could assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the members of the English Bar were perfectly willing to allow Ireland Home Rule in this matter; they had no wish to intrude their rules or themselves upon their Irish friends. His right hon. and learned Friend said the Bill only enabled the Inns of Court here to admit an Irish barrister to a sort of ad eundem degree. As a matter of fact, they had perfect freedom to do that at present if they pleased; but what the Bill said was, not that the Benchers might admit a member of the Irish Bar to practise in the English Courts, but that they should do so; for under the 4th clause, if the applicant got a certain certificate from the Benchers of the King's Inns, the English Benchers must admit him. But, apart from these considerations, he was unable to give the Bill his support. He denied at once that he was speaking in defence of vested interests. He did not deny that he did not desire the competition with the English Bar which would be provoked by the migration of the Irish Bar to England in search of a larger area of practice and more lucrative practice. In consequence of the comparatively limited area of practice in Ireland there was little competition there, and a barrister obtained rank much more easily in Ireland than in England. It would be very unjust to

    603
    allow a man who had obtained the rank of Q.C. in Ireland to bring that rank over to England, and there take precedence over English barristers who had made their way much more slowly and with more difficulty. Thus his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland would by this Bill take rank at the English Bar over everyone except the Attorney General for England. Then there were other objections to the Bill. The King's Inns in Ireland were voluntary bodies. They could make their own rules, and Parliament had no control over them. Supposing the King's Inns chose to diminish their time for admission to the Bar to one term, while the English Inns retained the three terms, as at present, the result would be that people would go over to Ireland to be called there in order that they might afterwards be admitted ad eundem in England. He repeated that the English Bar obtained no reciprocal advantages for those which the Bill would give to the Irish Bar. As for the interchange of Judges, the right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to have forgotten that the laws of the two countries were not the same, and that a Judge could not be expected satisfactorily to administer laws with which he was not familiar. He had a great many objections to the Bill in detail; but after the radical defects he had pointed out he did not think it worth while to mention them.
    MR. MELDONsaid, that the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) was an instance of the manner in which Irish complaints and claims were received in that House. Whenever Irishmen asked to be put upon the same footing as Englishmen they were told—"English laws do not suit you;" and that whenever they asked for special laws they were met with the argument that no distinctions of that kind ought to be set up between the two countries. At present Irish Barristers did not enjoy reciprocal rights with English Barristers. If a Board of Trade, Revenue, or other inquiry was held in Ireland, it was always English barristers who were employed by the Government or the authorities in connection with it; while, on the other hand, Irish barristers were not allowed to attend Irish cases in England, with the exception of Appeals to the House of Lords. Therefore, he maintained that
    604
    there was not equal justice done to the Bars of the two countries. A similar injustice was done in the case of the winding-up of assurance. Great injustice had been done in a recent case by preventing Irish policy-holders being represented by Irish barristers and attorneys before arbitrators employed to hear the several cases, and the same observation applied to proceedings before the Railway Commissioners when Irish counsel had not been allowed to practise even in cases relating to Irish railways. The truth was there was no reciprocity in the treatment of the two Bars, but quite the reverse. Everything was claimed for England, and the Irish Bar and solicitors were left out in the cold. He did not, however, wish to abolish the distinction between the Bars of the two countries, or to confer upon them the rights or privileges which it was the aim of this legislative enactment to extend to them. He consented to put his name on the back of the Bill upon the understanding that the principle of the Bill was that a member of the Irish Bar, if by his examination and from his having attended the required number of lectures he had shown himself perfectly competent and fit for the Profession, might come over to England and practise, or vice versâ in the case of an English barrister. They did not demand that a man should come over to England and insist on being called. He would be admitted, of course, on the lowest round of the ladder; but he asked that proficiency in Ireland should be regarded as proficiency in England? In England the Inns of Court had control, but in Ireland there were statutable enactments which did not affect England. There was no reciprocity. Take, for instance, as an example the case of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan). He had just passed his examination and kept his terms, and had. been called to the Irish Bar, having passed a most satisfactory and creditable examination, but coming over to England he had to turn about and commence again de novo. He would be extremely sorry that the Bill should go to a division, although the principle of it was one he was ready to support. He would, however, prefer if the right hon. and learned Member withdrew the Bill, and another was introduced by an English lawyer.