Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 May 1947

Vol. 106 No. 7

Courts of Justice Bill, 1947 — Second Stage.

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The object of the Bill is to provide for an increase in the remuneration of judges and district justices; to provide for a reorganisation of the Circuit Courts by the establishment of the office of president the holder of which will be vested with certain duties of an administrative character, and to enable an additional Circuit Court judge to be appointed, the appointment to be in the nature of an ad hoc appointment. I do not think there is need to say very much on the matter of increased remuneration for judges and district justices. The policy of the Government in granting increases to other classes of public servants is being followed. The percentages vary from 15 per cent. in the case of judges of the Supreme Court, to 30 per cent. in the case of district justices. That is in accordance with Government policy because the lower-paid public servants have got a bigger percentage increase in their salaries than those in the higher ranks.

Part III of the Bill is the most important part. I think that those with. experience of the courts will agree that there was a necessity for this reorganisation of the Circuit Courts. At present there is no head of the Circuit Courts as there is of the High Courts. Each circuit was independent. It so happened that in some circuits the work was light while in others it was unduly heavy. It is hoped to regulate that by the appointment of a president of the Circuit Courts. He will have the light to examine the position in each circuit and can arrange for a judge in a circuit where the work is light to give help in a circuit where the work is heavy. That will ease the position and do away with the necessity for appointing temporary Circuit Court judges. The president will also be in a position to fix the places in which courts may be held. I often get complaints that there are certain towns in which no Circuit Court is held. In these cases, I am always reluctant to do more than draw the attention of the judge in question to the matter. Under this Bill the president can consult with the Circuit Court judge and will probably see that more satisfactory arrangements are made to have courts held if there is a case for holding them.

It might be said perhaps that a redistribution of the circuits would be sufficient. Deputies, I am sure, will realise that that might not have the desired effect. It could, for example, happen that in a small geographical area there might be a very big lot of work to be done. There is power to rearrange circuits, but I am relying mainly on the power which the president will have to get judges who have not a great lot of work to do to help those who have. In order to enhance the position of the president of the Circuit Courts he will have the same status as a judge of the High Court and with the same emoluments. That will have this additional advantage, that if, say, a couple of High Court judges were ill he could be called on to help in the High Court. At present there is no power to appoint a temporary High Court judge. Under this Bill, if it became necessary to provide an extra judge in the High Court, the president of the Circuit Court could be asked to help. I think that would be an advantage.

With regard to the additional judge, during the past four years we have been appointing continuously one, judge in a temporary capacity. A couple of years ago there was a point raised about that on the Estimate for my Department. Deputies said that it was a bad practice to be appointing temporary judges if it could be avoided. We do not see any hope in the immediate future, of a lessening of the work in Dublin, and, consequently, we are proposing in this Bill to enable this judge to be made permanent. At present we have power to appoint ten Circuit Court judges and power now to appoint 11. That power will pass, either when this judge's term of office expires or if the work becomes easier in the different circuits and he is assigned to a permanent circuit. There will be no further power to appoint 11 judges. I hope, as I say, that by the redistribution of the work that that will not be necessary.

Under a power which was given in 1931, the judges of the Circuit Court can remain on until they are 72. I think that is too old for a Circuit Court judge, particularly in view of the amount of travelling they have to do. I think that they should retire at 70, and that is the provision in the Bill. We are safeguarding the position of the existing judges. They will not have to retire until they reach the age of 72. The Government are satisfied that a Circuit Court judg3 ought to retire at the age of 70.

I now come to the matter of pensions for district justices dealt, with in Section 18. The object there is to put those district Justices who were in office at the time of the enactment of the Courts of Justice Act, 1936, and who are still in office, in precisely the same position, in the matter of pension rights, as county registrars and certain other court officers were put in under the Court Officers Act, 1945. Under Section 48 of the 1936 Act those justices were given the right to elect between the Superannuation Act (or Civil Service) pension terms which they had enjoyed up to then, and the new "judicial" terms provided for in Section 48. The justices were required to make this election within three months of the passing of the 1936 Act. When similar provisions as regards the pension rights of county registrars were being enacted in 1945, the county registrars were given the right to make their election at any time before they retired from office. This was an advantage, and the justices have represented that they should be accorded similar treatment.

I did not quite catch what the Minister said.

Mr. Boland

Under Section 48 of the 1936 Act certain justices were given the right to elect between having the Civil Service rate of pension, which they had up to then, or the judicial rate, which meant two-thirds of their salaries. Under the Civil Service rate they got half their salary on retirement with a lump sum representing one year's salary. Those who elected to continue on the Civil Service terms were given the right to a 10 per cent. addition to their pensions. They were given only three months in which to come to a decision on that. Some decided to remain as they were and others decided to adopt the new rates that were brought in under the Court Officers Act. That Act provided that county registrars could defer coming to a decision as to which scheme they would adopt until they were about to retire: that is, whether they would take the Civil Service terms with a year's salary or two-thirds of their salary without any lump sum. The district justices are now being given the right which was given to county registrars under the 1945 Act.

There is not a whole lot to be said on this Bill so far as its general principles are concerned. In dealing with the Bill, which has relation to judicial officers, it is not easy to speak on it in general terms or in such a way that it might not, however remote the intentions of the speaker, be taken as referring to particular individuals. I should have liked if the Minister had given some figure to show how much, in actual cash yearly, the increases to the judges will mean under this Bill.

Mr. Boland

I think F can give that. In the case of the Supreme Court, the increase will be 15 per cent.

I want the total increased cost. If the Minister has not got the figure, it will do later. I merely wish to have on record the precise amount of the increase in the public charge which will be effected by this Bill. My reason in doing so is not to direct the attention of the public to the amount of the charge, but to emphasise how small the amount is. I pass over the temptation of referring to the famous circular of the Fianna Fáil Party in 1932 which paraded throughout the length and breadth of the country the huge amount of the judicial salaries. I believe that judicial salaries were fixed at too small amounts originally. They were paraded for political purposes, and I am glad to see now that the Government has learned its lesson and has appreciated at last the fact that people in judicial positions must be paid salaries adequate to the functions that they have to fulfil and the situations of dignity, honour, integrity and independence which they occupy.

The only other matter that I wish to refer to in connection with the question of salary is the amount of the increase that is being given to district justices. I think it would probably be agreed by all sections of the House that the district justices have not been treated over generously in the increases that they have been granted. I would ask the Minister to reconsider the amount that is being granted to district justices and to take into account the fact that they have arduous duties to perform, particularly those in the country. They have long journeys to travel and in the winter time travelling makes calls upon their health and upon their energies which may eventually affect the length of their lives or the length of their holding of the judicial office. It is a matter that is pretty well known that a number of district justices have been quite unable in recent times to carry on in the conditions in which they are expected to carry on having regard to the office that they hold and that home of them have found themselves in circumstances of financial difficulty. As I have said, I think the Minister would find all Parties in this House supporting him in giving some little addition to all the district justices and more particularly the district justices in the country. It is a little difficult to understand why certain of the justices in the Dublin District Court should have a little more in salary than the justices in the City of Cork or even those in the country. I would like to know from the Minister why it is that some flat rate, say of £1,500 a year, could net be fixed for all district justices throughout the country, whether they are in Dublin or in the country.

The matter of pensions of district justices is one on which I would also like a little further elucidation from the Minister, not so much, on what is contained in the Bill, as on what is not contained in the Bill. As I understand it, a number of these district justices— not many; I think not more than two or, at the outside, three — have already retired and their pension has been fixed on the remuneration which they obtained before the increase which it is proposed to grant under this measure could have been granted. In common fairness and justice, those two or three district justices who have retired should be given an increase in the superannuation allowance commensurate with the increase that it is proposed to give in this measure.

There is another matter, which would apply to all holders of judicial office, which I commend to the Minister for his consideration. It is the matter of pensions for the holders of judicial office. At the present time, as the Minister,, of course, is aware, the pension in respect of a judicial office is fixed at two-thirds of the salary at the date of retirement. That pension has to be earned over a long period of years. Most people who are appointed to judicial office reach that position when they are somewhat elderly. In the ordinary course of human affairs, many of them drop by the way, although the life of judges is well known to be peculiarly long. Nevertheless, some of them die in office and the effect upon their families of their death before they have earned their pensions may be very disastrous indeed. I would ask the Minister to consider whether it would not be possible to have a scheme somewhat analogous to the system under the Superannuation Acts for Civil Servants which would provide for judges who die in harness that there should be given to their dependents a sum equivalent to a year's salary. The Minister will appreciate that I am making these observations on behalf of the judicial personages purely from motives of altruism.

The really important and difficult part of this Bill is that part which deals with the proposals for granting to the president of the Circuit Court new administrative functions. I must confess that I have feelings of great uneasiness about these proposals. I recognise that there should be some system by which the work of the Circuit Court should be harmonised and the public interest secured by seeing that sittings of the Circuit Court take place regularly and take place at the most convenient centres from the point of view of the litigants and witnesses within the ambit of each area covered by a Circuit judge, but I cannot help feeling a certain degree of uneasiness in regard to the somewhat dictatorial in a particular individual, the president of the Circuit Court.

At the outset I said it was difficult to speak of a measure of this kind without somebody reading into some remarks that might be made reference to particular individuals. I want to emphasise that I am speaking as if there were at the present time no Circuit judge yet appointed. There are numbers of the present occupants of the Circuit Court for whom I entertain the highest feelings of respect, and there are some for whom I have the highest feelings of admiration. There are a few who would be competent for the position of a High Court judge. It would be invidious for me to refer to particular individuals whom I have in my mind. I make the remark merely for the purpose of divorcing anything I have to say by way, not of criticism but of comment, on the proposals in this Bill from any particular personality or individual.

I have a grave feeling that some of these proposals, if they do not actually infringe the provisions of the Constitution, go dangerously close to it. I have made it a rule that, so far as I am concerned in this House, I will express no personal opinion upon whether a particular legislative proposal contained in a Bill which comes before the House is or is not constitutional. With that self-imposed duty. I approach this matter and ask the Minister gravely to consider, and to, secure from his advisers an opinion, as to whether some of these proposals are not unconstitutional. While there are some of the Circuit Court judges. who are 61 High Court, or even one or two who are of Supreme Court calibre, I object to the proposal to confer upon the new president of the Circuit Court the status and functions of a High Court judge.

When I read the proposals first, my instinct reacted completely against that proposal. The more I think of it and the more I have thought of it since, the more convinced I am that it is a highly dangerous, not to say, an improper proposal. I did fear that what was really at the back of the proposal was not to enhance the dignity of the Circuit Court but to enable the Department of Finance to do what the Minister himself has said it is proposed to do, namely, to utilise the president of the Circuit Court as an additional High Court judge to do the work. I think that dangerously encroaches upon the constitutional provisions in reference to the judiciary and, even if, it does not, I think it is a bad principal. It is a bad principle that a member of the Circuit Court which, under the Constitution, is a court of local and limited jurisdiction, should have a member who is at the same time a High Court judge with full original jurisdiction, even on matters affecting questions as to whether or not any law infringes the Constitution.

I think it is wrong that this man who, in the ordinary course of his duties will be dealing with cases of local jurisdiction and limited jurisdiction, should sit on appeals from his colleagues in the Circuit Court. It is equally invidious, in my view, and contrary to the dignity both of the Circuit Court and of the High Court, that those persons who may be intermittently his colleagues in the High Court should be hearing appeals from his decisions in his capacity as a Circuit Court judge. I can find no reason for this particular proposal. I do not think it enhances the dignity of the office. On the contrary, it may very well derogate from the dignity both of the High Court and of the Circuit Court. I have no objection to the salary proposed to be given to the holder of the office. Coupled with the newly-created office of president, it should be sufficient to mark him as outstanding and as head of that particular portion of the judicial system which is known as the Circuit Court.

I happened to have some little contact with those who were engaged in planning the composition of the new courts prior to the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, and I do know that the whole idea of the architects of our new judicial system was that each of these compartments to be erected in the new judicial Structure should be separate and self-contained. The Supreme Court should be set apart from the High Court, thereby emphasising that it was the final court of this country. The High Court was set apart from the inferior courts and was given full original jurisdiction, with appeals prescribed by law and by the Constitution, to the Supreme Court. It is to be noted, in passing, that while the President of the High Court was appointed and given that position of pre-eminence among his colleagues in the High Court, there were no provisions of detail such as are contained in the present measure, Part III, providing that he should have powers of a dictatorial kind over his colleagues in the High Court. He has the direction of the business of the High Court, but it is assumed and very properly assumed that those people who fill the high office of High Court judges will be so mindful of their public duties and functions that they will work in harmony together and consult together with the President of the High Court as to the particular allocation of their duties between them and the manner in which they shall severally perform their judicial functions. That has worked well. I would commend to the Minister a similar system for the Circuit Court.

