With the permission of the House, I desire to make a personal explanation, because by to-day's Indian telegrams I see that Professor Gokhlee acknowledges without reservation that he was misled by his correspondents, and that he withdraws his charge against British soldiers engaged in plague operations in Poona. ["Hear, hoar!"] As I was the means of introducing Professor Gokhlee, with other Indian witnesses, to Members of this House in the Conference Room, and thus afforded him an opportunity of making these statements, I desire unreservedly to express my deep regret that, directly or indirectly, I should have aided in giving currency to a charge which proves to have been unfounded. [Cheers.]

If I am in order I should like to ask the hon. Member whether it is also the case that Professor Gokhlee attributes some statements—

Order, order! The hon. Member is not in order in raising a discussion upon a personal explanation.

moved to leave out

"and the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer shall take rank in the Queen's Bench Division next after the Lord Chief Justice,"

and to insert—

"the Lord Chief Justice shall take rank in the Queen's Bench Division next after the Lord Chief Baron."

He failed to understand on what principle the Government had proposed to give the present Lord Chief Justice precedence over the Lord Chief Baron. He himself was not an admirer of the judiciary in Ireland, but he could not conceive how any one who thought the Irish Judges were an honour to the Bench could reconcile himself to seeing, in the event of this amalgamation, the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench taking precedence over the Chief Baron of the Exchequer. Would it be contended that the legal knowledge or the position as a Judge of the present Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench could be placed in competition for a single moment with that of the Chief Baron? [" Hear, hear!"] The Chief Baron had been for 25 years the head of the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, occupying that position when the present Chief Justice was a very insignificant member of the outer Bar. Was this proposal to place the Chief Justice in point of honour and of precedence over the head of the Chief Baron a reward for his zeal on the famous occasion when he wept in Court while defending himself and 14 other Irish traversers who were charged with criminal conspiracy, and when he declared, with the tears coursing down his cheeks, that the accused were the noblest young men whom he had ever known? [Laughter.] Were the Government so grateful to Sir Peter O'Brien for that noble speech, in which he denounced the Government of the day for their oppressive laws and for their infamous prosecutions, that they were now anxious to reward him by giving him this precedence? [Cheers.] At the time of the prosecutions to which he referred he was himself young and innocent enough to imagine that a barrister who was paid his fee for defending prisoners believed all he said, and when Mr. Peter O'Brien—as he then was—described the defendants as gallant young men who were risking their lives in defence of the liberties of their people he was affected, and his emotion was rendered still more intense when he actually observed the tears trickling down the cheeks of his counsel. [Laughter.] But as they grew older many of the illusions of youth passed away, and he lived to hear the same Mr. Peter O'Brien, as Attorney General, five years afterwards in another Government prosecution, denouncing him and other Irishmen as among the most infamous scoundrels who ever lived. [Laughter.]

The hon. Member is aware that if any attack is to be made on a Judge there is a proper way of doing it—by Motion in this House. ["Hear, hear!"] I do not see how the personal question can be brought up on this Amendment. The only question now before the Committee is whether the office of Chief Justice or Chief Baron is to take precedence, and therefore any Debate must be confined to the comparison between the two offices. ["Hear, hear!"]

observed that the Court of Exchequer was to be amalgamated with the Queen's Bench, and the question was whether in that amalgamation the Chief Baron ought to take precedence over the Chief Justice. He was perhaps straying a little from the strict rules of order by old recollections. His contention was that this was essentially and largely a question of the personal standing of the two men. He had had to criticise and condemn the action of the Chief Baron, notably in the Woodford cases, when he thought he sentenced men most unfairly, but undoubtedly his Lordship had the reputation of being one of the greatest lawyers on the Irish Bench, and if his Court was to be amalgamated with that of the Queen's Bench it was only right that he should be given that precedence in rank and position to which his reputation and knowledge as a lawyer and his standing on the Bench plainly entitled him. ["Hear, hear!"] He asked the Government what was their justification for saying that Sir Peter O'Brien should be given precedence over a man who could teach him more law in a fortnight than he had ever learned in the whole course of his life. ["Hear!"]