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that with all respect for his right hon. and learned Friend (Sir Colman O'Loghlen), he regarded the Bill as thoroughly anti-Irish and anti-Home Rule in its scope. Remarking that, he should say, with great respect to the introducers of the Bill, it might shortly be described as for the purpose of converting Irish barristers into English barristers and Irish Judges into English Judges, and at the same time converting English barristers and Judges into Irish. Had its provision been restricted to the last operation, he should not have had so much fault to find with it, for on the principle ipsis Hibernis Hiberniores perhaps those Englishmen who were admitted to the Irish Bar might be converted into better Irishmen than, unfortunately, many of the present Irish barristers were. Prior to 1782, Irish barristers were a patriotic body of gentlemen, and in that year the most powerful eloquence in favour of Irish legislative independence came from the Irish Bar; and from the Cornwallis Correspondence he found that the most difficult task of Lords Cornwallis and Castlereagh was to overcome the opposition of Irish barristers to the Union. They were then so thoroughly Irish and patriotic that they enrolled themselves into a corps of Irish volunteers to resist, by force, encroachments on the liberties of the country, but unfortunately the Union occurred, and subsequently he found that their patriotism vanished away. He might mention as an example the case of Mr. Plunket, who was one of the most vehement opponents of the Union, but who, after it was carried, so far forgot—he would not say his patriotism—but so far forgot that he was an Irishman as to take the leading part in the prosecution of Robert Emmett, which led to the conviction and execution of that illustrious man. He mentioned this not to throw discredit on the memory of Lord Plunket, who afterwards served as Solicitor General and Attorney General for Ireland, but to show the necessary tendency of the Union to estrange the members of the Irish Bar from national feeling and national interests. The result was that there had sprung up in the minds of the Irish people a great distrust of that profession which under other circumstances would have been one of the most powerful upholders of their liberties. Hence
    606
    since the Union they had gradually become the tools of successive English Governments, and since 1852 this had been exemplified in a remarkable manner. When, as some hon. Members might recollect, a so-called independent Party was formed in the House to advance the interest of Ireland, the Party was headed by Mr. Gavan Duffy, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Sadlier, and Mr. Keogh. But Keogh was not able to resist the bribe of a Solicitor Generalship, offered as the price of a betrayal of his cause. An Irishman of distinguished talent, he talked one doctrine to the peasantry of the West; but when the inducement of office tempted him, he forgot himself, and accepted what he declared he would never do. Similar instances of betrayal of the popular confidence followed to such an extent that it was scarcely possible for an Irish barrister to obtain a seat in the House of Commons without having previously shown that he was pure and beyond suspicion. The effect of the Bill would be to increase largely a system of place-giving in Ireland as the reward of political services. At present it had been said there was a place for every three barristers; but under the Bill that field would be enlarged to an almost unlimited extent—all the English places would be thrown open. He believed this Bill would not tend to improve the character or increase the patriotism of the Irish Bar. If there was any distinction between the English and Irish Bar it was this—that whereas in England barristers were made Judges because they excelled in their profession, in Ireland they were made Judges not because they were the best men, but because they were the best Party men, and the consequence of the passing of this Bill would be that Irish Barristers would be made Judges in England, not because they were better qualified than English Barristers, but because they had rendered some disgraceful political services to the English Government of the day. Considering these circumstances, he trusted the House would reject the Bill.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTprotested against the unfounded attack which the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had made on Lord Plunket and Mr. Justice Keogh, two of the most distinguished ornaments that had adorned the judicial bench. The remarks of the