I have interpolated these remarks into the framework of what I was saying in reference to the president of the Circuit Court being a member of the High Court. The judicial system requires, in its concept and in its practice, that these various judicial structures should be separate and self-contained. The High Court should be separate from the Supreme Court and so also it was conceived that the Supreme Court should be separate from the High Court and the District Court separate from the Circuit Court. So insistent on this concept of the judicial architecture was the late Chief Justice Kennedy, that he would not, so far as he could affect the matter, allow that any of the buildings either of the Circuit Court or the District Court should come within the ambit of the buildings which housed the High Court and the Supreme Court. This Part III, in my view, infringes entirely that concept and that principle. If there is to be a president of the Circuit Court with the status of a High Court judge, why not a president of the District Court with the status of a Circuit Court judge, to be carried in from time to time, as occasion may require, as journeyman to do Circuit judges' work and to hear appeals from his colleagues in the District Court?

In my view, the principle is bad. I can see no useful purpose to be attained by it, except possibly what the Minister has said and what I conceive to be the real reason for this provision, that there should be an additional judge who should be asked to work in the High Court and so possibly save the expense of appointing another judge if the work required it. The principle is entirely bad and is wholly unjustifiable. The president of the Circuit Court will bring to the dignity of his office as much honour as he shall, by his conduct in his position, achieve and merit; and the mere fact that he is a High Court judge doing journeyman work — hearing in the High Court, possibly, Circuit Court appeals from his colleagues — will tend to lessen the respect that will be given to him and will derogate from the status and dignity of the position he holds and the court of which he is the titular and the actual head

I ask the Minister very seriously to consider withdrawing this provision. I feel that perhaps I should, even at the risk of being charged with the offence or repetition, reiterate that — I am speaking entirely apart from personalities — there are those in the Circuit Court whom I should like to see as full members, permanent members, of the High Court. I am looking at this problem and these proposals as if they came for the first time when new Circuit Courts were being set up. I think it is worth while keeping apart functions of the High Court, the Circuit Court and District Court. The courts of justice were erected within the framework of this structure enacted in the Constitution of 1922 and the present Constitution. This, in my view, infringes, if not the letter, at least the spirit of the Constitution, and I ask the Minister seriously to consider withdrawing this proposal.

With regard to the powers conferred in the other sections of this part of the Bill, I find myself in somewhat of a difficulty in dealing with them. As I have indicated, I agree that there is a problem to be solved. I should like to know from the Minister whether or not this part of the Bill has been referred to the general body of the Circuit Court judges for their comments and their approval. I am not in touch with any judicial personage in this matter, but I should like to know if the judges have approved specifically and definitely of these proposals, because there can be no doubt whatever that, unless the proposals contained in this Bill are worked with tact and with the goodwill of each individual Circuit Court judge affected by the powers it is proposed to confer upon the president of the Circuit Court, there is a very grave danger of great public scandal ensuing.

Under the proposals contained here at the moment, the president of the Circuit Court is entitled to call upon a judge to leave his own circuit, the circuit to which he was assigned, and to go from district to district in accordance with his direction. There are provisions enabling the president of the Circuit Court to fix the actual places and times of hearing of every circuit judge. I think it does not require any very great eloquence, or any amount of phrasing, to call up for the imagination the chaos which might ensue if these particular provisions were not worked in complete harmony between the president of the Circuit Court and the particular judges involved. There is a grave danger that, human nature being as it is and each circuit judge being given, as he is given, under the legislation enacted by the Oireachtas an independent position, being made free and independent in the exercise of his own functions, a circuit judge may seriously, and possibly correctly, rely upon his independent position and refuse to carry out the order and directions of the president of the Circuit Court.

I direct attention to some of these matters in order that this Bill may not be lightly passed by this House without full consideration. The Minister introduced the Bill in a very short speech, but I think the provisions of this Part require the most serious and careful consideration of all sections of the House. So far as the measures proposed go, they concern every section of the community and they are the concern therefore of every Deputy, to whatsoever Party he belongs. There are no Party politics and there should be no Party divisions upon this measure. It should be considered on its merits, and on its effect on public opinion and on litigants in general. It is true that one of the sections in the Bill provides that, before any order is made by the president of the Circuit Court, he shall consult the circuit judge concerned. That famous device appeared for the first time in the Court Officers Act, 1926. I claim to have been the inventor of it, and I will take such discredit as may come from its futility.

It was a method by which a very grave difficulty was solved at the time. That famous phrase, by which certain things were to be done "after consultation with", got over a very serious difficulty which might have emerged into a public scandal, but the device has been a little overworked since. "After consultation with" means that there may be the purest formality in order to comply with the statutory requirement, and, after the statutory requirement has been fulfilled in the letter, the particular individual concerned may make an order under the section irrespective of the views of his colleagues in the Circuit Court. Everything I have said emphasises again and underlines the necessity for tact, the necessity for wariness, on the part of whoever shall fill the office of president of the Circuit Court. I do think that the loose system which has worked so well in the High Court should be allowed at least a trial in the new system which is being set up in the Circuit Court of a president of the Circuit Court being appointed.

I imagine that where colleagues are working together, little difficulty in resolving problems, where the public interest is concerned, need be anticipated, but again, human nature being as it is and judges being as they become after a short time on the bench — and I need not say any more than that with reference to some of them — judges will not take kindly to a provision whereby they may be ordered about by one of their colleagues, or whereby the business of their courts may be fixed and determined, irrespective of their views and wishes. It is more likely that by goodwill and by working together amongst colleagues greater success can be achieved and a greater measure of direction of the work of the Circuit Court in the public interest and in the interest of litigants can be secured than can be secured by the cast-iron and rigid system contained in this measure.

I do not know what experience has enabled the Minister to come to the conclusion that 70 is old enough for circuit judges. Speaking as a practitioner on behalf of some practitioners who possibly have the peculiar desire to become Circuit judges, I suppose these practitioners would welcome that proposal, but I nevertheless think that, as the age was fixed beforehand at 72, it should not be arbitrarily set aside merely because the Minister thinks 70 is old enough. I have referred to district justices who have already retired. I have made that point and I earnestly recommend it to the Minister for consideration.

With regard to the proposal to appoint a particular individual ad hoc to the Dublin Circuit Court it is regrettable that, in some of the vacancies that occurred for the permanent position of Circuit Court judge, that individual was not appointed, a permanent judge rather than that resort should have had to be had to a particular ad hoc provision in a Bill. As far as we are concerned, there is no objection to it. The real matter of great importance in this Bill concerns the status to be given to the president of the Circuit Court as a High Court judge and to the enumeration of the specific and wide powers which are to be conferred upon him to direct and control the judiciary or his judicial colleagues. In my view these provisions should not be inserted in this Bill. It should be allowed to the good sense and to the goodwill of the occupants of the Circuit Court. I see and foresee nothing but danger, difficulties and, possibly, public scandal emerging from the enumeration of those powers.

It is rather a pity that the Minister has not placed himself in the position of being able to announce to the House that he is now in a position to round off satisfactorily the entire administration of the courts, that is, with the inclusion of pensions for District Court clerks. It is a matter that this House has repeatedly brought to his attention and, on recent occasions, he himself has displayed a personal interest in it. It may be that before this debate has concluded the Minister will be in a position to indicate how far he has proceeded in that particular direction with the Department of Finance. As has already been indicated, the particular Bill before the House is one on which Party politics will not be called in to play any part. As far as we, on these benches are concerned, broadly speaking, we support this Bill. As far as we are concerned its main provisions lie in Part II, that is, in relation to the remuneration of judges. Our view upon the matter is that if the salaries fixed 23 years ago were not excessive or extravagant it is obvious that, in the changed conditions of the times — the lower value of money — there should be an adjustment on the lines suggested.

Personally, I take the view, with Deputy Costello, that the Minister might have another look on the question of Section 8, that is, in relation to the remuneration of district justices. We look upon the court of the district justice as the people's court. I am glad to say that they are at least one instrument of the State which has given complete confidence throughout the country. They have been magnificently administered. I am speaking on the broad issue. There may have been times when exception could be taken to that statement. If the salary in 1924 was not an excessive salary it is obvious that the suggested percentage at this stage is not adequate to meet the new position. I think a more proper adjustment would be on the basis of 50 per cent. and that we should provide a flat figure for all the district justices of the country. I happen to have been in personal touch with a number of commercial positions recently, particularly in this city, which could not be described as more onerous, more exacting or more responsible than the position of district justice. I can state to this House that these positions are commanding far higher salaries than what will now eventuate as a result of the implementation of Section 8. I take the view that if we are to have respect for the law and for its proper administration those who are responsible for administering it must at all times be kept free from any dependence on any section of the community. Once that is the case the question of order will rapidly disappear. We have been fortunate up to now and we should not overstrain it. I am making a personal appeal to the Minister and I put it to him that he has not gone far enough as far as Section 8 is concerned. I feel sure the House will indicate to him that the figure should be adjusted to the figure I have suggested, that is, 50 per cent.

There are two further points which I wish to make in regard to this Bill. The first is in regard to the provision for the president of the Circuit Court. It is difficult for an ordinary lay man to offer an opinion on this ease but, on the points made by Deputy Costello, we could at least say this much. Although I have had no experience in any way whatsoever of court work may I say that the suggested changes by the Minister, to my mind in any case, might be arrived at by another route? There is a good deal in the point that if we have an individual of the same status as the individuals he is ordering about—as the word has been used here — friction may very well arise. It should be possible, if the real cause of the setting up of this particular individual does arise from a cluttering up of work in the Circuit Courts, to arrange either from the Minister's own office or from elsewhere a schedule or perhaps an appointment in another form will meet that difficulty. I would say to the Minister that the members of this House would like to have their minds cleared as to whether in fact, as Deputy Costello has suggested, he might be made a spare part as far as the High Court is concerned. That would be an undesirable approach to a question of this kind. Personally I do not see any great necessity for the manner in which this is approached. It is possible, however, that the Minister has a good case in its favour. On the other hand because of certain friction that may easily occur, particularly from a Circuit Court judge who has a permanent assignment and who may not like the idea of being shifted about, say on short notice, trouble might easily arise.

Take then the question of the retiring age. I do not know why there should be such tremendous solicitude for the question of retaining judges until the age of 72. Under this Bill it is proposed to bring the age down to 70 years. If there is a retiring age generally in industry and in the professions and if that age is more or less around the figure of 65 I do not know what special plea can be put forward for retaining judges until the age of 70. Can it be that they are riper in their judgments between the ages of 65 and 70?

There are no retiring ages in professions.

Mr. O'Sullivan

In so far as this Bill is concerned, it is proposed to fix the retiring age at 70.

Yes, but there is no retiring age in professions——

Mr. O'Sullivan

——in so far as professional appointments are made by local authorities. Local authorities have solicitors, engineers and other members of the professions. The tendency from now on — in fact it will be a matter of law — is that they shall retire at the age of 65. If that applies to the professions and to the lower down scales I see no reason why the figure should be retained even at 70 years.

In commenting on this Bill, Deputy Costello referred to the necessity for keeping in mind the effect on public opinion which any change proposed may have. I think that these words are very important and very significant. It is absolutely essential that this House should consider not only whether this Bill is necessary or not in present circumstances but the reaction of public opinion to its enactment. If law is to be administered and if justice is to be carried out, it is essential that our judiciary be held in the highest possible esteem by the ordinary people throughout the length and breadth of the State. It is essential that there should be deep respect for the courts, amounting almost, I should say, to reverence. It is essential that people going into the courts should feel that the judge on the Bench has set out, above all things, to be just and fair, not only resolved to administer justice but to be capable of carrying out his resolve in that regard. I am rather uneasy about the effect of this Bill on public opinion. The majority of our people earn under £3 per week. That is a small income, having regard to the present cost of living. These people — and they are the overwhelming majority — must feel that anything over £1,000 a year constitutes a very big income. That is a natural feeling. In addition to being a natural feeling, it is a feeling which has been aggravated, underlined and emphasised over a very long period. In the six years between 1926 and 1932 a campaign was carried on throughout the country to defame, ridicule and bring into contempt any man who claimed more than £1,000 a year as recompense for his services.