The last statement of the hon. Gentleman seems distinctly to trench upon the Rules of the House. The hon. Gentleman is now criticising the legal ability of the Chief Justice, and if he desires to take exception to that there is a proper way of bringing the question before the House. It must be done by a distinct Motion; this is not the proper opportunity of raising it. ["Hear, hear!"]

should be glad if it was in his power to bring such a Motion before the House, because he thought he could make out a strong case against the Chief Justice and the whole history of his appointment. He recognised that that was entirely out of order on the present occasion. The Government, however, had brought in a Bill to abolish the position of the Chief Baron by fusing his Court with that of the Queen's Bench, and to place the present occupant of that great office second in rank to his junior in the profession, to his junior on the Bench, and his junior in legal knowledge. The Chief Baron was himself indifferent to this question of precedence and honour, but the Government ought not to take advantage of that to place him in a subordinate position to one who was in every respect his inferior. ["Hear, hear!"] He held that this was a question between persons, and not between offices. He was informed by those having a knowledge of legal matters to which he had no claim that such a proceeding was without precedent in this country or in Ireland. The custom in Judicature Acts had always been to recognise the position of the chief of the Court to be amalgamated until he resigned or died. In these very high offices of State this question of precedence was a matter to which most men attached a good deal of importance, and it was not customary in connection with amalgamation to lower a man from the position of precedence and rank he had occupied for a number of years. The Government said the Chief Baron had raised no objection, and it was to his credit if that was so, but that did not relieve the Government from the responsibility of dealing honestly and fairly with this matter. He did not profess to express the opinion of the Bar, but he believed that this Amendment would give voice to the universal opinion in Ireland of the outside public that the Chief Baron by his long service, his great legal acquirements, and high character in the Court to be amalgamated, was entitled to precedence over a man who could not for a moment compare with him in ability and qualifications.

said the hon. Member had expressed curiosity to know with what arguments the Government could possibly support the proposal against which his Amendment was directed, and in a few sentences he thought he could convince even the hon. Gentleman, notwithstanding the recollections he had introduced into the discussion, that the Amendment was unreasonable. The question was not one as between man and man, it was a question as between one office and another office. At the present time the Lord Chief Justice as such takes precedence over the Chief Baron, and the Government in their Bill simply left this matter as they found it. They had not raised any personal question, but if the Committee were to accept the Amendment that would be precisely the question that would be raised. If the Amendment were adopted the existing Order would be inverted, substituting a new Order and thereby inflicting a very serious slur on the present occupant of the office of Lord Chief Justice. In whose interest was the Amendment proposed? Certainly not in that of the Chief Baron. He assured the Committee that this clause had the full concurrence of the Chief Baron. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member had spoken as if the Government had forced this proposal on the Chief Baron and had forced the immediate amalgamation of the Exchequer Court with the Court of Queen's Bench, but that was altogether wide from the fact. The Government would never have made the proposal if they had not ascertained beforehand that the Chief Baron was perfectly ready and willing to acquiesce in it, and nobody would be more pained by the acceptance of the Amendment than the Chief Baron himself. He hoped the Motion would not be pressed.

thought it was quite evident that the hon. Member for Mayo was simply taking the opportunity of doing what he was always prepared to do—to make an attack on the Judges of Ireland. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] He was sure the Committee were glad that the Chairman's ruling prevented the manŒuvre going to the extent to which no doubt the hon. Member wished to carry it. For many years he had had the honour of knowing both the Judges mentioned, and he could say that if there was one man more than another in the whole profession who would deprecate the Amendment of the hon. Member it was the Lord Chief Baron himself, who he was aware had the greatest possible friendship and admiration for the Lord Chief Justice—[laughter from Nationalist Members]—the greatest possible friendship—intimate friendship and greatest admiration of the Lord Chief Justice for his attainments as a lawyer and a Judge. ["Hear, hear!"] He was perfectly certain that, so far as the Lord Chief Justice was concerned, he would much rather have the words in the Bill giving him his proper precedence struck out than that any proposal of the nature of that suggested by the hon. Member should be entertained. What was the position at the moment of the Lord Chief Justice? As President of the Queen's Bench and as Chief Justice he was chief or head of the common law Bar of Ireland, and this Motion was made, not as against any proposal to take away any precedence the Chief Baron already had, but made with a view to deposing the Lord Chief Justice from the high position he had enjoyed, and it could only be put forward with a view of causing annoyance. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] It was an attempt to give vent to a kind of personal spite against the Lord Chief Justice [Cries of "Order!"]

rose to order. Was it not contrary to the rules of order to accuse a Member of personal spite?

said the hon. Member had not been attacked.

said it was to give vent to personal spite, and the hon. Member knew that from his position the Lord Chief Justice could not answer.

rose to order. Was it order for an hon. Member to attribute motives to another? The right hon. Gentleman had imputed personal spite as the motive for the course the hon. Member had taken. He had always understood it was not in order to impute motives.

It is not in order to impute motives, and if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University has imputed a motive I am sure he will see it is undesirable to do so and will not do so.

said he did not want to impute any personal motive, and, if he had done so, did not in the least wish to persevere. If what he had said bore that construction it would be doing exactly what he deprecated the hon. Member doing in relation to the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland. The only argument he had heard put forward for the Amendment was that one of the Judges was senior to the other, the Chief Baron to the Lord Chief Justice. It was an absolutely ridiculous argument, as the hon. Member must know. As well might it be said that the Lord Chief Justice of England ought to be deposed from his high position because he was one of the junior Judges on the Bench. It was said that one was a better lawyer than the other, but it had never yet been suggested that the position of Judge should be filled up after competitive examination. He had only risen to deprecate these attacks, founded on no substantial ground or argument whatsoever, and he hoped the House would appraise at their true value the characters of Irish Judges as given by hon. Members opposite. ["Hear, hear!"]

said that the question of man against man was really raised by the Bill itself. He did not wish to appraise the respective merits of the Chief Baron and the Lord Chief Justice; that had been long since settled by public opinion and the Bar of Ireland. Here was a senior Judge of great reputation and high standing, and the Government put this indignity upon him of placing over him another Judge, whose qualifications he would not discuss, and which, notwithstanding the absence of competitive examination, had been fairly estimated as not equal to those of the Chief Baron on any point. It was unfair to the Chief Baron to put the alternative before him of agreeing or disagreeing with the Bill. The Amendment of his hon. Friend had the approval of public opinion in Ireland, and if any invidious comparison between one who was a great lawyer and one who was not was raised, it was the Government who had raised the issue in the clause.

said the answer of the Chief Secretary had not convinced him. At present the Chief Baron was head of a Court, and from that position he was to be degraded. He should certainly proceed to a Division.

, who was indistinctly heard, was understood to support the Amendment.

moved in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "one of." This Bill, in its main lines, was not a reform but a job. There were many abuses connected with the judicial system of Ireland, but the greatest abuse was involved in the relation of judicial salaries to the emoluments earned by the leaders of the Bar. So great had been the falling off in legal business in the country and in the general prosperity of the country that, at the present moment, he believed he was well within the mark in saying that there were not six barristers in Ireland earning £2,000 a year. [A laugh.] The leaders of the Bar in Ireland thought themselves well off if they were making £2,000 a year. It was a question of the utmost importance to consider what ought to be the proportion between the salaries of the Judges and the salaries commonly earned by the leaders of the Bar in order to secure for the Judicial Bench the very best talent which the Bar could give. In Ireland, at the present moment, there existed a relation between the salaries of the Judges and the earnings of the barristers such as existed in no other country in the world. If the same relation between the salaries of the Judges and the earnings of the leaders of the Bar were to exist in London as existed at present in Dublin, they would have to raise the salaries of the English Judges to about £15,000 a year. It was perfectly well known that when leaders of the Bar in England accepted Judgeships, they generally consented to a considerable reduction in their incomes. That was perfectly right, because a man accepted a Judgeship for several reasons; he was willing to accept an office giving him a lesser income because he obtained dignity of position, security of position, and an assurance of a good retiring allowance after a certain number of years' service. The terms ought to be sufficient to tempt the best intellects of the Bar, but not such as to permit them to double the incomes they were now making by their profession. The sound principles which obtained in England had been departed from in Ireland. The reason was to be found in the history of the Union and in the whole political history of the country. The educated classes of Ireland had been corrupted—["hear hear!"]—and partly because the salaries of the Irish Judges had been maintained at double the figure which would easily command the best intellect of the Bar of Ireland. That was the main abuse connected with the Judiciary in Ireland. There were in Ireland 17 Judges. Two of them received £2,000 a year, and the others received from £3,500 to £8,000 a year, the latter being the monstrous salary paid to the Lord Chancellor. One would imagine that if the Government found it necessary to abolish any Judgeships they would abolish some of the more highly paid offices. It was evident, however, that this Government had said to themselves, "let us abolish the lower paid Judges, so that we may say to the world that no man can be got to act as a Judge for less than £3,500 a year." That was an admirable idea in the interests of the Bar. The two Bankruptcy Judgeships, to which were attached salaries of £2,000 a year, were to be abolished. When making such a proposal the Government were bound to give the Committee some grounds for the belief that competent men could not be procured to do the work for £2,000 a year. The Bankruptcy Court, in Dublin had existed for a long time, and no one had found fault with it. Judge Boyd was to be transferred to the Queen's Bench Division at a salary of £3,500. Judge Boyd was glad to accept a Judgeship in the Bankruptcy Court at £2,000 ten years ago when he could have no idea that this Bill would be introduced. What had happened in the business of the Bankruptcy Court, or in the general level of the incomes of Irish Barristers, to justify the Government in saying that in future no man could be got to do the duty at, £2,000 a year? He maintained that nothing had happened to justify such an assertion. As a matter of fact, the volume of legal business had decreased, and he did not think the Government were even justified in keeping the number of Irish Judges at that which was contemplated by the Bill.

