The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-28 00:00:00

BILL.

The house went into committee on this bill.
After an observation from Mr. SCULLY,
Clause 1 was agreed to.
On clause 2, appointment of judges,
Mr. SCULLY moved that the judges to be appointed
should not exceed twelve. He objected to an unlimited
power of appointing judges, at salaries of from £3,000 to
£B,OOO a year.
Sir C. WOOD said that at present there were 13 judges,
and this amendment would, if carried, oblige them to re-
duce the number. He could assure the hon. member that
neither the Secretary of State nor his council were anxious
to burthen the country with the expense of too many legal
appointmer ts

Mr. SCU LLY was willing to make the limit 15, but he
must certainly object to an unlimited power of appointment.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY objected to the power proposed
to be given to the Secretary of State to appoint as many
judges as he might think proper.
Mr. VANSITTART wanted to know how the judges
were to be paid and appointed.
After a short discussion, in which Mr. J. B. SMITH and
Mr. HADFIELD took part.
Sir C. WOOD said the object was to make such arrange-
ments under the bill as would ensure speedy justice in In-
dia. He hoped the committee would not tie him down to a
certain number of judges until he had seen how the new
system worked.

The amendment was negatived without a division.
Mr. HADFIELD moved that the word " attornies" be
added to "barristers." He thought that the judges ought
to be selected from both classes of lawyers.
Sir C. WOOD would be very sorry to enter into a discus•
sion on the comparative merits of attornies and barristers.
The law at present included the four classes mentioned in
the bill, and he was anxious not to depart from it.
Mr. HADFIELD hoped the right hon. gentleman would
not oppose to a division so reasonable a proposition as the
amendment which he had asked the committee to agree to.
The amendment was negatived without a division.
Mr, VANSITTART moved to substitute "ten" for
"five" years' standing. He really could not see why bar-
risters should be of a less standing than covenanted civil
servants.
Sir C. WOOD said the qualification was found sufficient
to secure the services of competent persons, and he did not
feel disposed to Make it more stringent.
Mr. SCULLY supported the amendment, but not on the
same grounds as the hon. gentleman had proposed it.
The committee divided—
, For the amendment 4l
Against it 99
Majority —sB
Mr. SCULLY moved an amendment making it impera-
tive that not less than one-half instead of one-third of the
judges should be barristers.
Sir C. WOOD said that his object had been to secure to
the court a due proportion both of lawyers and of civil ser-
vants. It had been proposed that one-third of the court
should consist of lawyers, and two-thirds of civil servants.
He thought the hon. member's proposal would give an un-
due proportion of the legal element to the constitution of
the Supreme Court—(hear)—and he therefore hoped his
hon. friend would not persevere with his amendment.
Mr. J. B. SMITH supported the amendment, and cited
the opinion of an eminent Suddur judge, and of Mr. Haw-
kins, another Suddur judge, in support of the view that it
is of great advantage to a man occupying the position of a
judge to have had a legal education.
Mr. SCULLY, in reply, cited the opinion of the supreme
judge to the same effect.
The motion was negatived without a division.
Mr. ADAM, in line 16, moved to leave out the words
" including the chief justice," the effect of which would be
to leave the office of chief justice open to other than bar-
risters. He contended that it was extremely probable tha t
civilians who had acted as judges, having to deal with
questions of Mahometan and Hindoo law, might be more
qualified to act as supreme judges than barristers. He
trusted this rag of exclusion wouldjnot be kei t up at a time
when throwing open these offices was the general principle
of legislation.
Sir C. WOOD thought it essential for theproper manage-
ment of the court that the chief justice should be a lawyer,
and therefore opposed the amendment.
The amendment was negatived without a division.
Mr. J. B. SMITH moved the addition to the clause of a
' proviso to the effect, that hereafter no member of the civil
service should be appointed a judge of the High Court who
should not have previously undergone a legal training, and,
in support of his amendment, quoted evidence taken before
the colonisation committee to show that in some instances
' men had been -appointed to the bench in India because
they were good for nothing else. This was a high court of
' appeal, and there was therefore the greatest 'necessity that
• the judge should have received a legal training.
Sir C. WOOD said the civil servants always had a con-
' siderable amount of legal training.
The committee divided—

Ayes
Noes . . 120

Majority
On clause 3,
Mr. V. SCULLY moved an amendment enabling any
present judge of a supreme court to resign his office, and
thereupon to become entitled to the same retiring pension
as he would have been entitled to in respect of a full period
of 10 years' service in such supreme court.
Sir C. WOOD could not agree to the proposal, which he
thought unreasonable, and likely to entail a very large and
unnecessary charge on the revenues of India. He did not
believe that any one of the judges in India would hesitate
for a moment to do any additional duties that might be im-
posed upon him by the bill.
The CHAIRMAN decided that the amendment was in-
formal.
The clause was then agreed to.
The remaining clauses were agreed to, and the house re-
sumed.