    607
    hon. Member were really not germane to the Bill. The general principle of the proposal of the right hon. and learned Member for Clare was one which met with his entire approval. It was a mistake to suppose that any professional jealousy was felt by the English Bar in connection with this subject. For his own part, he would be very anxious to support any Bill which had for its object to establish a reciprocity between the Bars of the two countries. What he understood to be desired was that qualification in Ireland should be qualification in. England, and to this he, for one, offered no opposition, always assuming, as he thought they might safely assume, that a proper qualification was required before admission to the Irish Bar. The Bill, however, in its present shape went further than that, and was open to objections. He therefore hoped the second reading would not be pressed.
    MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, if they were to take the Bill of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Clare, as it stood, it would admit Irish barristers to come to England and, acting upon the authority provided by the measure, claim, according to their standing, precedence of the English barristers, and vice versâ, the English barrister might go to, and claim precedence, at the Irish Bar. Was it intended that Irish Judges should go Circuit in England and that English Judges should go Circuit in Ireland? If so, great inconvenience would necessarily arise, as the customs of the two countries were so dissimilar. There was no feeling of jealousy in the matter; and, for his own part, he would be glad if something could be done in the direction which had been indicated: but he thought it necessary, in the first place, that an entirely new Bill should be drawn up. He therefore hoped his right hon. and learned Friend would acted on the suggestions given to him and withdraw the measure.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he thought they might at once sweep away all notions that there could be any professional jealousy between the English Bar and their brethren in Ireland. The right hon. and learned Member for Clare had said that his object in bringing this Bill forward was to have the question debated, and the course of the debate had clearly shown
    608
    that there was not perfect agreement among the members of the Irish Bar themselves as to the particular mode in which the question should be settled. Moreover, the moment the effect of the provisions of the Bill was pointed out, it seemed to be admitted that they went a great deal too far. He might mention that although it was not a common thing or a matter of right, yet at present members of the Irish Bar might be admitted by the English Inns of Court to practise at the English Bar, and there was no reason to assume that if an application with that object was properly made, it would be rejected. It ought also to be borne in mind that at the present moment the members of the Irish Bar had the same right of access as any others to the English Bar. At the same time, he would be very glad to see arrangements come to by which the members of the two Bars would be brought more closely together than they were at present. He had listened, however, in vain to hear that this matter had ever been brought before the Benchers of the various Inns of Court, or that there had been any attempt made to get the Judges in Ireland and in England to give it their consideration. Before legislating on such a subject it seemed to him that some interchange of opinion on the part of the Judges and the Benchers was most desirable. He thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman would exercise a wise discretion if he withdrew the Bill, and in the course of the Recess sought to promote that interchange of opinion. Before sitting down he felt it to be his duty, holding, as he did, a position intimately connected with the administration of justice, to say a word in justification of the character of the Irish Judges. In his opinion, the charges which had been brought by the hon. Member for Meath against those Judges were entirely unfounded.
    MR. SHAWsaid, this was a question in which the people of Ireland felt deep interest. He thought there might be some such improvements in the matter as suggested by the hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon), without going the full length of the Bill of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Clare. He protested strongly against facilities being given to transfer Irish barristers to England. The effect would

    609
    be that the business of Ireland would be left to second and third-class men, as all the first-rate men would be attracted to England. At the same time, he thought leading Irish barristers should be allowed to practise in England in business originating in Ireland and subsequently carried over to England. Some change might be made in that direction with great advantage. The area of practice at the Bar of Ireland was very small as compared with the area of the English Bar; and in great commercial cases, with which the Irish Bar had not much opportunity of obtaining experience, he thought it would be advantageous, when such cases came on for trial in Ireland, if English barristers, possessed of that knowledge which practice gave them, were to be called over to Ireland for the conduct of such questions. With regard to barristers becoming "patriots," he must say he never saw an Irish barrister yet who had good practice and became a patriot who did not lose his business. He hoped the Bill would be withdrawn, and some less pretentious measure introduced.
    MR. PLUNKETsaid, he had been absent on Committee duty upstairs when the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) spoke, and therefore could not refer to the exact words used by him; but he understood the hon. Member had made an attack of an unjust and personal nature on one whose name he had the honour to bear. He did not know that if he had heard the attack he would have condescended to reply.
    MR. PARNELL: Iwish, Sir, to be allowed to set myself right. Certainly, I did not intend any attack on Lord Plunket or his personal character. In fact, I expressly stated I did not mean to do so. I merely cited his case as an example of the injury the Union did to Irish interests in depriving the country of the services of men on whom reliance was placed as patriots.
    MR. PLUNKET: Then on that subject he need not say more. He deemed it right, however, to refer to the imputations cast by the hon. Member for Meath, as he was informed, on Mr. Justice Keogh. Such personal attacks were frequently made in that House, without Notice, on that eminent Judge, and were wholly undeserved and unjustifiable. He would only remark that when the charges had been fairly brought up in that House
    610
    for discussion and decision they had been repudiated by large majorities. However, after what the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had said with reference to that subject, it was unnecessary for him, on the present occasion, to say another word. With regard to the Bill, he hoped the right hon. and learned Member for Clare would avail himself of the suggestion of the Home Secretary, and not proceed further with it at the present time.
    MR. BIGGAR,thought it possible that the majorities to which the hon. Member referred had been due to Party considerations, and he added that in the bonâ fide opinion of the people of Ireland Mr. Justice Keogh was not an impartial Judge.
    MR. SPEAKERreminded the hon. Member that the character of Mr. Justice Keogh was not the Question before the House.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, what he wished to point out was that when Mr. Keogh's character was discussed it was decided by a Party vote.
    MR. SPEAKERagain reminded the hon. Member that that was not the Question before the House.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, that after the temperate speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had introduced the Bill, it was much to be regretted that the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had made the speech they had just listened to, as Mr. Justice Keogh's conduct had been brought forward in the House of Commons and had been fully discussed and decided upon. The hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had not said a word which really related to the proposal which had been put forward, but had instead made an attack upon an eminent dead Irish Judge, and upon one of the most eminent Irish Judges now living.
    MR. PARNELLrose to Order, wishing to know whether, after he had expressly repudiated any desire to attack that eminent dead Irishman, Lord Plunket, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was entitled—having heard what he then said—to charge him with having made such an attack?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, he would leave the character of Lord Plunket to