said that the only two Judgeships in Ireland, apart from the County Courts, which were paid at a salary of £2,000, were the Bankruptcy Judgeships. All the Judges of the High Court received £3,500, and it was for the hon. Member for Mayo to show that that salary was too high. The hon. Member forgot that when Judge Boyd became a Judge of Queen's Bench he would have to deal with the whole of the Bankruptcy business, which, up to the time of Judge Miller's death was shared with that Judge. In the somewhat misplaced anxiety of the hon. Member to reduce the salaries of the Irish Judges he had forgotten the amalgamations and consolidations which were the principal objects of the Bill. Every reformer of the judicial system in Ireland had long been anxious to amalgamate the Bankruptcy Court with the Court of Queen's Bench, but the hon. Member would sacrifice that result merely for the sake of reducing salaries. The Government could not accept the Amendment.

said that the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten that the work of all the Judges in Ireland was decreasing year by year in consequence of diminishing population and litigation. But at no time in the history of the Irish Bench had Irish Judges worked as laboriously as did the Judges in England. Even after the Bill became law the number of Judges in Ireland would be far out of proportion to the number in England. There would be 17 for a population of a little over four millions. On the same scale England would have nearly 140 Judges. Crime and litigation in Ireland, too, were much less than in England relatively to the population. The cost of the administration of the law in Ireland was £2,000,000 a year. On the same scale England would pay £15,000,000 a year. Would not English Members protest against such a charge? Why, then, did they not support Irishmen in their protest? This was a dishonest and "stop-gap" Bill, the object of which was to prevent the carrying out of any real reform.

said that most people were of opinion that there were too many Judges in Ireland, and that the Judges were too highly paid. [Nationalist cheers.] When the Chief Secretary found hon. Members opposite in the mood to assist in reducing the Irish Bench he was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not avail himself of the opportunity. [Nationalist cheers.]

said that the hon. Member for Stoke spoke no doubt with an intimate knowledge of the internal condition of Ireland, and his statements as to the overmanning of the Bench were most interesting. [Laughter.] He wished to state emphatically—and he had no personal interest in the matter—that this Bill reduced the number of Irish Judges to the very extreme limit possible under existing circumstances. Any further reduction would require the repeal of every single Act of Parliament at present regulating the judicial system in Ireland. The whole of the circuit system would have to be altered, and the system of summoning jurors, who at present were often brought from inconvenient distances. In addition, the real business of the country people of Ireland—the civil bill appeals—would have to be left undone. That was an almost perfect system for the poor. It enabled every case heard before a Connty Court, on the mere service of notice, to be taken before a Judge of a High Court sitting on the spot, and rehearing all the evidence. There were 4,000 or 5,000 of those cases every year. When hon. Members demanded a further reduction in the number of Judges did they wish to interfere with that system? Then a change would have to be made in the Court of Appeal in Ireland. That would be most undesirable, because a strong Court of Appeal was very necessary in Ireland, Irish suitors not being able to afford an appeal to the House of Lords. If the duties of the Bench were still further subdivided it would no longer be possible to have more than occasional sittings of the Court of Appeal. To his mind nothing could be more calamitous than to so alter the system of judicature as to take away any of the existing advantages that were to be gained by having a strong appellate tribunal sitting in Dublin. The argument derived from relative population was not a fair test. Take, for instance, the Appeal Court. There was one Appeal Court in Ireland, and only two in London; but they could not therefore say the Court of Appeal in Ireland ought to be abolished. Whatever the number of cases that came before them, it was absolutely necessary the Court of Appeal should be there for such cases as arose. As to the question of the relative incomes made by Irish barristers and the salaries of Irish Judges, he entirely joined issue with the figures of the hon. Member for East Mayo. He did not believe that the incomes of the Irish Bar had been reduced to the figures cited. At all events, if they had, he could state positively that it must be within the last three or four years, because when he was more intimately acquainted with the Irish Bar, there certainly were a very large number of men in Dublin who were making sums equal to the salaries that were given to the Irish Judges in the superior Courts—£3,500 a year—and he believed at the present time there were several men who were making incomes in advance of the salaries given to the Judges. The comparison of England and Ireland was a most unfortunate one, and for this reason, that they did get at the Irish Bar the best talent and the most successful for the incomes that were by statute given to the Judges. That they did not get at the English Bar, and without in the least degree wishing to make any invidious comparisons, he did not think that the majority of the Judges who were appointed in England were men who make any great sacrifice in relation to their incomes when they go on the Bench. [AN HON. MEMBER:"£12,000 or £15,000 a year!"] These were not men who took Puisne Judgeships. And when he cast his mind over the more recent appointments, if their incomes were to be tested, the House would be amazed at the incomes of some of the men who had been promoted. He would also say that, in his opinion, appointments to the Bench ought to have no relationship to the income a man was making at the Bar. It did not follow that because a man was making a large income at the Bar he was therefore the most suitable man for the Bench. That was a statement which any lawyer would entirely agree with. On the grounds he had indicated, he saw no justification for the attack made, whether on the salaries or on the number of Judges as they would be after the Bill was passed; and, for his own part, he suggested that in this matter of maintaining the Irish Bench, its high position and its great traditions, it was not for this House to be considering in any niggardly or cheeseparing way whether they were to add on this or take away that from a great institution which had hitherto worked well in Ireland. He would recommend his hon. Friend, before he again gave the House his interesting opinions, to make himself a little more acquainted with the institution which he had ventured to attack.

said the right hon. and learned Gentleman was always ready to sneer either at a fellow-countryman or any English Members who had the courage to utter a word of sympathy with Ireland. [Nationalist cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman had made a very able speech in defence of his brethren of the Bar in Ireland, and had lauded them to the skies at the expense of Members of the same profession in England. He seemed to forget that one of the greatest Judges, Chief Justice Whitehead, once said of the Irish Bar that it was one of the most corrupt professions in the world. If the present number of Judges in this great country, with its teeming population and its enormous trade and commerce, could carry on the administration, why could not a number of Judges relative to the population and the trade and commerce of Ireland do similar work? The number of Judges in Ireland ought to be cut down to ten or eight. That would be quite enough to carry on the Courts in Ireland if Irish Judges attended to their work like English Judges, and did not do so much political work for the right hon. Gentleman and men of his political party. [Cheers.] And if the profession of the Bar in Ireland was so profitable, why had the right hon. Gentleman fled the country and come over here? [Cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman's presence here in England and his speech were ample proof that they were entitled to cut down the number of Judges in Ireland.

supported the Amendment, and pointed out that at the present moment the Irish Judges had been going round and getting white gloves all over the country, so little had they to do at the assizes. The Chief Secretary seemed to forget that there had been a great devolution of bankruptcy business in Ireland, and that since the establishment of local Courts in Cork and Belfast, a large amount of work hitherto done by the Superior Courts in Bankruptcy in Dublin had vanished. If there was to be a reform of the judiciary system, it would be this, that Judge Boyd be retained in his present position as a single Judge of the Court of Bankruptcy and at the same salary, and that vacancies in the Court of Queen's Bench should not be filled up; that would be a saving of three of the higher positions, and a salary of £2,000 would be ample to recompense any Judge in transacting that business. He showed that on the basis of population there was an excess of £163,000 in the legal salaries of Ireland as compared with those in this country. He had been informed by one well acquainted with the Irish Bar that over 90 per cent. of those practising would be glad to take a County Court Judgeship.

could not admit the correctness of the Chief Secretary's statement that Judge Boyd would have to do the work of two Judges. He had seen it stated in a Dublin newspaper the other day that the Recorder of Antrim and Belfast discharged more Bankruptcy Court business than the Bankruptcy Judge in Dublin. His salary was less than £2,000; but here it was proposed to raise the salary of the Bankruptcy Court Judge to £3,500. If the Government would agree to the suggestion that Judge Boyd should come into the Queen's Bench at £2,000, and that the salaries of future Puisne Judges should be £2,000, his objection would be withdrawn. But he objected to a system whereby, under the guise of a Reform Bill, the Government were really perpetrating a job.

commented on the discrepancy between the view of the Chief Secretary and the intention of the Bill. The Chief Secretary had stated that the main object of the Bill was to effect a consolidation of courts and offices in Dublin, but the intention of the Bill was to reduce the admittedly extravagant expenditure of the Irish judiciary.

advised the Government to bring forward a substantial reform, and not tinkering legislation like this. It appeared to him that Ireland was eaten up with Judges. [Laughter.] The Chief Secretary for Ireland made a remark with which he agreed—that if you impose extra work on a man you ought to give him extra pay. If Judge Boyd was fit to do double work and get double pay, they had either given him far too little work to do hitherto, or they were going to work him to death in the future. They had been told, however, that the work of the Judges in Ireland was falling off considerably, and to double the pay of one of them was simply monstrous. It was not fair that Ireland should be burdened with these heavy charges and with this excessive number of Judges, and it appeared to him that the whole business was very much like a political job—as though they were keeping a place warm for some younger man. [Irish cheers. He should certainly vote with the hon. Member for East Mayo if he went to a Division.

moved to omit Sub-section (2). He said the House had been condemned to a forlorn and dreary afternoon sitting for the purpose of rewarding Judge Boyd by an addition of £1,500 to his salary, and he did not think hon. Members, when they went home to dinner, would be able to reflect that they had done very much useful public service that day. ["Hear, hear!"] He maintained that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had not, up to that moment, attempted to give a single reason why Judge Boyd should be paid £3,500 a year for doing what he had been doing for two years for £2,000 a year. He did not believe that it was proposed to throw any additional work upon Judge Boyd. Nothing of the kind. Either he had not had sufficient work to occupy his time in the past, or—as he believed was the fact—the business of his Court had decreased so much that one Judge was perfectly able to do it. As he had pointed out, the wording of the subsequent section—which said that the Lord Lieutenant should assign one Judge of the Court of Queen's Bench in future to do the work of the Bankruptcy Court, while Section (4) provided that this Judge should have all the powers of the Bankruptcy Court—was sufficient to show that the Government expected—no doubt on good information—that one Judge would be enough to do all the Bankruptcy business. Did the Government mean to tell them that they were going to ask one man to do two men's work? He never heard of a Judge doing two men's work in Ireland, and he did not believe it would ever be done there. He did not believe there was a shadow of justification for this increase of Judge Boyd's salary unless it were to be in the shape of a reward for political services. That was the ground of his objection to the whole Bill, and especially to this section—that it proposed to increase the salary of Judges in Ireland without any excuse whatever, and that it therefore came within the definition of a political job. [Irish cheers.] They heard the other day a statement made in reference to Judge Boyd, when mention was made of his great services in defending Mr. William O'Brien—though he could hardly see why that should be stated as a claim for his promotion as an Irish Judge. No doubt he had on a certain occasion ably defended Mr. William O'Brien from the attacks made upon him by a gang of men then located at Dublin Castle. But he could hardly fancy that was the reason for rewarding him, for he found that this gentleman, who was held up to the admiration of the House of Commons for his able conduct as an advocate in defending Mr. O'Brien, within two months took a brief for Mr. French, the leader of this Dublin gang, whom he defended with the same fidelity and ability as he had displayed on behalf of Mr. O'Brien, and in the course of defending Mr. French denounced his former client in the most scandalous manner. [Laughter.] Seeing that, as counsel for Mr. O'Brien, the infamous character of Mr. French must have come to his knowledge, it did appear to be rather a singular thing that he should have afterwards taken up the defence of Mr. French. He had himself but little doubt that the action of the Government in regard to Judge Boyd was based on the fact that he placed his Court at the service of Dublin Castle when it was wished to imprison men who had won the confidence of the Nationalist Party. Unfortunately in Ireland the Bench was manned by political partisans, and that evil was not likely to be remedied as long as there were such high judicial salaries to tempt the Irish Bar.

said that he did not intend to occupy any time by a defence of Judge Boyd, who was an eminent Judge requiring no defence at his hands. But the hon. Member charged the Government with attempting to perpetrate a job in favour of an individual member of the Bench. If the hon. Member referred to the proposal to give an increased salary to that individual, he would point out to him that a Bill was not necessary for the purpose, and that there was not the slightest ground for supposing that the failure of this Bill to pass would in any way injure the prospects of Judge Boyd. The only result of the failure of the Bill would be to perpetuate what was admitted to be an undesirable state of things in connection with the Irish Bench. But the chief reason for his rising was to say that the Government could not ask the House of Commons to sit for an indefinite period. ["Hear, hear!"] He was himself most anxious that the Bill should pass, and he did not suppose that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite really desired to kill it. But they were pursuing a course which must have that result. Unless the Bill could be got through Committee that day, hon. Members must know that it could not survive, having regard to the period of the Session which had been reached. He therefore would ask hon. Members to assist the Government to pass the Measure through the present stage. If impediments were to be put in the way, there would be no probability of their being able to complete this legislation this Session, nor, as far as he could see, in the course of any near Session. The responsibility must rest upon those who took the course to which he was referring. A large part of the Debate had turned upon the question of Judge Boyd's salary, and he thought that question had now been threshed out. If the hon. Member for East Mayo would consent to take a Division now, they might, he believed, dispose of the remaining Amendments in a brief time. But if a Division were not taken without further delay, he could not hold out any prospects to the House and the hon. Member that he would be able to find the necessary time for completing the Bill. [Cheers.]

opposed the Amendment. The purpose of the Bill was to effect economies, and one of the economies proposed was the abolition of the office of Judge of the Court of Bankruptcy and the inclusion of that Court in the Queen's Bench Division. That seemed to him, in the circumstances of the case, to be a very rational purpose. ["Hear, hear!"] The rejection of the words referring to Judge Boyd would not prevent him from getting any appointment that the Government chose to give him. The Amendment, therefore, would fail to prevent this particular gentleman from obtaining promotion.

said that he objected to the Bill because it was a stop-gap Measure which would prevent any real reform in the judiciary of Ireland for many years. The Irish Bench was greatly overmanned, and the demand for a reform was not satisfied by the proposed small reduction in the number of Judges. To bring the number of Irish Judges into proportion with the number of Judges in England the former would have to be reduced by ten or more. The sum thus saved would be of some use to Ireland. He objected to the proposed increase of Judge Boyd's salary because, in his opinion, all the Irish Judges were overpaid, and he believed it was admitted that Judge Boyd had less work to do now than when he was first made a Judge in the Bankruptcy Court. Since then there had been some devolution of his work. The Recorder of Belfast, he understood, performed part of it. Judges in Ireland did not work on nearly as many days in the year as the English Judges did.

reminded the hon. Member that as a result of the abolition of the Bankruptcy Judgeship £2,000 a year would be saved, and would be devoted to useful purposes in Ireland.

said that he should always refuse to be influenced by such considerations. What had hon. Members, who made so much of such paltry sums, as £2,000 and £3,000, to say about the millions that had been stolen from Ireland by this country. [Cries of "Oh!" and "Hear, hear!"]

moved at the end of the clause to add:—

(3) A solicitor shall have the same right of audience in all proceedings in bankruptcy, as before the passing of this Act.

He said that the Incorporated Law Society were very anxious, to have this Amendment carried. They thought that when the amalgamation took place there might be some doubt as to whether the right of audience was preserved, and it was in order to make the matter clear that he had put down the Amendment.

moved to omit from that part of Sub-section (1) which refers to Judge Boyd, the words "he shall not," and insert "neither he nor any Judge subsequently assigned as aforesaid shall."

moved at the end of Sub-section (1) to add,—

"but this provision shall not apply to any Judge, appointed before the passing of this Act, without his own consent."

moved in Sub-section (3) after "assignees," to insert "and their staff."

said that he understood that considerable alarm was felt amongst the staff of the official assignees as to what their position would be in the event of one of the official assignees being abolished.

said he was afraid the Government could not accept the Amendment.

thought it was a very hard case. The Government went out of their way to put in special words to protect the official assignees, but their unfortunate assistants, some of whom had been 15 or 20 years in the Service, were left out. Was that common justice? If they were going outside the technical definition of an officer of the Court in order to protect the official assignees, why should the staff be left out?

said that part of the staff, if not the whole, were appointed by the official assignees themselves. They were not public servants.

asked if the office of one of the official assignees was abolished, were the Government going to turn adrift without compensation the unfortunate subordinates of that officer? While they went out of their way to safeguard the official assignee, were they going to leave him with five or six clerks in the deplorable condition of expecting to be kicked out of office without any compensation?

said that several Acts of Parliament recognised the official assignee as an official of the Court for certain purposes, and this clause was put in to make it clear that every person attached to the Court in the service of the Crown would be covered by the words "subordinate persons." The official assignees had the power to employ for their own purposes certain assistants, who were in no way Government officials. They were simply private servants of the official assignees.

Is not the official assignee paid in exactly the same way his staff is?

No, certainly not. His staff is paid by him out of his own pocket.

said he knew there was a good deal of feeling about this matter amongst the clerks, and really, although they might be paid in a particular way, they were in reality servants of the Court of Bankruptcy, and some of them very efficient servants. He did not want the Government to put these men in a better position than they were in before, but he was very anxious they should not suffer from amalgamation. He would ask whether his right hon. Friend could not put in some words to secure that they should not find themselves in a worse position than they were before.

said he thought that such a provision would be absolutely without precedent, but he would consider between this and Report if anything could be done.

said this was a matter in which there was certainly room for improvement in the existing system. In certain branches of the public Services, there was a system of farming out clerical work. ["Hear, hear!"] There were a number of men who were in all respects practically Civil Servants, but this system placed them absolutely under the control of the man who hired them. They were the clerks of a man who was allowed a certain amount of public money for the purpose of providing clerks. The result was that there was a sweating system in the public service. ["Hear, hear!"] He was afraid it would not do to place them upon the staff of the legal establishment, because they had not undertaken those tests or complied with those conditions which are de rigeur to men in the Civil Service proper. He thought the suggestion that the Chief Secretary should consider before Report a way of protecting these men who had given such long and faithful service, a good one. ["Hear, hear!"]

said that on the understanding that the Government would consider the matter he would withdraw the Amendment.

moved to insert after the word "entitled" in Sub-section (6) the words "in the High Court of Justice in Ireland, Queen's Bench Division." He said that this Amendment was also asked for by the Incorporated Law Society.

moved to report progress. He protested against the management of the business of the House, and against hon. Members being brought down to the House on a Saturday afternoon to discuss a Bill of this important character in a ridiculously small House. It seemed to him that the business of the House was so managed that they had to work when they ought to be at leisure, and were at leisure when they ought to be working.

said it was quite out of the question that the Government should accede to this Motion.

hoped the hon. Member would not persist in his Motion. ["Hear, hear!"] He had himself complained of the conduct of business, but what he had insisted on was that the Irish Members should have a fair opportunity for discussing this Bill. The Government had given them a fair opportunity, and they had been beaten. He therefore hoped the progress of the Bill would not be interrupted. ["Hear, hear!"]

moved in Sub-section (1) to leave out all the words after "effect" to the end of the Sub-section.

moved the following new clause in the place of Clause 13:—

(1.) An annual sum equal to the salary attached to any judgeship which by or in pursuance of this Act is abolished or left vacant shall, in the case of a salary payable out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, continue to be charged on and paid out of that fund or the growing produce thereof, and, in the case of a salary payable out of money provided by Parliament, continue to be paid out of money so provided, and shall in either case be carried by the Treasury to a separate account and be applied to such Irish purposes as Parliament may from time to time direct.

(2.) The Treasury shall also at the end of each financial year out of money provided by Parliament carry to the same account a sum equal to the net savings which in the opinion of the Treasury have been effected during that year by the abolition or consolidation of offices in pursuance of this Act, and the sum so carried shall be applied to such purposes as aforesaid.

He said the clause was intended to secure to Ireland not merely the direct payments that would result from the Bill, but also the indirect payments expected to result from the consolidation of offices. He explained on the Second Reading that he did not see his way to make this concession, because it was impossible to say what indirect savings would be effected. He had, however, been in communication with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he thought this clause would meet the case. It would leave it to the Treasury to decide every year what the amount was. It was a very large concession, and it was to be clearly understood that it was not to be made a precedent.

moved the following new clause:—

said he would advise hon. Members to compare the Irish Bench in respect of number and salaries with the Scotch Bench. It had been suggested that the number of Judges, should be settled in proportion to population, but that was impossible. Under this Bill there would be 17 Judges in Ireland, including the Land Commission Judge and the Judge of the Land Court. In Scotland, with a smaller population, the number of Judges was 13, and if the two Judges of the Courts in Ireland he had mentioned, which did not exist in Scotland, were subtracted from the 17 Irish Judges, there remained 15 Judges in Ireland, against 13 in Scotland. As regarded salaries, all the Judges in Scotland were in receipt of salaries of not less than £3,600, and in Scotland no superior Judge was in receipt of a salary so low as that of a Puisne Judge in Ireland.

pointed out that there was a Lord Chancellor of Ireland who drew £8,000 a year, and who, if he retired from office, after even only three or four months' service, still received £4,000 a year. The Irish Members held that this was a very insufficient Measure. It merely touched the fringe of the question. He hoped that some more pure-minded Government than the present—[ironical laughter]—would take in hand the important question of the corruption of the Irish Bar and the over-paying of the Irish Bench.

said that, while Ireland had 17 Judges, Scotland had only 13. Ireland paid in Judges' salaries and law costs £49,000 a year, and he questioned whether Scotland had to pay as much. Besides, Scotland had its own judicial system. The Judges were not political hacks, but were men in sympathy with the feelings of the Scotch people.

That is not so. [Laughter.]

said that of course he should bow to the opinion of a Scotch Member on the point. He doubted that the Scotch Judges were as bad in those respects as the Irish Judges, but if they were the people of Scotland had his sincere sympathy.

pointed out that in Belgium, a self-governing country, there were only 15 Judges, the combined salaries of whom amounted to only £6,000, while in Ireland they had to pay £8,000 for the Lord Chancellor alone.

said that ten years ago the Scotch Bench was, in the matter of salaries, levelled up to the Irish Bench; and very properly so, for the salaries of the Scotch Judges were so low that men at the Bar were doing better than the Judges.

said he foresaw that complications might arise in regard to this Bill. He quite agreed that there was a difference in defining "criminal," but he was sorry the Lord Advocate had not accepted the Amendment he had previously moved, dealing with this point. There was another point as to the jurisdiction conferred on the sheriffs in regard to the warrants. He did not propose, however, to oppose the Third Reading.