Hear, hear! A £1,000 a year was the highest salary a man was worth.

What I fear is that that campaign has left an indelible mark upon the minds of our people. It will take the lifetime of any man who was capable of reading the papers and listening to the speeches from 1926 to 1932 to obliterate that feeling. For that reason, no matter what case is put up for an increase, we should be slow to give it effect. It may be said that the value of money is greatly reduced. That is quite true. But that applies-not only to the man with a comparatively large salary but to the man with a very small income. It applies to the old age pensioner. The value of his weekly allowance has been reduced by half. In considering these increases, we cannot look too closely at the present value of money, because, this is a long-term Bill. It is not a Bill which will be repealed in a few years when the value of money increases and the price of goods is reduced. It is a long-term Bill and, for that reason, we have to realise that, basing our case upon the present value of money, is not a sound line of approach. When prices are reduced, as they probably will be in the course of the next few years, the value of the judges' salaries will automatically increase. That is a consideration which must be borne in mind.

Another aspect of the question has also to be considered. We are proposing in this Bill to give increases of 25 per cent. in some cases and 30 per cent. in other cases. The Constitution lays down very definitely that we have no power to reduce the salary of a judge. That is a justifiable and desirable provision. It is intended to protect the independence of the judiciary and to guard them against intimidation or penalisation by Parliament or by the Executive Government. If you can intimidate the judiciary by threatening a reduction of their salaries, you can also bribe them by promising them an increase. If a certain cause is coming before the courts, you can always tell the judges that, if they are good boys, they will have a 15 or 25 per cent. increase in their salaries, but if they are not, that increase will not be forthcoming. That is an aspect of this question which the Minister may not have considered. Yet, it is a very important aspect.

I think that we should be very slow to commence tricking with the salaries of the Judges. It may be, as has been suggested, that the original salaries were fixed too low but we have to remember that, since they were fixed, the whole position of high salaries in the State was made the subject of a long, sustained attack and that there is now a public opinion against persons with high salaries, particularly persons with salaries of over £1,000 per year. Having regard to that public opinion, there is a danger that, if we grant this increase, we may lower the status of our judiciary in the eyes of the ordinary people. The ordinary people will say: "These fellows can get on very well without a substantial increase in their already high salaries. It is easy for them to lecture the man in the street about his duty to society when they have done so well at the expense of the community." The existence of that type of public opinion is to be deplored but it is the net result of long years of propaganda by the Irish Press and the Government Party. We cannot ignore its existence. I am sure that, when the people who imbibed that education will have passed away, we shall have a more healthy public opinion. We shall have amongst the ordinary working population a greater appreciation of the merits of those who live by the exercise of their brains and who bring great ability to bear on the discharge of their public duties. I know that those who occupy the position of judges in the Supreme Court and the High Court were not born with a silver spoon in their mouth. For the most part, they sprang from the ordinary plain people. In most cases, they were the children of poor parents who, by their ability, their energy, and their hard work, raised themselves to the positions which they at present occupy.

I think it is right that merit should be recognised; I admit all that. But, at the same time, we cannot got over the effect which increases of this Rind will have on the ordinary working people throughout the country. My respect for the dignity of the judiciary does not date to yesterday. I was only a few days in this House when I went so far as to suggest that the Chief Justice should be the head of this States here. My feeling at the time was that the dignity and ceremonial attached to the head of the State should be attached to the judiciary and to the courts. Thus we would have, surrounding the interpretation of justice, the dignity and the honour which ought to be bestowed upon it. I have never altered my opinion on that point. I think it is satisfactory that the courts are held in such high esteem. It is satisfactory that our district justices, our Circuit Court judges and the judges of our High Court and Supreme Court are all regarded as absolutely fair and just in their decisions. The courts have carried on a very high tradition and, even if persons were appointed to the Bench because of some affiliation with a political Party, so far they have always been men of very high standing and, on assuming their position as judges, they have always carried out their duties with a very high sense of justice and fair play. That, I think, will without doubt continue.

I think it is regrettable that it is not always as easy as it should be for the plain man to bring a case into court. I know that the courts are absolutely impartial and that they are open to everyone. But they are only open on the payment of a very substantial fee.

The Deputy is getting away from this Bill now. He had an opportunity on the Minister's Estimate of raising that matter.

I know that. But I think the case will be made for this Bill that we must preserve the majesty and the dignity of the judiciary and that that is one of the reasons why the increases provided in this Bill should be enacted. It would be a good thing if some of the money which it is proposed to spend under this Bill were devoted to making entry to the courts cheaper for the ordinary person. That is the point I was endeavouring to make. There is an old saying that dog will not eat dog. It is equally true that, if you wish to bring a case into court which involves some member of the legal profession of high repute, you will find it impossible to get any member of the legal profession to take up your case.

This Bill does not deal with the legal profession, but with the judiciary.

It is unfortunate and regrettable, but I cannot deal with that now.

It is also inaccurate.

I could prove that it is accurate, but I will not go into that now. It is probably true that members of the judiciary find it difficult to keep up their status and station in life on their present income. We must remember, however, that, for the moment at any rate, the cost of living is exceptionally high. As a temporary means of relieving the situation I think we would be making a better approach to this problem if we were to bring down the cost of living of those people by a drastic reduction of income-tax and prevention of the ruthless profiteering which goes on, particularly in the city and at the expense of professional people.

The Deputy is getting away from the Bill again.

I quite agree, but that is the alternative——

It is very much on the mark.

——to providing these increases. If you cut down the cost of living of these people, they will be able to live within their present incomes.

I want to welcome this Bill so far as it goes and to complain because it has not gone much further. I am sure it will be deplored before the debate is over that Deputy Cogan has seen fit to refer to 1932 and the propaganda about that time in connection with the salaries people were entitled to earn. I expect that by this time everybody who went through that election has torn up the old poster about the roll of honour, at the head of which used to appear the judges, and then below was the question to the unemployed person, the old age pensioner, and everybody else: "Are you on this? Look what these people are getting". It should not be forgotten in this House, as Deputy Cogan says, that we have to remould public opinion upon different lines. It should not be forgotten that there was a vile propaganda carried on in those days in connection with judicial salaries, amongst other things. We had great propaganda, mounting to a climax with the statement that nobody was worth more than £1,000 per year and that no Minister would take more than £1,000, but the head of the State might have to get a little bit more. That did not last long. The £1,000 was added to by various devices. Eventually, the reality was faced that a Ministerial post, like a judicial post, was one which carried very heavy responsibilities and very heavy financial liabilities and a change was made. I think it is right that the public should be told frankly what this means and what we are doing. I should like to have it on record from the Minister what is the amount of the particular salaries we are dealing with.

Mr. Boland

I had not got them when Deputy Costello was speaking, but I will give them now. The actual increase which the Chief Justice will get is £600.

What is his salary at present?

Mr. Boland

£4,000. The President of the High Court and the members of the Supreme Court have £3,000, and the increase in their case will come to £450.

I think the President of the High Court has more.

Mr. Boland

He has the same salary as a Supreme Court judge and he will have £450 added to his salary. The salary of the High Court judges is £2,500, and the increase in their case will be £500. The President of the Circuit Court under this will get the same salary as a High Court judge, an increase of £1,300. The Circuit Court judges will get an increase of £425.

Added to £1,700?

Mr. Boland

Yes. There are three principal district justices in Dublin and they will get £360 each.

But they are on £1,200?

Mr. Boland

They will get £360 extra —30 per cent. The three ordinary metropolitan justices and the Cork City justices who have £1,100 at present will get £330 extra and the 33 ordinary district justices will get £300 extra. The total increase in that connection amounts to £24,900.

Mr. Boland

Yes. That is the whole lot.

I am glad to get that verification of the figures. I made a wrong calculation with regard to some of the district justices. We are now giving the person whom we previously appointed at £4,000 a sum of £600 extra. He will go to £4,600. Let us get away from the 1932 mood. We shall have to face certain comparisons in our constituencies. The judges of the Supreme Court and the President of the High Court will go to £3,450; the Circuit Court judges will go to £2,125 and the district justices will go to the rates indicated by the Minister, some getting £1,560 while the majority will get £1,300.

Mr. Boland

That is correct.

May I come to the aid of Fianna Fáil Deputies, who feel they may have to remember 1932 — the good old propaganda of that period— by pointing out that the figures that have just been given us are totally fallacious? What we are doing in the case of the Chief Justice is this. We are pretending, in relation to a man who was appointed at £4,000 a year, to give him £4,600. In view of the present cost of living we are actually giving him £2,300. I admit that that is well over the £1,000 maximum which was suggested as sufficient for the ablest man in the country in 1932, but let us have no pretence that we are putting any man on a salary which has a buying power of £4,600. What we are actually giving him is £2,300. The Supreme Court judges and the President of the High Court are down to £1,725. They are supposed to be on the £3,450 level. So far as High Court judges are concerned, they are getting effectively £1,500. When I come to the district justices, they were appointed originally, the largest number of them, at £1,000 and we are pretending now to give them £1,300. It is nothing like that figure; it is £650 at the outside. We have reduced these people effectively, even in the teeth of the Constitution, which says that a judge's emoluments shall not be reduced during his period of office. That is what has happened. The result has been, taking the district justices as an example, that some of them have been driven to literature in all its branches, writing plays and books——

Mr. Boland

That is hard luck.

——in order to keep up with the conditions imposed upon them. That is the situation to which we have reduced these people. The judges are a very special class. They are guarded by the Constitution. The wit of man throughout the ages devised no better system than what we have incorporated in the 1937 document. We ask people to be independent and we then put them, or thought we were putting them, beyond any fear of corruption and venality because we gave them big salaries; we put them high above the ranks of the ordinary community and hoped for the best from them. We have got the best from them so far in relation to their conduct — there is no gainsaying that.

This is all part of the nonsense we have had to deal with in respect of every Vote. Civil servants, people in any way getting moneys from Government, from relief schemes or in any form, are being deluded. They are-handed something which seems to represent an increase, but which in reality does not. Deputy Cogan is right in this. We have to fit this into the framework of the society in which we live and that framework, as it has been distorted by Fianna Fáil, is this: We have a 3,000,000 population and There are about 1,125,000 people gainfully employed. Fianna Fáil has now brought us to the position that there are 66,000 in the community earning more than the old-time £3 a week. There are 66,000 above the old purchasing value of £150, somewhat short of £3 a week. That is the framework, and I do not fear to regard it in that light. I would like to think that the other people will be brought up. The only thing I fear is the odious comparison that may be made.

It is all nicely graduated here. The Chief Justice is to have a 15 per cent. increase and the people next ranking in emoluments are to get 20 per cent. Then lower down people are to get higher percentages of increases as their actual emoluments decrease and the comparison through the country comes when we get to the old age pensioners, who used to receive 10/-, but it is now 5/-. We give the old age pensioner 2/6 a week — that is, 1/3 — and, having put him on 6/3 a week, we tell him to be well-behaved and that we expect better from him. If we have this nice gradation in salaries, with an increased percentage to make the lower salary a little better as the basic salary goes down, why should not the lower elements of the community get better treatment from the Government? That is the comparison every one of us will be up against in our constituencies — that the people on relief are not being as well treated as these people. Let us at least treat sue class of the community with something approaching fair play; although we may not equate their salaries with what they used to get, at least we should give them some reasonable consideration. Let us hope later to raise the payments made to those people.

Deputy Cogan set me thinking about another matter. These increases are not being given by way of bonus. These are new salaries and they will rank under the Constitution as salaries paid to the present judges during their term of office. Supposing prices did come tumbling down and we felt that an increase of £600 to the Chief Justice was too much, we have put it out of our power to reduce it. These are not bonuses to meet the higher cost of living, these are salaries paid in substitution for the old salaries. That being the case, it has to be considered that we have put it out of our power during the life of any of these judges to reduce any of the new emoluments. I do not believe prices will come down. I do not think they will ever come down to the stage that what we are giving the judges will have an equivalent purchasing power. Therefore, there will not be any need to have an approach along the other line. The Minister is aware that once we give these salaries, under the Constitution they may not be reduced.

The District Court clerks are not in this measure. They should be here; they are part of the court system. Other officers of the courts should be covered by the Bill too. Those who have been treated with the greatest harshness are undoubtedly the District Court clerks. They helped to found the courts at a time when it was difficult to get the courts going. I suppose those who prided themselves at that time on a good day's work when they tried to stop the courts functioning have repented of that view and are now glad that the courts were allowed to function. As well as the district justices, the District Court clerks helped to make these courts. The bait of better salaries has been dangled in front of them for a long time. Quite a lot of the old office holders have gone, and gone under miserable conditions. Now that this measure has been brought in, we should deal, not alone with the upper strata of the courts but with all those officials who are being forced to live under scandalous conditions.

