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
appointments.
Mr. SCULLY 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. HAIIFIELII 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 sea 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 boa. member's proposal would give an un-
due proportion of the legal element to the constitution of
the Supreme Court—(heat)—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 would!not be ker 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 cf legal training.
The committee divided—

Ayes
Noes
Majority . -115
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 be
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.