SUPPLY.—PACKET SERVICE.
The house went into committee of supply on the civil
estimates.
Mr. PEEL explained that he only meant to ask for a vote
on account of the packet service. This was the last night
upon which the money could be granted so as to make it
available for the purpose required. He asked for £250,000.
The vote was agreed to, and the house resumed.
HIGHWAYS BILL.
The committee was postponed until Thursday next.
COURTS OF JUSTICE BUILDING BILL.
On the order for the third reading,

-
Mr. LYGON complained that they were about to sanction
the expenditure of a million and a half of money for build-
ing these concentrated law courts without having as yet de-
cided on the site. Practically the commission had decided
in favour of ground the property of the Incorporated Law
Society ; but two other sites had been submitted, one within
the precincts of Lincoln's• inn, and the other in Lincoln's-
inn-fields. He thought that these two latter should have
fair consideration. Lincoln's-inn-fields belonged to private
proprietors, who proposed that if their land were taken the
proceeds should be devoted to the improvement of the
neighbourhood. lie thought that proposal was entitled to
serious consideration, and therefore ho moved that the bill
be recommitted and the order discharged.
Mr. COWP ER said that the question had received full
consideration. Lincoln's .inn-fields had been approved of in
1842 by Sir C. Barry, but in subsequent years down to 1859
Sir C. Barry gave the preference to the site now proposed.
The great objection to Lincoln's-inn-fields was that the
ground offered was only three acres, whilst the land now
offered contained seven acres. There could not be concen-
tration in Lincoln's-inn• fields, especially as the demands for
space had greatly increased since 1842, when Sir C. Barry
gave his first opinion. They required now an office for the
registration of wills, a matter which was not thought of in
1842, but which was now greatly pressed on the public.
Being partly a private bill, it must be passed then, or it
could not go up to the House of Lords this session. The
house would have an opportunity for discussion on the
Courts of Justice Money Bill.
Aldcrwa4 COPZIAND paid that hllBl2 the proprietors

of Lincoln's-inn-fields had offered five acres. He believed
that the site now proposed could not be purchased for less
than two millions.

Mr. SELWYN said the Government were pressing the
bill forward in a manner calculated to stifle all discussion.
If the house were hastily to pass the bill, they would pre-
vent the adoption, even the consideration, of a speedy, easy,
and inexpensive plan for the accommodation of the Courts of
Equity. In 1859 the Society of Lincoln's.inn offered to pro-
vide from their own funds, upon their own land, sufficient
accommodation for the Courts of Equity, in return for which
all they asked was 4 per cent. upon the money actually ex-
pended by them, the sum so paid to them not to exceed,
under any circumstances, £4,000 a year. The plans had
been prepared and approved by all the equity judges, and
they would have been carried out long ago but for this
gigant* c and visionary scheme of the Government, which
would cost at least £2,000,000. He maintained, moreover,
that the Suitors' Fund should be applied to other purposes
than those of building courts of common law. The present
Lord Chancellor was of the same opinion, and there
could be no doubt, in fact, that the scheme of the Govern-
ment virtually amounted to a confiscation of the Suitors
Fund. If the Bill were recommitted, he should propose
the adoption of the plan submitted by the Society of Lin-
coln's-inn in 1859, and therefore he hoped the house would
agree to the amendment of the hon. member for Tewkes-
bury.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE said that if the Government were to
give the house an assurance that the question of site would
be reconsidered, he should advise his hon. friend to with-
draw his amendment.

Lord PALMERSTON believed it was the general opinion
of the legal profession that it would be an enormous advan-
tage to the public if the plan now proposed were carried out.
There were insurmountable objections to building the
Courts in Lincoln's-inn-fields. If the Courts were erected
there they would occupy a vacant space in a part of the town
where a vacant space was much needed. He doubted,
moreover, whether Lincoln's-inn-fields would be large
enough for the purpose. The loss of time and of money
arising from the present scattered position of the Courts was
well known, and he really hoped the house would not object
to the passing of this bill. If the money bill, which was
the bill that would determine the matter, should not pass,
the whole scheme must fall to the ground ; but the present
bill was necessary in order to enable the Government to
carry out the arrangements provided by the other measure.
The money was to come out of the Suitors' Fund, and it
was only a contingent liability to the public—a liability,
moreover, which he hoped would never be practically felt.
Mr. LYG 0 N said that if the Money Bill were referred to
a select committee, with an instruction to consider the ques •
tion of site, he should have no objection to withdraw his
amendment.

Mr. COWPER stated that a select committee had
already agreed upon a site. He did not know whether the
Money Bill was so drawn that the question of site would
properly come within the order of reference ; but, for his
own part, he should have no objection to the reconsidera..
tion of that matter.
Mr. LYGON said there might be a special preference,
and upon that understanding he begged to withdraw his
amendment.
The amendment was accordingly withdrawn, and the
bill was read a third time and passed.
COURTS OF JUSTICE BUILDING ACT (MONEY)