With regard to what Deputy Costello said in connection with the president of the Circuit Court and his new status as a member of the High Court, I am awaiting with some anxiety what the Minister has to say. I am particularly anxious to hear his reply on the specific question as to whether this scheme has the approval of the Circuit Court judges as a body or whether in fact they have been consulted with a view to getting their approval. I am glad that this effort has been made to put the judges in a somewhat better position than they have occupied up to now. I think that men reaching the attainments they have reached are entitled to special consideration from the population. They are entitled at least to expect that they will be able to have their children educated under the best possible circumstances without straining their own resources. I do not think that many of them spend their money in what might be called a very extravagant way of living and I think they should be placed in a position in which they can look forward to the future without embarrassment, particularly in so far as the education of their families is concerned.

I welcome this Bill. I think we can quite easily stand over the increases which have been proposed. We could, I think, stand over even bigger increases for the bench of judges and for district justices. If there is to be any disparity between the salaries paid to district justices I suggest that that disparity should be one based on years of service and not just based on a particular position at which certain of them have arrived. I think there is a great deal to be said in fact for having a flat rate and for having a flat rate increase. I agree with the statement of Deputy O'Sullivan that as far as the mass of the people is concerned, law means for them the District Court or possibly the Circuit Court. In Dublin, too, the District Court administers justice for the major body of litigants and so also does the Circuit Court. These two courts mean everything in connection with law and justice for the ordinary population. So far as the High Court and the Supreme Court are concerned, the people who resort to them are the insurance companies or the big business corporations. For the ordinary person, the court system means the District Court and the Circuit Court. I am very glad this measure has been introduced and I welcome it. I suggest to the Minister that he should consider the matter of the lower-paid district justices and that he should add to the increases which the Bill proposes to give them.

An Leas-Cheaann Comhairle took the Chair.

I was particularly intrigued by Deputy Cogan's attitude to this measure. Eventually he left me guessing as to whether in fact he was in favour of the measure or was opposed to it. He adduced two or three grounds on which the increases might be justified but then he expressed the fear that if the increases were granted there would be a lowering amongst the general public of the esteem in which the judges are held. That was a peculiar approach to the Bill and I do not think it is one that is generally shared by the House. He tells us of the esteem in which the judges are held and he wants to increase the reverence of the public generally for them but he wants to do that by compelling them to live on their present salaries irrespective of the increased cost of living. His solution of the problem would be, not to increase their salaries, but to bring down the cost of living, or alternatively, to give them a bonus or a special coupon which would enable them to buy goods at a cheaper rate than other people. I think that is a most amazing approach to this question.

Having considered all the Deputy's arguments, I think that he is mainly concerned with trying to justify his opposition to this increase. I think there is definitely a case to be made for an increase in the salaries of the judges, particularly by people who share in the respect for the judiciary. While we on these benches have pleaded continually for higher salaries for the lower strata of the community, that does not mean that we are opposed to any proposal to mete out justice to other sections of the community, no matter what rank they belong to. I think that these increases are long overdue. Not since 1924 has there been any adjustment in the salaries of judges or justices and since that period the value of money has depreciated considerably. The in-increases, which may seem big on paper, are scarcely sufficient to counterbalance that depreciation, having regard to the importance of the fund ions of the judiciary, judges of the Circuit, Court and district justices. Although the Minister indicated a greater percentage of increase in the case of district justices' salaries, I think the proposals still leave room for much higher rates in the lower grades. I believe if we are to maintain the dignity of the courts and to inculcate respect for the courts amongst all sections of the community, that should apply equally to the District Courts as well as to the High Courts. Even from the point of view expressed by Deputy Cogan, that of enhancing the reverence and respect due to the courts, it would not be a good thing if it became known that some of these gentlemen were not able to meet their ordinary, requirements or to live in a state which their position demands. I think that a very strong case could be made for higher salaries for district justices working through the country. Although these justices have an allowance for motor cars, that allowance has not been increased in recent years. The man who has to cover a big circuit in the country has responsibilities which are at least as onerous as those of the man living in the city.

When I read the Bill, I looked upon the proposal to give the President of the Circuit Court the same status as a High Court judge as a good proposal. Having heard Deputy Costello, who, of course, is specially fitted to speak on this subject, I may say that while I was convinced on some points, I would require some further conviction on other points. There may be a disadvantage in having a judge drawn from the Circuit Court adjudicating on the decisions of his own fellows, but at the same time I think that would be a rather unique happening because he would be called to the High Court only in the case of pressure of work. It should not be necessary for him to go to the High Court to adjudicate on appeals. As far as I know, it is not unusual to have promotions from the Circuit Court to the High Court, and the fact that a man had practised as a Circuit Court judge should not lead to any lessening of respect for his decisions as a member of the High Court. I, of course, am only, speaking from the layman's point of view. Still, it is no harm to get the layman's point of view because the bulk of the citizens are laymen. I think it is well that that particular point of MOW should have been put forward.

I feel that, in appointing a President of the Circuit Court, there May be the danger that Deputy Martin O'Sullivan referred to. His views on that were shared by Deputy Costello and Deputy McGilligan. There may be some feelings of bitterness engendered among the judges of the Circuit Court by reason of the fact that they cannot arrange the work between themselves without dictation from any particular member of their body. In the case of a hurling club the members elect their captain, and because of that they show respect to him and obey his decisions. Perhaps it might not be a bad thing if the same thing were to occur here, and that if there was a rush of work the Circuit Court judges themselves should allocate it amongst themselves. I would not like to see the President of the Circuit Court put in the position that in another capacity he might have to adjudicate on decisions given by his fellow-members. I think that, if possible, that should be avoided.

Deputy Costello quoted some views that were expressed by the late Chief Justice Kennedy. I would not altogether agree with the conservatism which these views represent. They indicated that if the business in one court had to be transacted in another court, it would almost mean that the walls and buildings of the former court would become, so to speak, tainted. That seemed to suggest some sort of inferiority complex so far as the status of one court was concerned. I think we have got away from that sort of tradition. Some of those statements represented a conservative view with which very few would agree to-day.

I want to join with other Deputies in saying that this Bill must be regarded as a very incomplete one so long as it fails to do justice to the lower paid officers in the Circuit Courts and District Courts. All these officers are an essential part of the judiciary. If the Minister is not invested with power to do justice to them, then he should introduce legislation to enable him to do so. Recently, on the Estimate for the Minister's Department, I referred to the salaries paid to some of those lower paid officers and staffs in the courts. Their salaries, as I then pointed out, are much lower than those paid to people carrying far less responsibility in the industrial and commercial life of the country. I think that is a blot on the escutcheon of the Department of Justice, and represents a position which should not be allowed to continue. Some small measure of justice should be accorded to the court clerks and staffs who at the moment are in a deplorable position from the point of view of salary. You have lady clerks working for £2 12s. 0d. a week and men on salaries of £3 15s. 0d. At the same time, the prevailing rate for a builder's labourer is 2/- an hour, or 94/- a week for a 47 hour week, and he sheds all responsibility when he puts on his coat in the evening. As I say, the position with regard to these court clerks and court staffs should be remedied at once. If, as I say, the Minister has not the power at the moment to increase their salaries he ought to introduce a new section in this Bill with a view to doing justice, even though it be belated justice, to them. They are all cogs in the wheel of the administration of justice. I suggest to him that he should give them a taste of real justice, and indicate to them that they are not being forgotten by the legislators of the country.

With regard to the increases proposed in this Bill, I think the Minister will find almost unanimous approval for them. Some Deputies have suggested that the increased amounts set out in the Bill are not sufficient. I am inclined to agree with that view though, of course, we must have regard to the fact that at any time the cost of living and the rate of income-tax may come down. We must also have regard to the burden which the taxpayers can bear in the way of extra impositions of this kind.

With regard to the district justices, I think the Minister will find that almost all Deputies are of the opinion that he might do a little more for them. I am going to put the proposition to him that no man holding such an important post should, have less than £1,500 a year under present conditions. That is a matter that can be more fully discussed on the Committee Stage. I suppose that the most contentious part of the Bill is that which deals with the office of the president of the Circuit Court. I consider that the plan outlined in the Bill is an excellent one, and that it is likely to prove successful in facilitating the work in the Circuit Courts and in bringing it up to date.

It is a well-known fact that in remote parts of the country the Circuit Court judges do not sit in all the towns in which, prior to the passing of the 1924 Act, quarter sessions were held. The tendency now is to have sittings of the Circuit Court in the county town. Litigants have to come there for the hearing of their cases. I remember seeing a bill of costs in which the biggest item was the charge for the hire of a motor car to bring witnesses a distance of about 70 miles to the Circuit Court. That cost more than the combined fees paid to the solicitors and barristers in the case. The main object in setting up the Circuit Courts was to bring justice to the doors of the people. I am afraid that has not been achieved in all cases. I think the Minister's method of appointing a president of the Circuit Court will help in that direction. It will mean that he will have a certain amount of authority and control, and that there cannot be any suggestion of interference with judges by the Minister or his officials.

I think this measure will bring about a considerable reform in the working of the Circuit Courts and will enable the work that is to be done in them, particularly in the Dublin Circuit Court, to be kept up to date. All that is badly needed. Generally speaking, there should be more sittings of the Circuit Court throughout the country and in more convenient centres so as to avoid the necessity of people having to travel long distances. That is a reform, remarkable though it may appear, that can be carried out without putting any great extra expense on the State, because a Circuit Court judge who has not much work on his circuit can be called in to help in a circuit where the work is heavy. Heretofore, when that happened additional judges had to be appointed.

My friend, Deputy Costello, is not in favour of the proposal that the president of the Circuit Court should be ex officio a judge of the High Court. I am in entire agreement with him on that and like him I am speaking on this without any reference whatever to personalities. The object of the Bill is to help along the work of the Circuit Court. Surely, it would be better to leave the president in the Circuit Court and keep him there rather than have him as a kind of journeyman-judge of the High Court, likely to be called upon at any time to help in the High Court. I think that the High Court has quite a sufficient number of judges to do the work of the High Court, and that there is no need to call on the president of the Circuit Court. I recommend the Minister to reconsider that aspect of the Bill only in so far as the president is made an ex-officio judge of the High Court. There were some other minor points that I had intended to refer to, but I think they can be more properly dealt with on the Committee Stage. In conclusion, I would ask the Minister to reconsider the position with regard to the district justices.

Like Deputy Keyes I speak on this Bill as a layman. It deals with professional matters, but it may be no harm for the House to hear the views of laymen on them. As regards public opinion on the question of salaries in this country — I leave out of account altogether what any political Party may have done in the past when out of office — I would like to remind the House that we are dealing with a peculiar and unique position from the historical point of view — that is when we look back over the past 25 years. We should remember that, in the first blush of enthusiasm, in the setting up of this State there were very many men in various walks of life who were prepared to serve the country for what were, in fact, very inadequate salaries. We should not allow the very fine enthusiasm which was displayed at the time to blind us to the merits of the position. In the case of district justices — it is to that particular branch of the judiciary that I wish to refer— their salary WAS fixed at £1,000 a year in 1924. I do not think that £1,000 a year was adequate at that time and we should take this opportunity of remedying the position. If we do not pay the members of the judiciary salaries commensurate with the office they hold, in the long run, we will not attract the type of men that the House would like to see occupying these very important positions. That, briefly, is my point. I started off by saying that I am a layman. I am ignoring the professional aspect, the professional esprit de corps, the great interest and respect that all lawyers have for the law. I am regarding it coldly as a job to be done by men with special qualifications. If this State does not uphold those positions in one of the few ways in which it can uphold them, namely, through the salary paid, in the long run it will not get for these positions the type of men it would like to have in them.

At the risk of reiteration, I would say, do not let us be blinded by the public spirit displayed by these men to the fact that the salary in the case of district justices was never entirely adequate for the job. I think I am correct in saying that the Minister said that three of the district justices get £1,200 a year and will, therefore, get an increase of £360.

Mr. Boland

Four of them have £1,100 and they will get £330.

But those who have £1,000 a year will get an increase of £300. I am sure these men will be glad enough to get the £300 a year but I think they should get at least £400 a year. In fact, I would go so far as to say that an increase of 50 per cent. on the 1924 salary would be doing justice to them in this particular case. I would also agree with the Deputy who said that years of service should count in this matter rather than the geographical position of the appointment. I do not think that one can maintain that justice in Mayo should be paid for at a lower rate than justice in Dublin or some other part of the country. There may have been differences, or alleged differences, arising from a variation in the cost of living in different places but, in the case of members of the judiciary who have families who would have to be sent long distances from their homes to school, they would not get all the benefits that they might be supposed to get from living in a cheaper area.

With regard to the retiring age prescribed in the Bill, I think that is quite a fair provision. No matter what may be the opinion of the individual concerned, 70 years of age is not an unduly early age at which to retire a person, whether, he is a judge or not. The argument may be put forward, of course, that a person sitting on a bench does not tire himself out as quickly as a manual labourer tires himself out. There may be something in that but one of the great dangers in regard to elderly people is the medical fact of hardening of arteries. I would consider, therefore, that it is not unfair to ask anyone to retire at 70 years of age.

I am glad that increases are being given but I would ask the Minister to review the position of district justices in the light of present-day conditions, especially bearing in mind the fact that the basic salary on which the increases are given is not now and never was sufficient for the office.

The usual points taken into consideration in fixing salaries, are, first, the importance and dignity of the work, second, what the State can afford to pay, third, the cost of living and a fourth and very important consideration is public opinion. Without a moment's hesitation I would say that, on the first three counts, this Bill is justified and more than justified. I say candidly that I do not think the Bill goes just far enough in the matter of remuneration for our judges. Public opinion, of course, is important and it is right to pay respect to it but, unfortunately, public opinion is very often wrong. In a case of this sort, there should be some discrimination in the public. You have educated and informed public opinion and, on the other hand, you have cursory public opinion, that is, public opinion lightly expressed and without much thought having been given to the formation of it. There is no doubt about the importance and dignity of the work carried out by every branch in our judicature. There is no doubt, very fortunately at present, as to the buoyancy of our revenue and there is no doubt, very unfortunately, about the cost of living. All of this makes clear straight away the amount that is being done and should be done in regard to the people affected by this Bill. When public opinion is properly informed of the whole issue, we will carry public opinion with us.

I would like very much to see a higher salary fixed for the district justices, who should not be paid less than £1,600 a year, even in the lowest paid case and the other justices should be lifted in proportion. It would still be not more than what is just and right and adequate for the duties carried out by these men. The Circuit Court judges might also carry something higher even than the new figure mentioned. However, I am sure this has been thought out very thoroughly by the Minister and his Department, and possibly the best that can be done is being done; but I am giving it as my own opinion, and the opinion of very many to whom I have spoken, that the district justices are still being underpaid. I do not think we will have much difficulty in carrying public opinion, if we go to the trouble of informing that opinion —and if it is necessary for us to do that, we will do it. There is no doubt but that the people are very proud of our courts and particularly proud of the District Courts. It is very wonderful to think that, over all the years these courts have been functioning, there has not been one case of malpractice of any sort attributable to any one occupant of the position of district justice. That is something for us all to be very proud of, it is something we should remember and something that will reconcile public opinion to the advance in salaries that is being made.

There are three matters in connection with this Bill about which I want to speak. One is the new office of president. I quite agree with an office of that kind being created, up to the point of regulating the business among the Circuit Court judges; but, following Deputy Costello, I think it highly dangerous that, when a Government has appointed a judge to a particular circuit prescribed by law, one of the judges should have the power to remove him and transfer him about. If there is any trait the Minister has, it is that of common sense and he will understand that, just as sure as we are here to-day, there will be in some cases, and perhaps in many cases a national scandal arising out of this provision. We can see that this power is capable of being abused, in the first place, as the president of the Circuit Court, where a vacancy arises, may transfer a man to it in order to make a place for somebody he wants to put in an easier circuit. There is the original point that, when a judge is appointed by the Government — remember, not by a judge but by the Government, by an act of State —to a statutory circuit and then power is given to a judge to remove and transfer that man, a highly dangerous position is the result.

I would give the president power to arrange the carrying out of the work of the circuit judges amongst themselves all over the country, but I would go no further and I suggest to the Minister that he should withdraw the additional power he proposes. It is not necessary to elaborate on that. It is a highly dangerous position and bound to lead to a scandal. Human nature being what it is, it would be a natural thing for a man who is appointed to a circuit in a country district which he likes over and above his judicial duties, where he likes the people and the district and the place where he is living, should become acclimatised to it and hope to live his life there. Then somebody else, who is only judically in the same status, is given power to remove and transfer him to some other district. We should put our foot down at once on that. It is a highly dangerous position and should be dropped. It looks quite good on paper, but knowing human nature, and putting this power into the hands of a man who judicially is only of the same right as the man he transfers, it is obvious what will follow from that.

In regard to the district justices, I suggest to the Minister that, when he is approaching this matter now at all, he should strike a flat rate for the salaries of all the district justices. I cannot understand why there is an increased scale for the Dublin justices, some of whom are only comparatively young men. I do not know how long the youngest appointed is on the register, perhaps six or seven years— but I know there are men who have been giving their lives for 24 or 25 years, going all over the country every day, motoring 40 or 50 miles to a court and back, covering 80 or 90 miles in a day in some cases, in a large scattered county. Compare these men with a man who was appointed only a few years ago and who has only to get on the bus in the morning and go down to the court and come home again in the evening. He has those amenities and conveniences and has a first class courthouse to sit in, whereas those who have spent their lives at the work have to go into hovels not fit for dog kennels and have to sit to administer justice there. I am sure the Minister has heard of cases where it has told on the health of those men.

Whatever led to the provision of a higher salary for the city justices — and I never could see the reason for it— it would be a wise thing to put all the district justices now on a flat rate. The country justices have to travel in all kinds of weather, over poor country roads, for 40 or 50 miles in the morning, sit all day in a courthouse that is a bad building in itself, unheated and perhaps with no heating provision at all, and structurally in a shaky condition; yet they are not treated as well as those who have only to step on the bus in the morning to reach the city courts.

As to the pension provisions, I do not quite understand the arrangement about giving an option. What I would suggest is that it should be left to a man until he is retiring.

Mr. Boland

That is what we are doing.

The Bill makes provision for the giving of a year's salary upon retirement. The Minister is aware of cases which have arisen in the past of district justices who died in harness. These men were, in the main, poor men, some of them with large families. They had to make provision for the education of their children in keeping with the office they held. Deputy McGilligan has referred to the fact that some of these men had to write books and articles for newspapers for the purpose of increasing their incomes in order to keep out of financial embarrassment, and, even with all that, one or two of these men died in complete poverty, leaving their widows penniless. I do not know how many cases are involved, but they would not be very many, and I suggest that provision should be made for them on the basis of a gratuity in relation to the salaries of their husbands at the time of death. As I say, I do not know how many cases there are, but I personally know one.

Mr. Boland

There are two, so far as I know.

It is a very small matter, and justice demands that we should make this provision, the State having failed to provide for these people under earlier legislation. I propose to submit to the Minister on Committee Stage a proposal to cover these cases. If the Minister does not care to accept the proposal I shall put forward, perhaps he could bring it in in an amended form.

With regard to the increase in the salaries of judges, I would not have been in the least timorous about setting down the actual amount instead of a percentage. I would have bluntly set the amount down and faced the public upon it. The only person who put forward any objection was Deputy Cogan, but, before mentioning his objection, he spoke about the vital importance of making these men independent. How are they to be made independent and above corruption and venality unless you make the necessary financial provision for them? We purported to do that in the past, but in fact we did not do it. While the proposed increases may go some distance towards meeting the increased cost of living, everybody knows that, for people in the position of these men, they will not in fact provide the original purchasing power of their salaries. This is not a Party matter, and I would ask the Minister to agree that the powers of the new president of the Circuit Court should be limited to the work of arranging the disposition and carrying out of the work of the Circuit Court throughout the country and that he should have no power to transfer a judge.

Mr. Boland

The Deputy is under a misapprehension. He has not got that power under the Bill. He has power temporarily to assign a judge, but he cannot change him from his own circuit.

I ask the Minister also to make provision for these few widows to whom I have referred. The Minister probably has a report with regard to these cases in his Department. They are very few in number and it is only bare justice that these two or three women should be provided for. As I have said, I will submit proposals to cover them on Committee Stage.

Major de Valera

I merely wish to add my voice to the voice of a Deputy on the Labour Benches in saying to the Minister that now that he is considering the case of the judges he should not forget the court officials — District Court and Circuit Court clerks, county registrars and so forth. The point has been made and I merely wish to repeat it.

I cannot see what is worrying Deputies O'Connor and Costello with regard to the status of the president of the Circuit Court. It is obviously necessary that the president of that court should have the status necessary to give him the prestige amongst his colleagues which will enable him to carry out the duties assigned to him by this Bill. We have a precedent already in the fact that the President of the High Court is ex officio a judge of the Supreme Court and I see nothing wrong or likely to cause trouble in this case. There is no question, I should imagine, of using the president of the Circuit Court as an additional judge of the High Court for cases of ordinary jurisdiction. He will have his hands full with his own court, but every practitioner in the Circuit Court, no matter what circuit he belongs to, can tell you that at the moment there is need for the provisions of this Bill, and probably the only way in which the problem with which we are confronted by virtue of the fact that some circuits are overworked, while others are not, and that the relative volume of work in the different circuits is constantly fluctuating can be resolved, is by centralising the court to the extent to which this Bill centralises it and appointing a judge with sufficient authority and sufficient status amongst his fellows to work out the details from month to month as the requirements demand. Therefore, I think the general principle of what I regard as the most important part of this Bill is good and meets a problem which has been causing trouble for some time.

A number of speakers have referred to the inadequacy of judges' remuneration. Frankly, having regard to our national economy at the moment, I think the provisions in the Bill are adequate, to say the least of them. On such a subject, it is well that I should confine my remarks to that. I think they are adequate, and I also think that the remarks made either one way or the other are uncalled for. I think it well to leave it at that. In making provision for the judges, however, I ask the Minister not to forget the other people, who, in a sense, are just as essential to the proper working of the courts as the judges — they are, at least, essential cogs in the machinery for the administration of justice — the officials who carry out their responsible duties well. I can say they carry them out well, and I ask the Minister to do what he can for these classes of people, if the problem has not already been dealt with.

At this late stage I feel almost reluctant to come to my feet because of the atmosphere that has been created and because of the encouragement that has been given to this Bill from all previous speakers. I wonder if it is right at this stage for some Deputy to stand up and say that certain sections of this Bill do not meet with the approval of members of this Party. I, for one, am totally opposed to the increases in the salaries which will be given to the judges and justices who are to benefit by this Bill. It is all very fine to stand up in this House and to talk of the increased cost of living. It is all very fine for Deputies to tell us that judges and justices must be paid such-and-such a salary, so that they can be kept above corruption and so that they can be independent enough to stand on their own feet. I maintain — I may be wrong — that the district justice, the lowest paid of whom draws a salary of £800 a year, will carry on and deliver justice in the same manner for £800 a year as he will for £1,150, £1,2OO, or for whatever he is going to get.

I maintain that the Chief Justice will deliver justice in the same way for £4,000 per annum as he will for £4,600 and that the characters of none of these men would be bought for the increases that they are going to get in their salaries. It is perhaps quite in keeping with the debate that the majority of the members who have spoken are members of the legal profession. I am a layman. I confess I know nothing about law, less about legality and less about the duties of a judge or a justice, but I realise this much, as an ordinary representative of the people, that it is quite essential and that it is part of the State that we should have these gentlemen, that we should have law and men to administer law, and that they should be well paid and given salaries sufficient to give them a comfortable type of livelihood. At the same time I am fully convinced that with the country in the position it is at the present moment, with the amount of poverty and destitution, with the amount of emigration, with the amount of underpaid citizens of this State, with all these things taken into consideration, this Bill can be described as nothing short of — to put it plainly — daylight robbery of the nation's purse. After all, it is from the taxes, collected from the hard-working and industrious citizens of this country that the money must come to provide the salaries and the salary increases for all those individuals who are to get increases under this Bill. If we had reached the stage where the humblest citizen could get a 25 per cent. guaranteed increase in his yearly income then I would be very slow to criticise in any way an increase for the judge of the Supreme Court, for the judge of the High Court, for the judge of the Circuit Court or for the judge of the District Court, as the case may be.

Every Deputy in this House if he mixes with his constituents, if he lives amongst his constituents as I do and as I am forced to do and as members of my Party are supposed to do, must know very well that the people who put them into this House represent the class which constitutes 95 per cent. of the people of this State, that is, men who have to work by the sweat of their brow or, as the case may be, by brain fatigue or manual toil, to eke out an existence. Deputies should realise that the people who vote for them will not and could not be in favour of this increase in salaries.

I am not going to go back to 1932 when I listened to the campaign of the Fianna Fáil Party, of which I was then an active member, and remind the House of all the talk about £1,000 a year salary being sufficient for any man in this State. We know well that it is not, and I suppose those who said that at that time knew well that it was not. However, it was a good vote-catching business. We cannot have equality of salaries but we should be able to strike the happy medium so that everybody would have a decent means of livelihood. I think that the sooner any man, no matter what position he may hold, who cannot live in this country on £4,000 a year, gets out of this country the better for this country. I think that this country is no place for any district justice who cannot live on £1,000 a year, plus whatever expenses he gets by way of allowance for his motor car to take him around.

When we think of the 250,000 people, the cream of this country, who have had to emigrate within the past seven or eight years, when we think that any of those would be just as much an asset to the country as a district justice, a judge of the Supreme Court or a judge of the High Court, and when we think that if these emigrants could be guaranteed half of the increase that has been offered to any of these judges or justices, they would be very glad to stay at home here and to work for that salary. We know that they would be very glad and quite willing to keep their wives and families in comfort and in a certain amount of prosperity on the amount that would be given to them, that is, one half of the increase that is being given to the judges and to the justices concerned. But that is not to be and there is no use in this small Party standing up here and telling that to the House when we find the House in total disagreement with us. I wonder if the people in County Mayo differ so very much from the people in every other county or at least in counties where our Party has no representation. I wonder if we in the west are so awfully poor and poverty-stricken as compared with the people in Leitrim, Sligo, Donegal, Clare, Limerick or anywhere else. I wonder if we have reached the stage there where we are almost on the verge of starvation and I wonder if we in this Party are really and truly voicing the opinions of the people who are striving to make this country prosperous and who are trying to bring it to what it should be — to a state of prosperity and contentment.

It seems that if every individual were living in almost pauper-like conditions, we should still have to pay £4,000 per year to a judge in the Supreme Court, £3,000 to a judge in the High Court, £1,700 to a judge in the Circuit Court and £1,000 to a District Court justice. That is the idea of the present Government and it seems that, even at this late stage, the Party who were the Government before them have the same ideas. In these circumstances, I do not wonder that the people of County Mayo did what they did two years ago. These are gigantic increases. I could never stand up and compliment the Minister on introducing a Bill which would give a £600-a-year increase to a gentleman with £4,000 a year. If I had the slightest intention of doing that, I know what the people would say when I would go back to the west. Whether they would say it or not, no Deputy should do such a thing and still claim to be a representative of the working classes. But I suppose all of us will be judged some time. Political changes come slowly but, when they do come, they are pretty thorough. In doing this, we are only fanning the flame which will cause them to move faster and farther when they do commence to move.

There is one thing which I like in this Bill. It will not cost the State a penny. Under the Bill, it will be possible to change the sittings of Circuit Courts so that they will be held in towns, where they have not been held for some years. I am referring, particularly, to the town of Swinford. I and other Deputies in South Mayo have received many complaints from the people of that locality because they have to travel 15 or 20 miles to the capital of the county to attend the Circuit Court sittings. On the other side, the people of Ballaghaderreen have almost 20 miles further to go. That means a distance of almost 40 miles to a sitting of the Circuit Court. It has often happened that the amount paid the hackney car driver to bring the parties to the court and back was greater than the amount of the costs in the legal action in which they were involved. If the Minister could see his way to bring back the court to Swinford, where the old Quarter Sessions were held, he would be serving the interests of a section of the community who are entitled to be looked after and he would be doing something beneficial to the people in and around that area.

There is another group of gentlemen to whom nobody seems to have given a thought. I refer to those who are summoned to act on juries in the Circuit Court. The average businessman or farmer cannot afford to leave his home or his work for a few days to attend a sitting of the Circuit Court. He does not get a single penny of compensation for his services and he is not even paid the price of his car to the court or the price of his meals. That is very wrong. If he cannot make a genuine excuse, he is fined. Many times the poor man is in a dilemma as to whether it is better for him to stay at home and attend to his work, at the risk of a fine, or to spend a few days at the Circuit Court without compensation. In this Bill generous provision is made, to the extent of £24,500, for certain people, but no provision is made for the payment of jurymen. Whether the Minister intends to do that or not, I do not know. I raised this matter on the Estimate for the Department of Justice. I avail of this opportunity to raise it again because, to-day, I had a letter from the Swinford Parish Council asking that this question be raised in the Dáil.

My knowledge, as a layman, of legal matters is very limited but my knowledge of the people who elected the Government and the members of this Party is very good. I can assure the Minister and every Deputy who has spoken in favour of this measure to increase the salaries of men who are well and truly paid that their action will meet with a very poor reception in the part of the country from which I come. It is all very well to say that the value of the £ has gone down and that a salary of £4,000 merely represents £2,000, while an increase of £600 is, in reality, only an increase of £300. How about the man who has to make his living on a small uneconomic farm or even the man who has to make his living on a fairly substantial farm? Has he any guarantee as regards prices? At present, prices are very good but, in a month, they may be at rock-bottom. He cannot demand an increase and require that it remain stationary all the time. That individual's £ is worth only 10/-, same as the £ of the Chief Justice. That type of individual has got very little consideration or help from the Minister or any other member of the present Government.

I see no provision in the Bill for giving District Court and Circuit Court clerks any portion of this £24,000. These officials are not paid anything like a living wage or a decent salary. Would it not be much better, and would we not all approve, if the Minister, instead of giving £500 or £600 of an increase to a Supreme Court judge, were to give a 25 per cent. or 35 per cent, increase to the clerks of the District Court, the Circuit Court and the High Court? If the Minister had done that, he would have received little criticism from any Party. It is the old case: "Make the rich richer and let the poor fend for themselves." That game can be carried too far and it can be carried on too long. However, the eyes of the people will be opened and they will take care of themselves when occasion demands.

There is also the question of pensions for district justices. Nobody objects to a pension being given to any official of the State after a long term of service. I admit that it would be very wrong that a judge or other official of the State retiring at a specified age should be denied a pension. But I know very well that the pension that will be given to a justice or a judge will be far ahead of the pension given to the poor individual who is not employed by the State but who, by his hard labour and the sweat of his brow, has contributed to the upkeep of the State and of the judges and justices. A pension of £300, £400 or £500 will be given to one individual, and 6/-, 7/-, 8/-, 9/-'or 10/-to the other individual. There will be no officer to go around and question the judge or justice as to what money he has amassed during his 25 or 30 years' service. The officer, however, will call round to the other man and, if he has £100 or £200 laid aside, the officer will make sure that that poor working individual will get no pension.

Up to this I think the Minister was under the happy delusion that this Bill would go through without a division, as everybody seemed to think that the justices and judges were entitled to an increase and, in some cases, were not getting enough. I can assure the Minister that, so far as this Party is concerned, the monkey-wrench is thrown into the works right now, and that from this corner of the House he will get no encouragement whatever in regard to the increases of salaries proposed for the different individuals in this Bill.

Listening to the last Deputy, it occurred to me it was a pity that the Creator did not ordain that all men should be equal while on this earth in the matter of worldly goods and everything else. That seems to be the doctrine of the Deputy's Party. The be-all and the end-all of their doctrine seems to be that all humans should be equal in worldly goods. I suggest to the Deputy that he should ponder well upon that doctrine before he goes too far with it. As the Deputy knows from experience, you can carry that doctrine to any lengths. It is a dangerous doctrine. I am sure the Deputy did not mean to convey what his words will convey to the ordinary man in the street or at the cross-roads.

Do you believe in £4,000 a year for one man and £52 for another man?

Listening to that doctrine being propounded, one is convinced anyhow of one thing, that the Party to which the Deputy belongs will always be a small one. I think the Deputy's Party on one occasion went into the Division Lobby against the Government on a motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition when the Government were defending the offer they made to a group of people in this country, namely, the national teachers.

An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.

What were they getting? £3 a week.

Not very long ago the Minister for Finance in his Budget Statement and in the Estimates before this House brought forward proposals to increase substantially the remuneration of all State servants, with the exception of judges and the Comptroller and Auditor-General, on account of the falling value of money. I was in this House on most days when the Estimates and the Budget were being discussed and I do not think I am doing them any injustice when I say that we had not a single objection from the members of the Clann na Talmhan Party to the proposals of the Government to increase the salaries of State servants by from 50 per cent. down to 15 per cent. I suggest to Deputy Commons that he should ponder carefully the trend of his public utterances. There may be people in poor circumstances, as there always have been and always will be in this country and every other country, but the doctrine which the Deputy, with his colleague, Deputy Cafferky, is so fond of giving expression to in this House is a very dangerous one.

I want to refer to a matter that is not in this Bill, namely, an Act which I think is called the Courthouses Act. I suggest that this is an appropriate occasion to have that Act amended, as the general impression is that that Act which was passed a few years ago is not operating as it should. The Act gave control of courthouses to the court clerks. I suggest to the Minister that he should take advantage of this Bill to amend that Act and to put the control of courthouses back again in the hands of county councils. The law as it stands compels local authorities to provide courthouses for the administration of justice. I think that the provisions of that Act were very unfair and that the Act is not working out as it should: If the Minister has not heard anything about it, I suggest he should make some inquiries and that he will find it needs amendment. I suggest that this is an opportune time to have that Act amended.

I also suggest that some amendment of the law is needed with regard to the maintenance of courthouses and the building of new courthouses. I put it to the Minister that the local rate-payers should not be saddled with the full cost of providing and maintaining courthouses. I think that out of central taxation there should be some quid pro quo in the matter of providing new courthouses and maintaining existing ones. Many of the places where courts are beinsg held are not at all what they should be; they are in a bad condition and need rebuilding or renovation. Those who attend the courts are entitled to better accommodation than they have in most areas. I think the Minister should help, as the Department of Education and other Departments are helping, in that connection. The Garda Síochána branch of the-Department provide their own accommodation in the matter of barracks and. it is up to the Department of Justice to-give at least 50 per cent. and so encourage local authorities to improve existing accommodation for the holding of District and Circuit Courts.

I do not know if the remuneration of District Court clerks has been. increased recently. If not, the Minister should make some provision for them. They are a badly paid section-of the community. I always said tha4 long before there was any rise in the cost of living. They are expected to keep up a certain dignity and they cannot do it on their present salaries. They have important work to do and they should be better paid. I hope the Minister will give this matter his attention before the Committee Stage of the Bill. The Courthouses Act should be amended so as to take from the District Court clerks the power given to them of being in full control of courthouses. That is not working out well as between the local authorities, who own the buildings, and the clerks. That arrangement should never have been made and it, is something that needs amendment.

I would like to draw the-Minister's attention to the manner in. which some of the Circuit Courts are-located. There is no Circuit Court in the town of Midleton, and the people-along a whole stretch of country there,. if they have occasion — which God. Forbid — to bother the Minister's courts, have no possible means of getting to-Youghal except by hiring a taxi. As it is, there are few taxis there now to take them — there is such a thing as transport regulations. I suggest the least the ordinary individual might expect, seeing all the money we are expending for justice, is that when he has occasion to go to court the court should be fixed conveniently for him. There is no justification for bringing people from Cloyne, Whitegate and Ballycotton to Youghal court. That is one thing the Minister should consider.

I agree with Deputy Commons about juries. In Cork the only way an unfortunate member of the agricultural community can get out of jury service is by saying he is deaf or handing in a certificate of deafness. It is not right to have these people dragged in day after day, unpaid, looking up at a joker drawing his £4,600 a year, as it is now. The Minister will have to make some provision for juries or else he will have to do without them. It is unfair and unjust to drag an unfortunate countryman away from his business to spend day after day in a court. They do not provide, him with the cost of his transport, or even with a meal while he is there. It would be better if the Bill made provision for that aspect rather than proyide an increase of £600 for a man who already has £4,000.

I can see no justification for that Increase. The argument is put up here That is to avoid the corruption or someThing of that kind. A man can easily guarantee not to be corrupt on £4,000 and there is no need to give him £600 a year more. It is in the dock that fellow should be and not on the Bench trying anybody. The people who have to foot those bills are the members of the agricultural community. Take the largest agriculturist in this State, Mr. J.N. Greene who farms 2,000 acres in Carlow and Kildare. He has sunk £250,000 in agriculture. He employs a staff of 75, and he keeps 75. per cent. of his land constantly under the plough. I guarantee that, even with £250,000 Sunk in his 2,000 acres, he has not an income of £4,000 a year to keep himself and his family.

Judging by appearances, this country is flooded with professional men, some of whom have nothing else to do but prepare special clauses in Acts in order to give employment to the troop outside through loopholes here, there and elsewhere. Instead of having a Bill like this giving such huge increases to these people, the Minister should bring in a Bill to take the penal restrictions off the unfortunate countryman who has to walk three miles and more if he wants a drink on Sunday. Maybe at the end of the three miles, if he is looking for a pint he cannot get it and he has to walk back again. If he does not do that he will be breaking the law. It would be a lot more suitable if the Department of Justice devoted some attention to equalising the law and seeing that there will be a law the administration of which can be respected. They should not allow those unjust penal laws to continue.

This is not a Bill to amend laws.

The time of the Minister and the Department would be far better spent remedying laws that are held in contempt rather than bringing in a Bill of this description.

Are you going to vote against this Bill?

Considering that I suppose Deputy Costello has visions of being one day a judge——

The Deputy might leave out these personalities.

I am not going to stand interruptions from anyone——

Order. The Deputy will resume his seat. The Deputy was discussing amending Acts which are not relevant to this Bill.

With all respect, it is your job to keep order, not that of Deputy Costello. Deputy Costello must learn to conduct himself white. I am in the House.

By your standard, suppose.

Yes and it will be a far better standard than that of a lawyer who charges £100 for an opinion that is not worth tuppence.

He will get as much as he gives every time. I have seen Bills of this description before and I have seen all the lawyers gathered for the feast. They are gathered for the feast again to-day. I do not object so much to increases for district justices, who have fairly low salaries and who have a lot of work to do, but I certainly do object to any individual who has already £4,000 a year getting £600 clapped on to it. Deputies who are nominally in opposition will not vote against this Bill while they have glorious visions of what the future holds for them.

The Deputy was already reminded that personalities are not arguments on the Bill.

The Deputy has made his protest against what he sees wrong in this Bill and he is not going to waste the time of the House in discussing it further. I think it is unjust and wrong to come along and say that a man with £4,000 a year should have another £600 clapped on to it. I think it is an outrage.

I am sorry that I have to differ from my esteemed colleague, Deputy Corry. It is regrettable that Deputy Corry should see fit to disagree with the proposal that the Chief Justice of the country should get a small increase. These types of speeches are all right at the village cross-roads, but surely if we are going to uphold the dignity of the nation, we should at least see that a man who is put in a position of honour and integrity should be given a sufficient allowance to enable him to uphold that dignity, whether he be a judge or anybody else. He should be placed in the position to enable him to entertain visitors of other countries of equal rank in keeping with his position. It is regrettable that certain statements should be made on a Bill of this kind. There is no use in playing to the mob all the time. Taking into consideration the dignity which attaches to the position of Chief Justice, the entertainment which he is sometimes called upon to extend to visitors of equal rank as a matter of courtesy, and having regard to the entertainment which he would get if he were himself visiting other countries, we should not be cheese-paring over a small matter of this kind.

There is another matter to which I should like to refer, namely, the remuneration of District Court clerks. I definitely agree that District Court clerks are not, as a body, well paid and I should like the Minister to consider that question with a view to ascertaining what can be done for them. So far as courthouses are concerned, there are some courthouses in my constituency which can only be described as relics of the stone age. Some of them are badly-lighted and ill-kept. I know that they are the responsibility of the county council but I agree with Deputy Allen that something should be done to improve the conditions of these buildings.

Various matters have been introduced into this debate that probably are not strictly germane to the subject matter of the Bill. I think it desirable that we should consider th8 whole question of the position of the judiciary and the responsibilities which holders of judicial office have, irrespective of considerations regarding the salaries and wages of other sections of the community. Most Deputies realise that it is desirable, in fact absolutely essential, that the judiciary should be independent and that the members of the judiciary should be placed, so far as financial reward can place them, independent of the need or the temptation to supplement their judicial,, salaries by other means. It is true, to say when you consider the salary paid to a Supreme Court judge, a High Court judge or even to a District Justice, as against the wages paid to many individuals in the community, that the majority of the people receive far smaller salaries whether they work for the State, or are engaged in private avocations or work for employers. No matter what section of the community is considered the majority of the people have smaller incomes than those paid at the present time even to district justices. But merely to consider the matter in that light is to ignore entirely the fundamental consideration —whether the judiciary should be placed in an independent position and above all possibility of temptation.

It is easy to criticise and to make political propaganda out of comparisons between salaries paid to the holders of judicial office, or for that matter to the holders of any highly-paid office in the State, and the salaries paid to many lowly paid workers in the community. I have no doubt that for many Deputies it is a fertile ground of propaganda. I have no desire to retrace past propaganda in this matter but listening to some Deputies here it is obvious that certain propaganda in this country on the question of salaries dies hard. It is obvious that some of it has not died yet. However that may be, the responsibility devolves on everybody in this House — certainly on all Deputies who realise the position which members of the judiciary should hold, and the responsibilities which are placed on any individual who reaches the position of either district justice, Circuit Court judge, High Court or Supreme Court judge — to see that these people should be placed, in so far as it is possible to place them, beyond any need to supplement their incomes from other sources. It is true that many members of the judiciary have engaged in their spare time in writing or in some other harmless activities, but whether that resulted in bringing them in any monetary gain or not is not a matter of material consideration.

We should realise, even assuming that the £24,900 which these increases will mean on the total State expenditure could be withheld from the justices and judges and distributed amongst the entire community or any section of it, that it would represent a negligible sum. In fact, to suggest that this sum of £24,900, or for that matter the entire sum paid by way of salaries to the holders of judicial appointments would in any way increase prosperity or enable people to remain in this country or remain in productive employment, is refusing to face the issue. It is refusing to realise that, over and above certain State expenditure, the only way we can increase prosperity or better the conditions of many of our people or enable more of them to remain here in productive employment, is by increasing production by one means or another. We are, I think, coming close to the position, if we have not already done so, in which the national pool will not stand any further attempts to make it go further unless there is a vast increase in production or in the national wealth. I think that if any Depute has given the matter any intelligent consultation at all he must realise that, even allowing for the distribution of the entire sum paid by way of salaries to the holders of judicial office amongst the lowly paid sections of the community, it would mean a negligible increase to them, nothing more than a few pence, so that to suggest that that could in any way better their conditions is to refuse to face the facts of the situation. I would like to commend to Deputies who think that that is possible to ponder the words in the address, reported in this evening's newspapers, delivered by a Labour? Minister in England, Mr. Herbert Morrison, to-day. In the course of that address he referred to:—

"The position of the whole of the so-called middle class which, has for some time past been experiencing a painful and difficult reduction in their living standards. I know very well that their incomes are often — though not always — higher than those of work people. But, after all, it is not any easier for anyone to do without; all sorts of comforts, services and amenities to which they have been accustomed for many years and on which they have come to look almost. as their right."

The fact is that, no matter how determined an effort is made to distribute or redistribute the national income, eventually the point is reached beyond which the existing national income cannot be distributed further. Apparently, the Labour Government has come to that conclusion. Anybody who knows anything of politics elsewhere will realise that one of the foremost plans in the programme of the Labour Party in England was that there should be a far greater distribution of the national income, but in that address the Lord President of the Council in England has told his supporters and the country that without a much greater increase in production it is not possible to improve the lot of many people.

Labour Deputies, speaking here this evening, agreed that it is essential and in the best interests of the community that the members of the judiciary should be placed in the position in which their incomes will be sufficient to maintain them up to the standard which not merely custom but general opinion has come to realise should be theirs when they hold these offices. When a person is appointed to a judicial office in future it certainly means for the majority of them that they will no longer have those opportunities of supplementing their incomes which are open to persons not holding such appointments. Deputy Martin O'Sullivan and Deputy Keyes were entirely convinced of the necessity for maintaining the judiciary in an independent position. They are Deputies who speak from experience. As they say themselves, they speak for the majority of the lower-paid sections of the community. They realise that, no matter how anxious and vigorous their efforts may be to secure and promote better conditions for the lower-paid workers, the holders of judicial offices should be placed in an independent position.

It is significant that some Deputies consider that the increases proposed under the Bill could be better spent in another way. They made the point that since a person was giving satisfactory service on an existing salary he would continue to give it without an increase. It is true that most people of integrity would do that. I think that the majority, if not the entire members of the judiciary, whether judges of the Supreme Court, the High Court, Circuit Court and the district justices, would, without question, continue to give the same impartial, independent and unbiased opinions even if the House should decide to retain them on their present salaries. Whether the increases were given or not would in no way affect their opinions. It does not follow from that that this House should not consider carefully the position which has developed here. It might have been more satisfactory, and would certainly have given a truer picture of conditions here, if all the increases which have been given piecemeal to different sections of State employees and to many sections of the community by means of bonus orders or through recommendations of the Labour Court, were considered in globo, and if it were possible to have a series of measures brought in by the different Ministers making these increases operative from a certain date. If that had been done we would have got a far clearer picture, and we could have probably considered in its proper perspective the increases which are now under consideration. I think that would have been the better course. It would have enabled one section of the community to consider the responsibilities and circumstances of other sections, and would have enabled us to get a wider picture of the whole situation.

Unfortunately, many discussions in this House are clouded by sectional interest, by narrow approach, by bigoted references to particular conditions which in no way advance the interests of those on whose behalf so many people profess to speak. If we could consider the whole matter from an independent, impartial viewpoint, realising that the value of money has halved, certainly, since 1924, and has fallen considerably since 1939, it might be possible to face this situation detachedly, and to realise that the purchasing power of the salaries which were fixed 22 or 25 years ago bears no comparison with the present purchasing power of those salaries. We could have approached the problem in that way and could have considered these matters from a more enlightened point of view, unblurred and unobscured by sectional interests such as were advanced in certain speeches that have been made here, not merely this evening but on other occasions when individual sections were getting an increase, when, in fact, as is generally recognised, the community as a whole, so far as it is possible, should receive increases in order to meet the diminished purchasing power of money.

I should like to say a word on the question of the actual increases in salaries of district justices. I think good case can be made for granting a flat-rate increase and for giving all district justices a salary of £1,500 a year. Certainly, no case can be made for differentiating between district justices who happen to operate in the country and those who happen to operate in the City of Dublin. There has been a suggestion made in the course of the debate that a district justice who happens to hold one of the appointments in the metropolitan area, merely because he is new to the appointment and, possibly, is a young man, should not get as high a salary as a person who has been in office for 24 or 25 years. I do not think that there is any case for basing salary on years of service. The occupant of any judicial office should; be independent, whether he is young or old or, has given a number of years' service or not. What I consider wrong and inequitable is that a number of justices who are operating whole time and who have wide areas to covert who have long lists and who have, by and large, heavier work — certainly no lighter — should have lower salaries than the metropolitan justices who, at any rate, are fortunate enough in being able to live convenient to their courts. I consider that all these justices should get the same salaries. Whatever case there may have been for the original basis on which certain justices got £1,000, others got £800, others got £l,100 and others got £1,200, no case can be made for that now, particularly in view of the redistribution of work which took place under the Courts of Justice Act last year. That has resulted in easing the pressure of work on some justice's. Possibly, it has not altered the position in respect of many justices. Certainly, any justice who operates in close proximity to the City of Dublin has no less work to do and no less arduous duties to perform than any justice operating in the metropolitan area. In equity, I suggest the same rate of salary should be fixed for justices operating in rural areas as for those operating in the metropolitan area.

On the question of Part III as to the desirability of appointing a president of the Circuit Court, it is no harm to appoint a member of the Circuit Court to the office of president of the Circuit Court, but whether it is desirable to appoint a member of the Circuit Court who holds the office of president as an ex officio judge of the High Court is certainly open to question. It is true to say, although it is not a valid comparison, that the President of the High Court is ex officio a member of the Supreme Court but, when the Supreme Court has five members, the President of the High Court does not act. As I understand the proposal here, at the present time there is a vacancy in the High Court and, apparently, it is not proposed to fill that vacancy but it is proposed to allow the President of the Circuit Court to function in the High Court when work necessitates that course. I think it is undesirable that the President of the Circuit Court should consider or hear appeals from I his fellow members on the Circuit Court. The fact that the five or six judges of the High Court on occasion have had their work arranged, in consultation with themselves, by the President of the High Court is no justification, particularly when it is taken into consideration that the bulk of the work of the High Court, with the exception of the High Court on circuit, is done in Dublin. The Circuit Court is entirely different. Each Circuit Court judge has been, up to the present independent, functioning in a particular area, and if it is found, as I know it is found, that, in many Circuit Court areas, the work is far heavier than in others, there is a number of possible solutions. The main objection, as I understand, is that in certain Circuit Court areas the judges no longer sit in towns in which, formerly, the County Court sat and that heavy expenditure is involved on litigants because they are obliged to travel long distances in order to attend the sitting of the Circuit Court. One solution for that is to fix the Circuit Court towns in an area, either by Act of Parliament or, if possible, under the orders fixing the Circuit Courts, and making it obligatory on a Circuit Court judge to sit in those towns at specified times.

I think it is true to say that the success of the distribution of work by the president of the Circuit Court will depend ultimately on the co-operation which he receives from the other members of the Circuit Bench and it may or may not be possible to get that co-operation. Much will depend on the personnel involved and I would certainly like to hear from the Minister whether agreement has been obtained from the members of the Circuit Bench to the particular proposals. Certainly, it is likely that the Circuit Court judges would resent any interference with their existing powers or privileges. The fact that, while it will not in actual detail interfere with their powers or privileges, it may involve certain individuals in increased work, would be better overcome by distributing the circuit towns on a different basis and by making it obligatory on the Circuit Court judges for the particular areas to sit in these towns once in every session.

The only remaining matter I would like to refer to is the question of the District Court and Circuit Court clerks. As I said earlier in this discussion, it would have been far better from the national point of view and certainly would have helped towards enlightened discussion here, if every section of the community under State payment or in respect of whom liability for increases falls on the State, could have been considered in a series of measures. Then it would have been possible to consider each section in a proper, impartial way. As it is, we are taking each section piecemeal and now, apparently, when we come to consider the judiciary, we leave out one of the most essential arms of the whole legal system. Certainly, so far as the District Courts are concerned, a great deal of heavy, responsible work devolves on the District Court clerks. These clerks have done their work efficiently and, as far as I am aware, have received only a bonus since the cost of living has increased and, so far as one can gather, they have no prospect of an increase in salary in the immediate future. It is one of the serious drawbacks of the present measure that the whole question of court officials as well as members of the judiciary has not been considered and I commend to the Minister file opinions that have been voiced from all quarters of the House that Circuit Court and District Court officers and clerks should receive consideration.

Subject to that, I think the Bill is satisfactory and I hope it will be possible to secure agreement on its terms. Whether the particular increases are sufficient or not is not really a matter which we should consider in the abstract. It will not help us in considering this matter to compare members of the judiciary with members of other sections or classes in the community. It may help some people politically. All I would like to say to them is that the same political tactics do not always, work successfully twice. Some people find that out early and maybe they will find it out in the comparatively early future.

Regarding the Circuit Court clerks, to whom practically every Deputy referred and regretted there was no mention of them in the Bill, it might not be necessary to have a Bill for them at all, but if it were necessary it would not be in a Courts of Justice Bill but in a Court Officers Bill. That is the explanation why they are not in this Bill. The question is mixed up with that of temporary staff generally and is a matter to be settled by the Minister for Finance; and cannot be settled on its own.

I think there was general agreement with the Bill apart from Clann na Talmhan. It came even from Deputy Corry, who ought to give up this playing to the gallery. He is long enough in the Government Party now and ought to give it up. Even he thought the district justices were not getting too much and should be getting more. The whole matter has been considered and it is very hard to say whether a person is properly remunerated or not. On the whole, having regard to the percentage increase given to people on comparable salaries in the Civil Service, they have done better, as the 30 per cent. would be slightly better than that given to those in the Civil Service. As to why there is differentiation between the district justices, that was settled long ago, but it is not for that reason that I would continue it. All these Bills which set up the courts were naturally experimental, and I am sure those who set them up and brought all their experience to bear on them at the time knew there would have to be changes. On the whole, I think there was a good reason for having some differentiation, though not very much.

It is all very well to say that the district justices in Dublin are nearer the courts than those in the country, but in Dublin and Cork especially the work is trying and onerous, whereas in the country one has to travel but the work is lighter. I have no experience of the Dublin courts, but those who have tell me that it is most trying to be dealing with all the types of cases they have and that the tension is very heavy indeed. It must be for that reason the differentiation was made and I think there was a case for it.

That, is true, but County Dublin is nearly as heavy.

Mr. Boland

If the boundary is extended, I suppose there will be a change there. Those who know the work in country districts find it is, lighter there. I know they are the people's courts and very, important, but if I were a district justice I would prefer to be in the country rather than in the city, from what I hear of the practice in both places. The increase of 30 per cent. is in line with the general increase given to all public officials.

On Deputy Cosgrave's point about not having all this done together, all the other increases had to be dealt with by way of Estimate, either Supplementary Estimate or General Estimate and these are going through now, or they were dealt with in the Financial Resolutions or Finance Bill. This was the first case that required legislation, as the judges' salaries cannot he changed without legislation. My main object in bringing in the Bill was to provide for the re-organisation of the court. If that had not been there, possibly the Bill for increasing judges' salaries and that of the Comptroller and Auditor-General and other statutory salaries might be put in a separate Bill; but as there was this Bill for the re-organisation of the Circuit Court and as the judges' salaries are provided for in a Courts of Justice Bill, we thought it was just as well to include provision for these increases in salaries in this particular Bill.

On the whole, it seems to have got a good reception. Though Deputy Commons assures me that the country does not stand for it, I am not going to accept that. This House is fairly representative of public opinion — we know that at every general election. Alter a general election, we will have an idea of the public view, but we cannot tell until we have one. We got from practically all sides of the House, with the exception of his Party, expressions of approval and we may, take that, generally speaking, as the public opinion in the country.

We had a campaign which was not a most praiseworthy part of our activities in the past, but we are a bit older now and more experienced and, if Deputy Commons ponders over what Deputy Cosgrave has said, he will realise it does not suit to have a campaign of that kind, even in County Mayo. I represent a western constituency. That was tried by his Party in 1943 and was dropped in 1944, as they had gained experience. I am sure in time they will get experience like1 the rest of us. We do not claim to be infallible, out just like the rest of human beings we learn as we go along. Undoubtedly, some of our early campaign was not all it might have been, but circumstances were quite different from what they are now and we were coming out of the heat of a very nasty fight that had taken place, and I dare say personal animosity had a lot do do with it. I do not mind saying that. That is disappearing now, thank God.

There is no reason in the world why everyone should not get some little increase. The attitude taken by Deputy McGilligan is fantastic, that this represents only half of what it purports to be, in other words, only £2,300 instead of £4,600. That is ridiculous. No one could possibly hope to get into the position they were in before the war, in view of the economic position of the world as we know it.

Deputy Costello said he was very uneasy about the Circuit Court proposals, that they might be unconstitutional and that I should ask my advisers about it. I assure him I took very good care to ask my advisers whether there was any danger that the proposal to appoint a president with power to arrange the business of the Circuit Court might be unconstitutional and I got an assurance on that point. On the point raised by Deputy Mc&illigan and Deputy Cosgrave, as to whether the judges were consulted, I can say they were consulted and we were told that "they welcomed the general principle of appointing a president of the Circuit Court and were anxious to co-operate in carrying out their duties in accordance with the scheme proposed and appreciated that it would be a great advantage to the administration of the Circuit Court as a whole". That is an official appreciation by the circuit judges. That ought to dispose of any suggestion of dictatorial action.

The person appointed as president will not come in as a dictator. He will consider the whole situation, and, if he finds that there is one circuit in which a judge is doing only half of what a judge in another circuit has to do, he will say: "I think you ought to give a hand in that circuit." Similarly in the case of towns, such as those referred to by Deputy Corry and Deputy Commons, if it is found that some towns are not being properly catered for and that litigants are involved in expense by reason of having to travel long distances, it would be a proper matter for the president to take up. There was no way of doing that up to now. I have had complaints, but the most we could do in those cases was to give a hint to the judge. We had no power to interfere. Now there will be a definite right vested in the president to deal with such a matter, if he is satisfied that the situation requires it.

I am sure that it will be dealt with in somewhat the same way as the President of the High Court works with his colleagues. There will not be any bad feeling created at all. They will sit down and consider what it is best to do in the public interest and what suits the public is what will count and nothing else. I know that Chief Justice Kennedy had extreme views on this question of the sanctity of the judges, but I do not share these views. Even yet, some of the judges think they should be in separate buildings, too. If we had enough buildings, I would agree, but when we have not and when we have to make use of the one building for these courts, surely if the public interest demands it, we ought to do it. So far as I am concerned, I will insist on its being done, until we can make proper provision.

There is no use in Deputy Costello reminding me of what Chief Justice Kennedy thought. I certainly do not think as he thought. The public interest should come first and there is no derogation from the status of a judge in saying that, and I am sure the judiciary as a whole will admit that the public convenience is what has to be considered. There was no other way of dealing with this matter. I think it was Deputy O'Sullivan who thought the Minister's Department should do it, but that would be objected to much more vigorously than the present proposal. Some Deputies thought — I could not quite understand what they meant — that length of service should count, but I do not see how that could be done. A judge or a justice has the same work to do when he starts as when he finishes. He is supposed to be a competent person; he has the same responsibility as any of his colleagues; and he should get the same salary.

Deputy McMenamin seemed to be under the impression that we were taking power to change a circuit judge from his circuit. There is no such provision in the Bill. What is there is what I have already said— power to require a judge who has not sufficient to do in his own circuit to give a hand in circuits in which there is pressure of work. Deputy Allen raised the matter of the Courthouses Act. That would be for a different Bill altogether. As he said, it is a Courthouses Act and obviously is not a Courts of Justice Act, and whatever requires to be done in that regard would have to be done in another measure. It is not a matter for this Bill. He seemed to make a case for some contribution, but, as I say, it is not a matter for this Bill.

I did not know what Deputy Costello was getting at when he spoke about this proposal to make the President of the Circuit Court an ex officio member of the High Court, but Deputy Cosgrave has let it out now. I understand that what he suggested was that we did not intend to fill the vacancy which exists and that we intended to require him to act in both capacities. The intention is that he will only be called on to act in the High Court, if it is absolutely necessary. If it happened that two of the High Court judges were ill at the one time for perhaps a prolonged period, with the result that work was accumulating, there is no power at present to appoint an extra High Court judge temporarily. It would require legislation, but under this proposal we will be able to ask the President of the Circuit Court, in such an eventuality, to give a hand. I can see nothing wrong with that.

There is only one point — if the President of the High Court acts in the Supreme Court, he is only one of five hearing appeals from the High Court, but if the President of the Circuit Court acts in the High Court, he may be the only individual hearing appeals from the Circuit Court. That could be clarified by an amendment, but it is an important distinction.

Mr. Boland

All that can be arranged. The President of the High Court will arrange the business and see that such things need not occur. I certainly cannot see any other objection to it. The matter was considered very carefully from the point of view of the Constitution and the judges were consulted. We have had a communication from them in the terms I have mentioned — that they approve of the principle, that they intend to co-operate and think it will make for the betterment of the Circuit Court.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 62; Níl, 10.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Dan.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Brennan, Thomas.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Burke, Patrick (County Dublin).
  • Butler, Bernard.
  • Carter, Thomas.
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Colley, Harry.
  • Coogan, Eamonn.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Crowley, Honor Mary.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • De Valera, Vivion.
  • Dockrell, Maurice E.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Keating, John.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Kilroy, James.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Loughman, Frank.
  • Lydon, Michael F.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • McCann, John.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Oonnor, John S.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Higgins. Thomas F.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Sullivan, Martin.
  • Redmond, Bridget M.
  • Rice, Bridget M.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Mary B.
  • Shanahan, Patrick.
  • Sheldon, William A.W.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Skinner, Leo B.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Walsh, Laurence.
  • Walsh, Richard.

Níl

  • Beirne, John.
  • Blowick, Joseph.
  • Cogan, Patrick.
  • Commons, Bernard.
  • Donnellan, Michael.
  • Finucane, Patrick.
  • Halliden Patrick J.
  • Heskin, Denis.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick.
  • O'Reilly, Thomas.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy: Níl: Deputies Donnellan and Commons.
Question declared carried.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 4th June, 1947.
Top
Share