    611
    the history of the country; but with reference to the other distinguished person who had been named by the hon. Member for Meath and to the rest of the Irish Judges who had been alluded to, he would say that he did not think any body of men——
    MR. BIGGARsubmitted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not in Order in discussing the character of the Irish Judges.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)had only meant to say that he did not think it necessary to say a single word in defence of those eminent men, as their character was well known both in that House and elsewhere. The hon. Member for Meath in his remarks had made sweeping charges on the character of the Irish Bar; but he seemed to forget the great names that were connected with the history of the Irish Parliament. O'Connell himself was an Irish barrister, and the leader of the Party to which, he believed, the hon. Member belonged, was one of the most distinguished members of the Irish Bar. If the hon. Member had borne these and similar facts in mind, perhaps he would not have felt called upon to make the extraordinary observations he had made with reference to the Bar of Ireland. In conclusion, he would only express the hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Clare would accept the suggestions of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and withdraw the Bill.
    SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENregretted that any such discussion as that they had just listened to had arisen, and he concurred in the observations of the right hon. and learned Attorney General. He was willing to agree to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that the matter should be left to mutual communications between the Benchers in Ireland and England. He would therefore withdraw the Bill.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn: Bill withdrawn.

  VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 82.]
  (Mr. Butt, Mr. M. Brooks, Mr. Sullivan.)
  VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 82.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. BIGGAR,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said,
    612
    the object of it was, with reference to persons who were really entitled to the franchise, to prevent their being disqualified owing to their names not having been duly inserted in the rate book.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Biggar.)
    MR. MULHOLLAND,in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, the Bill had come before the House in various forms and under various designations, such as a Town Rating Bill, a Borough Franchise Bill, and now as a Voters Bill. It had always been rejected. He contended that the Bill, instead of its being in reality a measure to prevent the disqualification of voters in Ireland who were now entitled to the franchise, owing to their names not being inserted in the rate book, was rather a proposal by which persons who were not entitled to the franchise would have their names so registered. He pointed out also that if the name of a voter were improperly omitted from the rate book, he might put in a claim which it had been decided would put him just in the same position as he would have been if his name had been inserted. The direct payment of rates was entirely ignored by the Bill. That was a damaging position. The Bill did not put the legitimate voter in a better position, and it proposed no remedy for the accidental omission of names from the rate book. The Preamble of the Bill was untrue, and its provisions were dangerous.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words, "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Mulholland.)
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsupported the Bill. He thought a more unfair reading of a Bill than that of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Mulholland) could not be imagined. The object of the measure was simply an attempt to assimilate the law in Ireland to that which prevailed in England with respect to conditions under which persons in Ireland should be entitled to the exercise of the franchise. There was no ground for saying that its operation would be to put the name of a single voter on the rate book who was not really

    613
    entitled to have it placed there in case of an assimilation of the law for both countries. He hoped the Bill would be accepted by the House.
    Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    The House divided:—Ayes 99; Noes 125: Majority 26.—(Div. List, No. 118.)
    Words added.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Second Reading put off for six months.

    MARRIAGE PRELIMINARIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Dr. CAMERON, Bill to encourage Regular Marriages in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Dr. CAMERON, Mr. BAXTER, Mr. M'LAREN, Mr. ERNEST NOEL, and Mr. EDWARD JENKINS.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 161.]
    House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock.