Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 6 Feb 1924

Vol. 2 No. 16

SEANAD IN COMMITTEE. - THE COURTS OF JUSTICE BILL, 1923—(THIRD STAGE).

SECTION 36.

A Circuit Court of Justice (An Chúirt Bhreitheamhnais Chuarda) shall be constituted under this Act consisting of not more than eight judges, each of whom shall be styled in his appointment "Judge (Breitheamh) of the Circuit Court of Justice in Saorstát Eireann." Such judges shall discharge within the several groups of counties specified in the Schedule to this Act (which groups are hereinafter termed Circuits) such duties as are by this Act imposed upon judges of the Circuit Court. The Minister for Home Affairs may, with the consent of the Chief Justice, and the judges for the time being of the respective Circuits affected, at any time and from time to time transfer any county or part of a county from one Circuit to another Circuit, or otherwise alter the areas comprised in the several Circuits as he shall think proper, but not so as to alter the total number of Circuits.

Mr. S. BROWN

Senator Haughton, who is unfortunately absent, asked me to take charge of the amendment in his name. I therefore beg to move:—

Before Section 36 to insert a new Section 36 as follows:—

The judges to be placed on the rota for the trial of election petitions in each year under the provisions of the Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, shall be selected out of the judges of the High Court in such manner as may be provided by rules of Court made for that purpose by the rule-making authority constituted by Section 35 of this Act."

This is an amendment as to which I spoke to the Attorney-General. The way the matter stands is this:—The Parliamentary Elections Act of 1868 does not provide for a rota of judges, and the rota was provided for by a section of the Judicature Act which, of course, will disappear when this Bill becomes law. It is therefore necessary that you should have a section of this kind to give the rule-making authority the right to appoint a rota of judges. When I spoke to the Attorney-General about this he said that he thought that it was a proper amendment, and that he would speak to me again on the subject. I am quite willing in his absence, if the President thinks it better, to allow the amendment to stand over until the Attorney-General is here.

The PRESIDENT

As far as the principle of the amendment is concerned we are in agreement with it. I have not had an opportunity of having the words of the amendment considered. On the face of them I think they meet the purpose intended. If, on examination, it were found that the wording was all right, we shall be prepared to accept the amendment.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

The Seanad will agree that this amendment should remain over to be considered by the Government, and the Seanad shall be informed on the Report Stage of the view that the Government take of it.

Agreed.

Mr. A. JAMESON

I beg to move:—

Section 36, line 32. To delete the word "more" and substitute therefor the word "less."

Altering the word "more" into the word "less" would mean that there were to be not less than eight judges. In case the business became sufficient the number could be increased, and to allow that to be done I want to insert the words in the following amendments, which read:—

Line 42. To insert after the words "several circuits" the words "or increase or diminish the number of circuits and rearrange the grouping of counties therein."

Lines 43 and 44. To delete the words "alter the total number of circuits" and substitute therefor the words "increase the total number of circuits beyond ten."

The gist of the amendment is that instead of fixing the maximum at eight the amendments would fix the maximum at ten. The further alterations are proposed to provide that the proper grouping would be done after the number of the judges is changed.

In this amendment I have been guided a good deal by the opinion of the Committee which the Government appointed to deal with the matter and on the Report of which this Bill was founded. The President told us the other day that he had appointed a Committee, and apparently he had very considerable satisfaction with its Report. One of the members of that Committee was the Attorney-General, and the words of the Report were:—"We consider that a minimum of eight judges will be required for these Circuit Courts to discharge the duties hitherto performed over the twenty-six counties by sixteen County Court Judges, and recommend that the eight Circuits should be constituted as follows":—

To put in instead of a minimum the words "not more than" means, of course absolutely throwing the recommendation of the Committee to the winds. Whoever drafted the Bill evidently foresaw the trouble that would arise when a press of business came along. I think the Committee considered that there would be a great press of business, and they proposed that it ought to be dealt with by a minimum number of judges. Apparently they presumed that if business increased to such an extent that eight judges could not handle it the number could be increased. This method of dealing with the situation is ruled out in the Bill by using the words "not more" instead of "not less," which is the same thing as "minimum." When you look at the Bill and see how the press of business is to be dealt with you find it is arranged for in Section 44, in which power is taken to appoint temporary assistant judges:

"In case the accumulation of business so requires there may be appointed such number of temporary Assistant Circuit Judges on such terms and conditions as the Minister for Home Affairs with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance may determine."

That means, instead of having permanent judges, we are to have judges of the class that I think in this country were generally known as "removables" appointed by the Government of the day for specific purposes, and on terms with regard to pay and the period during which they hold office as the Executive Government of the day choose. After what we have been through in this country, no matter what our political views may have been, I should have thought that the whole feeling both of the Government and of the country was against a renewal of any such temporary officials in the position of judges. If it is possible to imagine any set of men whose decisions would be attacked and could be attacked, it would certainly be these men. People holding these temporary posts have always been attacked, and bitterly attacked, in this country, and I think there could be nothing worse for the good name of our Judiciary and permanent judges than having temporary officers and judges appointed to deal with a particular situation. It has been argued in the Seanad that as we are situated at present it is perfectly safe to deal with the matter in this way, as the Government of the day is a Government that we trust, and that will not make any wrong use of its powers. I am perfectly prepared to agree to that. I think no one in the Seanad has a higher opinion of the Government than I have, but to give that power in a permanent Bill of this sort, which will be administered years hence by a Government of which we know nothing, and which may have totally different objects to the present Government, seems to me to destroy one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty that the people have.

To my mind it is not put into the Bill with the idea I am discussing now, that the future Executive should have power to do what most of us would consider an illegal thing, but to meet the present situation, as the Bill limits the number of judges to eight. The object, I presume, is economy. It is very difficult to discuss this question of economy and costs, because unfortunately we are in the position of knowing nothing about it. Wherever we come up against economy in this Bill, or anything of that description, we are at a hopeless loss. We have had a White Paper given to us, which was described in perfectly accurate language the other day. I will not say more than that about it. Any of us who have studied it and tried to get guidance as to what any of the Circuit Courts is going to cost will find out when he has done that he knows as much about it as when he began to read it. Whether the Government are right in saying that there should be only eight judges not a soul in the Seanad can say. We know nothing about it. If we were in a position to know what the cost of each of those Circuit Courts was going to be, or if we knew that the cost of one or more of the Courts was going to amount to a huge sum of money, then we might be able to agree that there was some argument for this temporary arrangement. Even if this temporary arrangement could be limited to deal with some press of business, and when that is disposed of, that they ought to disappear altogether, then we might have some chance of knowing where we were going.

At present one has to argue the point about how many separate judges there are to be without having a single idea either as to whether they are able to do the business that is in front of them, or what they will cost in the doing of it. Economy in legal matters may be the worst possible policy to follow. If the Courts of the Circuit Judges are badly manned, if there is an insufficient staff, if the staff are not of a sufficiently high calibre, then every litigant who goes into that Court will have slow, difficult, costly justice administered to him, no matter how eminent the judges may be. Without some binding clause, making these temporary judges for a certain state of affairs that exists, and which our present Government will deal with, and which will end when that state of affairs will end, I say that the Seanad will be very wrong indeed to limit the number of judges to eight, and let the business be disposed of by temporary officials to be appointed, leaving that power in the Bill to be used at any stage by any Executive of the Free State that may happen to be elected.

Of course, if the Seanad thinks it wise that the matter should be dealt with by permanent judges, it is necessary that that should be so. I think the Seanad will agree that in view of the fact that a Committee went carefully into this whole matter, and that we know that in their opinion it is extremely improbable that the eight separate judges can possibly do the work, probably there will be one or more needed. Then, I think we should undoubtedly delete the word "more" and substitute the word "less." The question of how many judges there ought to be is a difficult one to settle, but, undoubtedly, an addition of the number from eight to ten, as far as I have been able to gather from any of my legal friends who have looked into the matter, would be quite fair, and the business in any set of circumstances likely to arise would be fully dealt with if the number were limited to ten.

Of course, if some serious situation arises and more judges were required, it would be quite possible for the Government of the day to bring in a clause altering that and have another Bill for it. Of course, if the circuits were increased, it would be necessary to alter the grouping of the counties, which were arranged to suit only eight circuits. I do not wish to labour the thing any more. I think I tried to explain to the Seanad as clearly as I can, why it seems wrong that the judges should be limited in number to eight, directly in opposition to the carefully expressed opinion of the Judiciary Committee, under whose guidance this Bill was supposed to be drawn up; and also when we see it admitted in the subsequent clause of the Bill that even whoever drafted the Bill recognised that we were probably face to face with that situation already, and that it ought to be met by the appointment of temporary judges. I do hope that the Seanad, when we come to the Clause dealing with temporary judges, will not inflict on the Free State a repetition of temporary judges appointed in the manner which is indicated in the Bill. I should have thought that not only in the Seanad, but throughout the whole of the Free State, anybody who knew anything about the history of recent years would do all he could to prevent such a thing being passed.

If the Government of the day bring their business before us, and tell us it is necessary to make these appointments, and, for ad hoc purposes, ask us to agree to a certain number of supernumeraries which are to end, when certain business is done, then I think it is quite right that the Seanad should assist them in the matter. Far and away the better way to do it would be to allow the extra business to be met by the appointment of a judge equal in all respects to the other Circuit Judges, and have no inferior officials whatever. It is again coming to the question of the independence of the Judiciary. I think if both the Seanad and the Dáil did but consider a little in this Bill what is being thought about us outside, it would be a good thing. There is one thing which everybody in this Seanad knows that I am very keen about, and that is that eventually there should be no partition in Ireland, and that we should have Ireland a united whole. Now, I can think of nothing worse or which is more likely to prevent such a wished-for end, as that it can be honestly said —and that we cannot deny it—that the judges of the Free State are not of the same standing and are not in the same position, and not as independent as the judges in Great Britain or Northern Ireland. I would ask the Seanad, and I would ask the Government, seriously to consider, whether, in view of that, they should not make them temporary, and take care that the permanent conditions of this Bill make our Judiciary as free and as independent in every possible way as any judge in these islands.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I shall put the first of these amendments, because, as the Seanad will understand, the other two will be consequential on the assumption that the first amendment is agreed to.

The PRESIDENT

If no other Senator wishes to speak on this question, I would like to say a few words on it. I take it the amendment deals with the number of Circuit Judges. But I think the speech of the Senator dealt more with Clause 44, which will be dealt with later on when the particular clause is under discussion. It is right to say that the Judiciary Committee which sat on this matter reported to us that there should be at least eight judges. That is perfectly correct, but, in taking any recommendation from any body of opinion in the country, we must take into consideration what you said on the last day when this Bill was before the Seanad, and that is the balancing of our Budget. We must consider every single service that we have got in relation to that fundamental principle, that we have to cut our cloth according to the measure. In this case it must be admitted, I think, by every member of the Bench and Bar, that this is a huge experiment; and that it is not possible for any man to foresee whether six judges are necessary or whether ten would be required. If ten be necessary, a good case will require to be made for them before we will agree.

Under the Bill there is a huge number of judges—three Judges of the Supreme Court, six Judges of the High Court, eight Judges of the Circuit Court, and thirty District Justices. Really it is a pretty considerable number of appointments. I do not know that any profession has got such security behind it for an ultimate satisfactory mode of income as this particular profession. We have got to consider all the needs of the country in this case. If I were to adopt much the same line as Senator Jameson, in dealing with this amendment, I think I would be entitled to go farther and say that later on there is an amendment to cut down the jurisdiction of Circuit Court Judges from £300 to £200. Our idea is that the Circuit Courts are the Courts, taking the country as a whole and taking stock of it, that the people will lean upon, and to which they will look.

Those Courts will not appear to the people in the same light as the Four Courts did in the past. Of the Four Courts it was said: "When you go in you will never come out, and whatever you have in your pocket it will not be worth very much after you are finished with the Courts." Here there is going to be law well within the purse limits of the citizen, and there will be absolute and implicit confidence in every institution. If the jurisdiction is to be reduced from £300 to £200, there will be less business, although we are making provision for a greater number of Judges.

From my examination of this I am inclined to the view of the Minister for Finance who has been adamant on the subject of making provision for a greater number of judges than eight. I am perfectly satisfied that until a good case is put up and proved conclusively, we should not be bound to appoint ten men to do the work which could easily be accomplished by eight. I think we are quite at one with Senator Jameson in seeking to obtain public confidence; but I would put this to the Senator and to every other citizen of the State: With the system of election that we have in this country, Proportional Representation, it will require the goodwill and co-operation of every section of the community to maintain that stability and that security. It is not by seeking to demand more for one profession than what it is justly entitled to, and seeking to place the claims of that profession, for independence and all that, above the claims of every other section of the State, that we are going to achieve that end. While we may be perfectly convinced that the Executive Council of to-day will, perhaps, do nothing corrupt, the Senator must remember that he is placing within the power of Executive Councils of the future opportunities to do something corrupt when he leaves it at the pleasure of future Executive Councils to decide whether a judge, after five years service, will become entitled to a pension of one-sixth of his salary.

There is scarcely a single argument that I have heard in connection with the Judiciary Bill from one side which is critically viewing the interpretation that the Executive Council has put on the Judiciary Committee's Report which does not react and have all the peculiarities of one of those things the Australians use—-I forget the name of it.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Boomerang.

The PRESIDENT

Quite so. This Bill in its earlier stages will be purely experimental. If, as it is believed, these Circuit Courts will attract the major amount of business, it may be necessary to have 12 judges; but in such an eventuality I hope that the number of the Supreme Court Judges will be cut down and that the number of District Justices will also be cut down. Having had time since to look over the estimated cost of this new system we are bringing in, and using what information I had in the Dáil on the subject, there are other things to be considered than the £111,000 I mentioned, which we have had to bear up to this, and the £76,000 which it is estimated this particular form will cost. With regard to the question of the Removable Judges, let me say they are not removable in the sense in which the tribe of Removable Magistrates were usually referred to. Those old R.M.s were brought into being by a Government to carry out its own dictates. I would like to see an Executive Council within the next twenty years trying to bring into being a body like that in this country. The Executive Council must rely on the general goodwill of every section of the community. I would like to know what our friends opposite would say if we were to endeavour to bring into being an organisation such as the old Removable Magistrates.

The only reason we have sought power in this Bill to have additional Circuit Court Judges appointed is as follows:—Everybody understands the enormous damage that has been done in the country and is aware of the huge lists of claims in every county in the Saorstát and the immense pile of business that remains to be discharged, granted that this Bill were passed within a reasonable time. I am sure it is realised that we are dealing with an abnormal situation. Before the Treaty was signed and after the Treaty was signed we are aware that the criminal had a very considerable field to himself in this country, but we have been gradually catching up with him. Undoubtedly it means more work for the judges until the accumulation of cases that I have referred to has been cleared away. But if the case is made that because there is more work now you must give fixity of tenure to the men who must discharge the patriotic duty —which no man at the Bar ought to have any objection to discharge in this the Nation's hour of trial—then I am against it, and I say the finances of the country cannot stand it.

Col. MOORE

On the last occasion when a similar discussion arose in connection with the Bill I said nothing, because I felt I was in a rather difficult position. I gave a vote which many people did not approve of. I have listened to Senator Jameson's speech, and I must say that I entirely agree with him in regard to Removable Judges or Magistrates or whatever they may be. We have had long experience of that type. Every Government that I can remember has always put forward the high and mighty idea that it would not do anything wrong. Of course I have the greatest respect for this Government, and indeed for all other Governments; but unfortunately I have had experience enough to know that when they are in the least difficulty they do a great number of things that in their more sane and sensible moments they regret. I cannot forget what has been done by this Government. I remember the time a certain person was in prison and he put in an application for Habeas Corpus. There was a High Court appointed by this very Government, and it had been in being for some time. The day came when this Habeas Corpus application was brought forward. What did the Government do? They suppressed the High Court and did away with it altogether. In other words the Government dismissed the High Court Judges and told them they had no more business to do. That was rather stiff, because they were bound by law to hear the Habeas Corpus application. One of the Judges, a very independent man, said he was bound to carry out his duties as a Judge, and he granted the application. I am not going into the question of whether he was right or wrong, but the result was that he was clapped into prison next day. I admit that the Government were in a difficult position, but it may again occur that another Government would be put in a similarly difficult position. I would like to stick to principles. I think it is very improper. You never know what a Government is going to do under a plea of necessity. I am in favour of the amendment.

Mr. GUINNESS

I understand that the ground upon which the Government do not wish to take this power is a financial ground, and that they consider the country cannot bear the cost of the two additional Judges, as has been suggested, because otherwise it would seem that the clause as drafted in the Bill was one to preclude them from taking advantage of the position, which might be useful if they wished to do so. On the ground of finance only they thought it better that they should be precluded from taking any power to increase the number of Judges.

The PRESIDENT

That is, in essence, the case put by the Minister for Finance. He has objected to any increase in the number of judges beyond eight, but that decision would be open to reconsideration if it were found that there was such pressure of business as would make a larger number of Judges necessary. At present, however, he does not feel justified in going beyond eight. I am not exactly sure whether Senator Colonel Moore was speaking as a colonel or as a Senator. If he was speaking as a colonel, I must say that he amazed me, but if he was speaking as a Senator, I should say that, technically speaking, he was not quite accurate. We examined the case and got advice upon it, and we were informed that under the fiat of the Minister for Home Affairs, in the period in question during which these Judges were appointed and carried out their duties as such, there was something wanting. It was not a matter in which the Minister for Home Affairs had himself the right to do what was done, as it was a matter which the Cabinet or Executive Council should have done. In that case I should say, although I am not a lawyer, that they were performing functions for which they did not get the necessary authorisation. We took steps which might, perhaps, upset the equanimity of the Judge, but we took them because, in our opinion, they were in the best interest of the country. They were taken in difficult times, but, fortunately, those times are passed, and the necessity will not again arise.

Mr. BENNETT

Taking this clause as it stands, one is inclined to agree with Senator Jameson's proposal, but, to my mind, it has got to be read into the subsequent amendment. He wishes to have a fewer number of circuits, but a larger number of judges available. You may increase or diminish the number of circuits, and he suggests a possibility of increasing the number of judges beyond eight. I do not think that that is wise. If you make the number of judges ten, I say that that is a practical proposition; but to appoint ten, and, having appointed them, diminish their work, does not seem to me to be sound, and for that reason I must vote against the amendment.

Mr. BROWN

I would like to suggest to the President that it is not wise for the Government to tie their hands in this matter. As the section stands they will have to come back with a Bill and pass it through the two Houses if they want to increase the number of judges beyond eight. Speaking strictly on the amendment, is it wise for the Government to tie their hands in this matter? Anybody who looks at the Schedule and at the groups of counties which are to form these various sections can only come to the conclusion that they will never want less than eight. I had opportunity recently of seeing a number of country solicitors from different parts of Ireland, especially from the South and West, and they all told me that, from their experience, at least three groups scheduled to this Bill will be very large, and there will be much litigation in them, because if you have a £300 jurisdiction in a Circuit Court you will not only take away half of the jurisdiction of the High Court, but you will breed an entirely new lot of business in the country.

As far as I can make out from the evidence of those experienced solicitors, not one of the following groups—Group 5, which includes Sligo, Roscommon, Westmeath, Leix, Offaly, and Longford; Group 6, which includes Louth, Meath, Kildare, Wicklow, and Wexford; Group 7, which includes Kerry, the most litigious county in Ireland, Limerick and Clare—could be covered by a judge, sitting six days a week, for the whole year. If that is so, and if there is no possibility of those eight judges being able to cope with the business of the eight circuits, why not now give yourselves the power of appointing not ten judges, but more than eight? And then, when it is discovered that eight will do the work, you need not appoint any more. With the views of economy the Government rightly have, they are not going to appoint the ninth judge if he is not necessary. Why should they tie their hands and come back to the two Houses with a Bill if they want another judge?

Amendment put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 16; Níl, 27.

Tá

• W. Barrington.
• S.L. Brown, K.C.
• Countess of Desart.
• Sir Nugent Everard.
• J.P. Goodbody.
• Sir John Purser Griffith.
• H.S. Guinness.
• Marquess of Headfort.
• Right Hon. A. Jameson.
• Sir John Keane.
• Earl of Kerry.
• General the Right Hon. Sir Bryan
• Mahon.
• Colonel Maurice Moore.
• James Moran.
• Earl of Wicklow.
• W.B. Yeats.

Níl

• T.W. Bennett.
• R.A. Butler.
• Mrs. E. Costello.
• J.C. Counihan.
• P. de Loughry.
• J.C. Dowdall.
• M. Duffy.
• Sir Thomas Henry Grattan Esmonde.
• T. Farren.
• M. Fitzgerald.
• T. Foran.
• Oliver St. John Gogarty.
• Right Hon. Earl of Granard.
• C.J. Irwin.
• P.W. Kenny.
• T. Linehan.
• J.C. Love.
• E. MacEvoy.
• J. MacKean.
• John MacLoughlin.
• W.J. Molloy.
• G. Nesbitt.
• J.T. O'Farrell.
• B. O'Rourke.
• J.J. Parkinson.
• Mrs. J. Wyse Power.
• G. Sigerson.

Question: "That Sections 36, 37 and 38 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Are you moving the other two amendments?

Mr. JAMESON

I do not think there is any use. They do not apply.

Mr. KENNY

I ask that the amendment in my name be deferred until the Schedule is passed.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Amendment by leave withdrawn.

Mr. KENNY

Deferred.

SECTION 39.

The age of retirement of Circuit Judges shall be 70 years, but the Executive Council may, after consultation with the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General, extend the age of retirement in the case of any Judge to 75 years.

Mr. JAMESON

Senator Brown has just left the Chamber; may I move his amendment?

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

You may.

Mr. JAMESON

I beg to move—

"In Section 39, line 52. To delete the figures "70" and to substitute therefor the figures "75."

I see Senator Brown here now, and perhaps he will move it. Is it in order?

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

It is not quite in order. Members must recollect that if they are not here in their places when the amendments are called, unless they have deputed other members with the consent of the Seanad to move them for them, I have to pass them over. In this case I think the Seanad will not object, but it is not to be taken as a precedent.

Mr. BROWN

I am much obliged for the indulgence of the Seanad in allowing me to take up the amendment which Senator Jameson has already moved in my name. It has exactly the same effect as the amendment I moved to Section 12 at the earlier stages of the Bill in Committee. The object of that amendment to Section 12 is precisely the same as the object aimed at here—namely, to make the retirement of judges take place automatically at a certain age. Under this Section when a judge reaches the age of 65 he is in the position that he does not know whether he is to be retained beyond the age of 70 or not. There are many objections, which I opened up very fully when dealing with Section 12, to a position of that kind. It is a position in which a judge ought not to be put, and that argument appealed to the Seanad on the last occasion. I am now only seeking to do by this amendment what the Seanad approved of and carried in reference to Section 12, and I am asking simply to have done for Circuit Judges what has already been done for High Court Judges.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Perhaps I might make a suggestion that might commend itself to the President before he replies. I do not think the case is quite on all fours with the case already decided by the Seanad in which it is provided that the age of retirement for judges of the High Court should be 75 and that there should be no intervening period on which they would be dependent upon the caprices or goodwill of the Government. In the case of Circuit Judges there are two reasons, I think, why the argument that induced the Seanad to accept the amendment of Senator Brown do not apply with the same force here. In the first place Circuit Judges are always appointed at a younger age than judges of the High Court. In nine cases out of ten Circuit Judges get upon the Bench at an earlier age than High Court Judges. It may be that in the case of High Court Judges they do not get on the Bench before they are 60 and over, and the fact that they have not to retire before 75 enables them to qualify for pension. In the case of the Circuit Judges they have ample time to qualify for their full retiring pension. That is one respect in which the age aspect differs, but there is another respect also.

For some reason—I do not know the cause—the average life of the County Court Judge is not as long as that of the High Court Judge. Anyone who has watched the figures as I have with some interest, sometimes of a personal nature, for 40 years, will know that in many cases the Circuit or County Court Judge dies well under 60. I cannot recall the case of any High Court Judge that died at that age. Perhaps the explanation is that Circuit Court Judges are so much away from home—they have to do their work in the country in all sorts of weather, and they have not the opportunity of remaining at home and not attending their duties in inclement weather; perhaps that is the reason. I suggest this compromise to the President: that we should follow what has already been done in regard to the High Court Judges—that is, fixing one period for all and not a period which varies for different cases, and that that period of retirement should be 72 years of age. I suggest that as a reasonable age.

Mr. BROWN

Before the President speaks, may I say that my whole object is that there should be a fixed age, and that it should not be left to the discretion or caprice of the Government as it is by the Bill. I would be quite willing to accept the age of 72 or 73. My object is that the age should be regulated so that retirement should automatically take place, and I am quite willing to adopt, if the President will agree, any age between 70 and 75.

The PRESIDENT

The case of the age of the District Court Judges was before the Dáil, and Deputy Major Bryan Cooper brought in an amendment on the subject, and two other amendments were tabled by two other Deputies. We agreed to accept the principle of one of these other amendments, and Deputy Cooper expressed his entire satisfaction with the clause as it now stands with that amendment in it in the Bill. What An Cathaoirleach said was, I think, mentioned in the Dáil, that in the case of Circuit Judges they have to discharge their duties away from home, and that there was no such work for the High Court Judges, and the fact was that they did not, as a rule, reach the same age. In those circumstances, this particular compromise, which was agreed to by us, was agreed to. I would consider the proposal of extending the age to 72, but I do not know whether I would be altogether in a position to carry that in the Dáil, and I would like to have an opportunity of looking into it and saying on Report Stage what my view is. I am speaking now from recollection when I say I think it was a very strongly expressed desire on the part of Deputies from a particular section of the country that we should have this discretionary power up to 75. I pointed out that while there may be an excellent judge of 73, after all we must remember that in fixing the limit of age we are doing so for the whole country, and to that extent I do not know how far my hands are tied in promising to adopt the suggestion made here. But I undertake to look into it and to see on Report Stage what can be done. I do not see any particular objection, unless I gave an undertaking in the Dáil, to make it provisional that we could accept up to 75. If I gave such an undertaking in the other House, I could not, of course, change that without at least making it plain that I undertook to press for the acceptance of 72.

Mr. BROWN

I am quite willing to allow the matter to remain over until the Report Stage.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

By consent of the House this matter is allowed to stand over until the House has had an opportunity of considering what course it will take. The same applies to the next amendment to Section 39?

Mr. BROWN

Yes.

SECTION 40.

Every Circuit Judge shall receive a salary of £1,700 per annum. Every Circuit Judge who resigns or otherwise for any cause vacates his office after having completed fifteen or more years' service shall be entitled for his life to a pension amounting to two-thirds of his salary at the time he resigns or vacates his office, and every Circuit Judge who vacates his office owing to age or permanent infirmity, after having completed five or more years' service and less than fifteen years' service shall be entitled for his life to a pension calculated at the rate of one-sixth of his salary at the time he vacates his office, with the addition of one-twentieth of his said salary for every completed year of service in excess of five such years.

Mr. JAMESON

I beg to move amendment 13, as follows:—

To add at the end of the Section—

"Provided always that there may be granted, if the Executive Council think fit, to any such Judge as aforesaid who vacates his office owing to permanent infirmity before having completed five years' service a pension not exceeding one-sixth of his salary at the time he vacates his office."

This is the same amendment as was passed by the Seanad about giving the prerogative of mercy to the Government in regard to judges and applying it to Circuit Court Judges. I do not know whether this is the clause that has been described by the President as a boomerang.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I think it is very like it.

Mr. JAMESON

If so he must have meant, I suppose, that it did more or less place judges at the mercy of the Executive; but we have been arguing that they should not be so placed, though still in the exercise of their functions, and be able to be affected, perhaps, in the verdicts they may give. But, in the case we are contemplating now, the unfortunate judge is out of action. As far as I am concerned, I should not be the least afraid that any judge to whom this pitiable allowance was given because his health is broken down, would be wrongfully influenced by the action of the Government. We have heard from you, A Chathaoirligh, and from the President, I think, that the average life of the Circuit Court Judges is not as great as that of the High Court Judges; that is to say, that more of the Circuit Court Judges break down in the exercise of their functions. Whatever arguments we may have had for passing an amendment of this kind in the case of the High Court Judges, I think we should extend the same benefits to the Circuit Court Judges, because, I think, from what we have heard, there will be more occasions on which a breakdown in the case of a Circuit Court Judge will occur before he has served his full time to entitle him to a pension than is likely to occur in the case of a High Court Judge. The Government, I think, could hardly object to being given the power of exercising a kindly consideration for men of such standing as judges appointed at a fairly mature age, and who may be obliged to retire before they have reached their full pensionable time.

Mr. O'FARRELL

I oppose this amendment for the same reasons that I voted against a similar amendment in the case of the High Court Judges. I oppose it for reasons which I know will appeal to Senator Jameson and to the Government; I oppose it on grounds of national economy. We must, I think, temper our mercy with the national capacity to pay. These are times in which economy is the watchword, and when we must balance our Budget. That is the slogan of the Government, loudly applauded, I think, by what I may term the economy section in the Seanad.

Mr. FARREN

The cutting of the labourers' wages.

Mr. O'FARRELL

In order to balance the Budget the Government inflicted a 10 per cent. cut on the teachers' salaries, while a shilling a week was taken off the poor old-age pensioners. A shilling is a very big consideration to a poor old-age pensioner, but the case put forward by the Government was that they had to do that in the interests of national economy. It will be argued, of course, that the amount here involved is almost negligible, but in the next breath, and on another occasion, we will be told that it is not the amount that is involved, but the moral effect upon the nation as a whole of the economies effected in high places.

For that reason I think it is very sound economy and very sound statesmanship to turn down this amendment. The Division lists on the last occasion are extremely interesting as showing that the people who, in the main, voted for this amendment are those who are practically ruthless in their policy as far as economies are effected, where they concern the low-paid members of the Saorstát and the ordinary wage-earning workers. Apart from that aspect of the case altogether, there is here a very grave danger, a danger that should not be overlooked. According to the amendment that has been moved, a counsel may be appointed a judge to-day, and in six months' time his health may fail him. It is proposed, under this amendment, that in such a case the Executive Council should have power to give him a pension for life not exceeding one-sixth of his salary. With human nature as it is, and taking it for granted that no Government is perfect, or absolutely free from corruption, is there not here a danger that a lawyer who may, unfortunately, feel that his health is failing, and having friends at Court, may succeed in getting himself appointed a judge, with the almost certain knowledge that in six months' time he will become a permanent invalid, and then his friends at Court can give him a salary or a pension for life after six months' service which will be equivalent to one-sixth of his salary as a judge? I think those who talk about the necessity of maintaining the purity and independence of the Bench, if you cannot preserve that of the Bar, should at all events not overlook that aspect of the case, and not leave us open to the danger, if we were to have a corrupt future Government, of having the Bench crowded with invalid lawyers who will be going out on pension after six months' service. For these reasons, and for others that might be cited, but which I think are unnecessary to mention at the moment, I oppose this amendment, and I would ask the Senate to consider what the effect will be in regard to other very large departments, both in the public service and outside of it, if this amendment is passed.

The President was here on the last occasion when the amendment affecting the High Court Judges was under discussion, and he never said one word against it. I take it that silence gives consent, and that it is the policy of the Government, failing a statement to the contrary, which had to cut down the old-age pensioners by a shilling a week and to cut the salaries of the National School Teachers by ten per cent. to give to lawyers who through ill-health are obliged to relinquish their duties as judges after perhaps only six months' service a pension amounting to one-sixth of their salaries. I could quite accept that principle if it were a case of dispensing with the services of a judge through no fault of his own, or if for reasons of economy a judge had to be deprived of his position. Of course, no reasonably disposed person could argue against giving compensation to a person for disturbance in a case like that, but in this case the chances are a thousand to one that the failure in health of the pensioner would not have occurred at the Bar had he remained in practice, and consequently he has no reasonable claim—in less than five years at least—to get a pension at the expense of the Nation.

Mr. BENNETT

I opposed the amendment dealing with this matter on the last occasion, and I have no reason to alter my views to-day. On the last occasion I endeavoured to point out in as clear a manner as I could and as fairly as I could the danger which was inherent in such an arrangement—the danger that you may have a number of placemen, so to speak, put on the Civil List. Apart from that, to my mind, a pension is a recognition of services rendered, but the suggestion here is that a man may be appointed to-day and tomorrow he may retire and enjoy a fairly large pension for the remainder of his life. I do not think that is just, apart from economy, to demand such consideration for any judge. I also think that the men who will be selected as judges are likely to be barristers of considerable standing—men who during their time had fairly good incomes and who, as the ordinary citizen, should have been concerned with what is inherent in all classes—sickness and ill-health. I think that that particular class in the community should not be rendered immune, so to speak, from making suitable provision for sickness or old age when they come upon them. If you were to recognise such a principle as that, every man in the community when he becomes sick should get a big useful pension. and if that were to be general I would not oppose this amendment. As Senator O'Farrell has pointed out, we have diminished the allowances to the old-age pensioners, and why, therefore, I ask, should we agree to this suggestion and propose to give to a man who ought not to be in need of it a pension which we will not give to persons who are in real need? That is an aspect of the case that surpasses my understanding, and for that reason I oppose this amendment.

Mrs. WYSE POWER

I think, sir, it will be agreed that there has been a great deal of special pleading for a very special class on this amendment, and in the one that preceded it, regarding the High Court Judges. Those of us who spend a good deal of time and do the best we can in the local authorities which are now working, could not, I think, under any circumstances, vote for this proposal. We are constantly up against pension lists, and it seems to me that very soon in Ireland there will be more pensioners than people to pay them. For that reason alone, I object to these pensions as I object to many others in the local authority where I work.

The PRESIDENT

I am rather surprised, sir, at what Senator O'Farrell said, that I did not speak on this on the last day. I understood I did, but perhaps I did not. There are times when much the same arguments that I might make are made by one, or two, or three speakers, and I do not like to have a sort of stew in any reply I make, of what has been said by some people, much better, I am quite sure, than I would say it. So there is no need for me to stand up and say "Amen." I should say, on the face of it, that we ought to approach the consideration of this amendment, first of all, from the point of view of the particular services which these judges will discharge. In essence, it is an extended jurisdiction to what has already been discharged by County Court Judges. An examination of the position of the County Court Judges discloses the fact that Circuit Judges are in a slightly better position. They have a salary which is a little higher. They have this advantage, that while a County Court Judge was bound to pay his substitute in the event of illness, that charge will not now be met out of the salary of the Circuit Judge, and they benefit accordingly, so that in this case they are in a better financial position than the old County Court Judges. In the second place, with all due deference to the independence of the Bench, I think that it is only right that they should be in the same position as other officers or servants of the State, that if there is to be justification for a pension after a lesser number of years' service than five, we have no right to stand in the way of those who have not had the advantage of the education of the judges, or the advantage of the promotion which they ultimately get, or the advantage of their very high office. It does make for very grave dissatisfaction among the working-class people, who have neither security of employment nor any chance of pension, except in certain employment. That much, I think, will be admitted.

The next question is service to the State. If the purpose of the amendment was to the effect that the judge in the discharge of his duty, in the same way as other people in the discharge of their duties, incurred an indisposition or something of the sort, a different case would be presented. But here we are asked to start off giving a pension for infirmity, and I think the State is entitled to get from any of its servants more than five years' service before it gives a pension. Understanding that, and going into the points that were raised by two or three Senators, I do not think it is necessary to say more than that, apart altogether from the infirmities of human nature, political parties in every country have persons to whom they are indebted—largely indebted. I should say that in that respect the present Government is no different from any other Government, but it certainly views its indebtedness to persons much more in the light of their services to the State than of their services to the Government, because some of these, if we are in a position to provide them, either with pensions or places, really deserve well of the State, and ought to get anything that a State can afford to give them. It is certainly a very bad headline to set when it is a question of doing the work——

Mr. FARREN

Three hours' work a day and three days' work a week for about ten weeks in the year.

The PRESIDENT

There are times when three or four hours' work is very much harder than ten or eleven hours of great physical exertion. I know that one day last week I spent four hours at certain work, and I felt much more tired than I did on a day many years ago when I rode a hundred miles on a bicycle.

Mr. FARREN

That was play; that was not work.

The PRESIDENT

In the case of a judge—a really conscientious servant of the State, concentrating his entire attention on the case before him that may mean life or death to one of the two parties before him—I say that it does constitute an undue strain, and we are taking that into account when we say that a pension is payable after five years. But up to five years I do say that the State has a right— a prescriptive right—to be safeguarded from any charge. I have no doubt that with all the modern improvements in finance it would be quite open to a judge to insure his life during that period and to get from that whatever sum would be necessary to keep him in comfort afterwards should his health break down. But they ought to discharge their duties for five years before they impose any undue burden on the State.

Mr. JAMESON

The amendment seems to have been dealt with as if we were debating the question of giving a pension. It is merely to give a power to the Executive to grant it if they think fit, which is a very different thing. The argument of the President against that is one that he can adduce, but that I would not like to adduce. It was that it would be a great temptation to the Executive to do a thing which they ought not to do—to put their friends, as Senator O'Farrell says, into positions where they quickly earn pensions from their state of health. Of course if we are to think that our Executive is going to do that, then I grant that the boomerang is coming round. Perhaps I am wrong. If that power to give a pension to a judge who has broken down through some great strain of duty in his first five years, if an effort to meet a case of that sort is to give a general lead, which it would be quite possible to see an Executive abusing, then I am afraid it does come home to me that I am making an argument for an attempt to meet a particular case, which in the general run of affairs and as time went on, might be used wrongly by the Executive. If that is so I am inclined to withdraw the amendment for reasons which I do not like to speak of, but the President has put it that it is placing in the hands of the Executive a power which may be misused.

The PRESIDENT

If I should intervene for a moment, it would be to say that I consulted this morning one of the officials of the Ministry of Finance on this subject, and I put to him the point that the Senator has now put to the House. It was this: Granted this power, is it a matter in which the Executive Council exercise discretion? He said that it was not; that the very same power is in England; that the King may, if he thinks fit, grant a pension. There is no discretion; it is granted. There is no question of it. It only comes before them as a matter of form to confirm the amount.

Mr. JAMESON

I am not sufficiently a lawyer to discuss that point. I must only take the ipse dixit of the President.

Amendment by leave withdrawn.

Question: "That Sections 40 and 41 stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.

SECTION 42.

No person shall be appointed a judge of the Circuit Court who is not at the date of his appointment a practising barrister of ten years' standing at least or has not been a Recorder or a County Court Judge in Ireland, but in the case of a barrister service as a justice of the District Court of Saorstát Eireann shall be deemed practice at the Bar for the purpose of this provision and shall be reckoned as service within the meaning of Section 40 hereof in the case of a justice of the District Court who shall be appointed a judge of the Circuit Court.

Mr. KENNY

I move to add a subsection as follows:—

"Provided that, where practicable, no person will be appointed to the position of circuit Judge in districts where the Irish language is in general use save a person who, in addition to the qualifications set out elsewhere in this Act possesses such a speaking knowledge of the Irish language as will enable him to hear and take evidence entirely in Irish where any witness desires to give his evidence in Irish."

I take it that, as far as our discussion on the Courts of Justice Bill is concerned, the object is to bring about such an arrangement in the administration of our Courts as will inspire people with confidence and respect in them. If I might trespass on the time of the Seanad I shall read an extract from the very admirable letter written by the President to the Judiciary Committee in which he sets out:—

"There is nothing more prized among our newly won liberties than the liberty to construct a system of judiciary and an administration of law and justice according to the dictates of our own needs and after a pattern of our own designing. This liberty is established and the headline is set in the Constitution drawn up and passed by the elected representatives of our people."

The Judiciary Committee is asked to establish Courts "which will fashion an administration of justice upon which the people will lean with confidence and affection .. and to consider and report upon the requirements of the litigants and other persons interested and especially as to accessibility, efficiency, expedition and cost." I take it that that has reference to the administration of justice throughout the whole area of the Free State, but the grounds upon which I base the amendment is that there are several areas in the Free State which will not be covered by the Bill, as it stands, in inspiring confidence and respect for law in those areas. I refer particularly to what is known as the Gaeltacht. that is the aggregation of areas particularly along the Western Coast, and some further inland, in which nothing but the Irish language is spoken. Any one of us going into the hearts of those areas might as well address the people in Hebrew or Greek as in the English language. They know nothing at all about the English language. Around the fringe of those areas you have a bilingual people with a sufficient knowledge of the Irish language to do their ordinary business in market or fair. They are becoming gradually Anglicised, and it is the opinion of those who speak with some authority that if no definite and emphatic effort is made to preserve the living language, as spoken in these parts, which is the pure language with all its subtleties, dialects and idioms handed down, the language in the present generation will die out. It is not so much with that aspect of the question that I want to deal, but as to the particular necessity, if the administration of the law is to inspire confidence in the people of those districts, of having the Courts so constituted that they will give them that confidence. Unfortunately, under the old regime they looked on the Courts of Law in those districts as hostile, because the language spoken in them was not known to them, and the Courts were, in their opinion, English, or the institutions of an alien country. They did not go into those Courts with any confidence. I am sorry Senator McLysaght could not remain for this debate, because he would be able to give remarkable instances of his own experiences in those Courts where the administration of Justice, owing to wrong interpretation of the people's evidence, was anything but what it ought to be. He gave you one striking instance to-day before he left of a witness who was asked in a case what was the attitude of temperament of a certain man on a certain occasion. It was an assault case, and the witness in Irish said to the interpreter that the attitude of the man was mild. Owing to the subtleties of the language, or inflection, or otherwise, or through ignorance of the dialect on the part of the interpreter, in Senator MacLysaght's hearing he conveyed to the Bench that the attitude of the man, according to the witness, was ferocious. There was general laughter in the Court amongst the bi-lingual people, but the unfortunate witness could not tell what the interpreter had said. I asked Senator MacLysaght if anybody had interrupted to explain the mistake. He said no, but that the Judge cried for order in the Court when there was laughter. I asked was that interpretation of the witness recorded, and he said it was. However, I base my amendment on Article 4 of our Constitution which states that "The National language of the Irish Free State is the Irish language, but the English language shall be equally recognised as an official language. Nothing in this Article shall prevent special provisions being made by the Parliament of the Irish Free State for districts or areas in which only one language is in general use." Under this Bill we have the Rule-making Authority, the Minister for Home Affairs in conference with the Minister for Finance, given the power to make Rules for the use of the Irish language in the State Courts. But turning to page 9, the language of Section 35 is that the Minister may make such rules, or he may not. In that sense it is left largely to the discretion of the particular Minister or Ministers for the time being, the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Finance. They may be careless with regard to making that provision, or they may be practically hostile to the language. We do not know. We are legislating for the future. In any case the language of the Constitution gives a right to Parliament to say whether this shall be done or not.

I do not think we are justified in delegating that right we have in the Constitution to any individual or individuals, if the necessity is there—I do not think that it can be contradicted that the necessity is there—to make provision for people who understand only one language. The whole purport of this Bill is so to alter the Constitution, the administration and the atmosphere of our Courts, as to inspire the confidence and respect of our people. If that is so, we should leave no part tainted with the old regime. In that sense I have worded my amendment, and I quite recognise that there may not be facilities for carrying out the spirit of this amendment at present. It may not be practicable to do so, as we may not have any Irish speaking High Court Judge, or possibly a sufficient number of Irish speaking District Justices. I understand some District Justices who have been appointed ——

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

This amendment is solely concerned with Circuit Judges.

Mr. KENNY

I will confine myself to that. There may not be a sufficient number of judges at present to conduct cases in the Irish language, and I have, therefore, put in "where practicable." As long as the principle is admitted, and also the disposition of the Government to make this provision, I am quite satisfied. I do not think we can expect any more in the circumstances. There are other aspects of this question that have an indirect bearing on the matter, but these I do not intend to touch upon further than to say that I think it should be the spirit of the Legislature to foster in every way and preserve to us the living Irish language. It is a very precious inheritance of any nation to have a living language. We have even been taunted by Lloyd George with not having any claim to nationhood because we had not a living language. It is the symbol and the essential hall-mark of a distinctive nationality. We ought therefore to make every effort to preserve Irish as a living language.

The preservation of the language has this claim on our consideration in this particular connection, that it is the only link that we have with our past, with the period in which the Brehon Laws were evolved. I have been assured that these laws were so complete in their character that they largely formed the basis of a judicial code in England and in many European countries. At that period we had a very high standard of culture and civilisation in this country. It was the time when the "Annals of the Four Masters" were written and the "Book of Kells" was produced. All the needs of the people were skilfully catered for under that old Brehon code. That is a thing we ought not to lose sight of. We have this link, this living tongue, which is our heritage. If all that we have ever said or done in the national movement goes for anything, if our professions and our expressions when we were fighting our national cause were worth anything and had any substance in them, it devolves as a duty upon both Houses, and the individual members of each House, to do everything they possibly can to preserve and to keep the living language in its purity in these particular areas and to extend it. I do not claim to speak with any authority upon this subject, but I think we should look forward to the nation in future being a bi-lingual nation in which the people can speak both Irish and English. I do not at all hold the view, which is held by many people, no doubt sincerely, that ultimately the Irish language should be the sole language throughout the whole of our area, to the exclusion of English. I do not think that is practicable, but I do think that we would be a better-equipped nation if we were a bi-lingual nation.

Mrs. COSTELLO

I beg to second the amendment. I am not quite sure as to the best method of procedure because it seems to me that under the Section and the Constitution the Judiciary has full power to meet our wishes in that respect. But will they do it? That is why we are asking the Government to legislate on the matter. As to the need for it, I can only speak for a district that I know, but I am sure similar conditions obtain in the other Irish-speaking districts. In West Galway certainly Irish is the language of the home. Some of the people know some English as they have to go into Galway for fairs and markets and they learn a certain amount there. But when the choice is given them it is Irish they speak. Certainly if they had the choice when they bring a case into Court it is Irish they would choose. In the past of course they had to conduct their cases through an interpreter, which was a bad method. The Government have certainly met us as far as they can in introducing Irish-speaking District Justices. The people are coming to these Justices and asking that their cases should be heard in Irish. That is because they wish to win their cases; they would not do it from mere enthusiasm. I was talking to a Registrar the other day and he told me that he had taken down thirty depositions in Irish that week. I think that shows the need for this amendment. Cases have already been heard in Irish in the District Courts, but when an appeal came to the higher Court they had to be heard in English, perhaps because there was not altogether so sympathetic a judge. One can quite understand his position; I feel sorry for him. We should be consistent and if cases are heard in Irish in the District Court the people should not be then met with the prohibition, "Thus far shalt thou go and no further," when they go to the higher Court. I can quite see that the difficulties are many because besides the judge I suppose the other officials and the reporters should also be Irish-speaking. I do not say that everything can be done at once, but something could be done to meet our wishes in this matter.

Mr. BENNETT

I rise to support the amendment. It seems to me that there should be very little necessity for the Seanad to urge upon the Government a claim so very moderate, that where practicable judges with a knowledge of Irish should be appointed to certain districts. That is recognising in effect the difficulty which exists of getting suitable men at the moment. If the Government insert this provision in the Bill and if they use the power when practicable, that will tend to make men who are reasonably conversant with Irish perfect themselves in the difficulties of the language so as to be competent to sit as judges in these Courts in districts where Irish is the language used. I am acquainted with districts in the West where a man may speak in English but does not really understand because he thinks in Irish.

It is a language of extraordinary diversity, as we who have studied it know. You have different gradations of feeling described by five or six adjectives, and a hair's breadth of difference might be represented by a different word. I only say this to show how a poor litigant going into court suffers if a word is translated, or interpreted, to a judge who does not understand the niceties of the language. For that reason alone, to ensure that such a man will feel that he is getting justice, and that he is speaking as it were before the seat of justice, and that the interpretation he means to give to his words is understood, it is incumbent on the State to arrange that the necessary provision should be made. Under existing conditions, any Irish speaker going into an English court cannot have his language interpreted to the full. I feel that it is necessary for the State to make provision that any litigant going into a Court of Justice shall have his words thoroughly understood. It is impossible for an interpreter to translate into English all the feelings that an Irish-speaking litigant wishes to convey. We all know that the average Irish speaker has a much larger vocabulary than the average English speaker. A County Kerry man would have a vocabulary of 4,000 or 5,000 words where the average Englishman's vocabulary would be 300 or 400 words.

Taking all these facts into account, is it not the duty of the State to hasten the day when judges will be able to interpret the minutest feelings of the litigant without the aid of an interpreter? I feel that under Article 4 of our Constitution such provision is essential. I do not think the Government can hold that Senator Kenny's amendment errs on the side of undue pressure. If I were asked to frame an amendment, although I suppose I would be wrong, I would suggest that such a provision should be compulsory. In this amendment the Government are only asked "where practicable" to appoint judges in such districts. I feel that that is only the proper course. Unfortunately, I cannot appreciate the niceties and distinctions of the various words in Irish, but I have done my best to appreciate them. I know that there are some words that might be interpreted one way by one man and in an opposite way by another. For these reasons alone, apart from what we owe the Irish language, I think we should press the Government to accept the amendment. The people will then have confidence in the courts which they had not hitherto in alien courts.

The EARL of MAYO

This amendment deals with Circuit Judges in districts where the Irish language is in general use. I have a recollection that some member of the Government said that they would send Circuit Judges, who know Irish, to places where the Irish peasant has what is called "no English" to deal with cases there. That seems a very commonsense view to take of the matter. I should like to draw the attention of the Seanad to the fact that the interpreter under the old regime interpreted very much as he chose. It is very easy to interpret Irish into English, and at the same time make the meaning quite different from what the litigant intended. Let me give you an instance of it. It is an instance of what happened under the old regime as it is called. One litigant said: "What did you give the interpreter?" The reply was: "I gave him £5." The other fellow said: "I gave him £10." That pretty well settled the matter in that court. That was the rule very often in the Irish-speaking districts. I think the Government would do well to send Circuit Judges, who understand Irish, to these districts where English is not understood by peasants who go to the courts to make their cases as best they can.

Colonel MOORE

This is a matter which I have very much at heart, perhaps more than anything else in this world. The language is more important than this assembly or the Dáil. I think there is nothing more important to a nation than to preserve its language, for if it has that everything else will follow. If we lose our language we lose it for ever. I believe these are the sentiments of the great majority of the Irish people. Although some people may not agree with that, I know it is the general feeling all over the country. When the National University was established the question of compulsory Irish was raised. We were told by the Bishops, Professors and others, that if we made Irish compulsory we would ruin the University. Irish was insisted on, in spite of the Bishops and everyone else. Now in this matter, as in everything else, we desire that our language should be pushed forward. Some Senators pointed out the great difficulty that people had when they tried to give evidence in a language not their own. I once did it. I had to do it in a Belgian Court, and although I knew French better than many of those Irish speakers know English, I found it very difficult. It is almost impossible for you when you go into a Court to give evidence in a language which you do not thoroughly understand. You come in, you know the people that you are speaking to do not understand you, and you are in the greatest difficulty. It seems to me rather a sad thing that we should come here at all to plead for such an amendment. It is necessary perhaps that the Government would do this themselves. I grant that they have the Irish language quite as much at heart as I have. That is admitted by everybody. Some would go farther and say the Government have the language more at heart. But unless we insist on this we can hardly expect the Government to agree. There is always a great temptation in considering the appointment of a person, not to put him in the right place. When a man is appointed and it is desirable to appoint a particular man to a particular place, that is not done. The locality is not considered. Perhaps it is done without general consent. There is something definite laid down here that would be likely to happen. Somebody who has got the appointments to these offices may wish to appoint a particular man, and may not consider where he is going. He just appoints him. It is for that reason I say that we ought to press for the insertion of this clause. It would not bind the Government to anything. We only say "where practicable." I hope there is no necessity for saying any more on this matter beyond asking the President to agree.

The PRESIDENT

A very strong case has been made out for this amendment, and it is an amendment with the purpose of which I am very much in agreement. But I do say that we have got to consider this matter of the appointment of Circuit Judges in the light of all the circumstances. If Senators look at the schedule it will be observed that Irish-speaking districts are in four of these eight Circuit Court areas. I was looking at the schedule this morning to see if there was any possibility of so grouping them, that granted that we got even one or two judges who were in a position to do justice in these cases, we would be making a real effort towards meeting the case that had been put forward, and the general desire of the country to mark such an advance as it is intended to mark by this amendment. Now, apart from that, I am instructed that under the present circumstances. the Bar would not be in a position to man the Bench on the terms of this resolution. That is the sad side of the case. We may as well admit it. If it were not the case, we would be very pleased to hear of suitable persons to discharge the duties of those offices—judges who would be in a position to hear the case in the Irish language, and, if necessary, give judgment in the Irish language. It is to be hoped that by degrees the position will so much improve that we will be able to find judges to take evidence and deal with the business of the court in the national language. But it will be well for the Senators to bear this in mind—that for many years past the terminology of advertisements of public positions has run: "a knowledge of the Irish language is necessary." Those who know the Irish language know that what is called a "knowledge" of it always makes many of those people feel ashamed of themselves. I am in that class myself, that is in the position of having a "knowledge" of it. It is a very slight "knowledge" of it. It is no use to appoint a person like that as a judge, none whatever. It is no improvement. What you want to get in this case is a real effort on the part of the members of that very learned and noble profession to take up the study of this language with real vigour, to perfect themselves in it, and be able to appreciate all the niceties that were mentioned by Senators Kenny and Bennett.

Mrs. COSTELLO

Give them a time limit.

The PRESIDENT

I recollect on one occasion seeing an application that came to my step-father who was a member of a Board of Guardians. It was an application from a person who claimed that he was the only candidate up for election who had a knowledge of Irish. His application was on a postcard, and there were nine mistakes in four lines. I am sure it is not intended that we should go on that line. We want to get, if possible, native speakers. Granted that we cannot get them, then we must get persons well qualified to appreciate the difference between the Irish and English language, and the difference between the person giving his evidence in Irish and the person trying to interpret that. We might as well be perfectly candid in dealing with this matter. Recently some officials of the Government went down the country to discharge very important functions. The head of the delegation did not know Irish. A person came before them speaking nothing but Irish. He stopped suddenly. He firmly believed that nobody in the delegation knew Irish, and when he was answered by one of the delegation in Irish he relapsed into English.

I am sure that it is not intended to meet cases such as this; and that while we want to deal with the Irish language, and to keep it a living language in the areas in which it is, we are going to do away with "fakers" on one side or the other. With the principle of the amendment I am in entire agreement. I do not think that the amendment, as worded, will meet the purpose for which it is intended. I will undertake to look into it and see if we could not bring up something on the Report Stage, which will lead to having those appointments made by a person that will have a knowledge of the language.

Mr. KENNY

With reference to the incident about the post card mentioned by the President, it does not follow that that same man would not be a very good Irish speaker though not neces sarily a good Irish writer. What is happening in the Gaeltacht is this:— A witness comes forward to give evidence in Irish; the constable says "This man knows English, your honour; I heard him speak English." He did hear him speak English selling a pig, just a few words transacting some business, as many of them have to do, because they cannot sell their pig otherwise. Then this witness is stopped by the Bench and told ""You must give your evidence in English." I wish to stress that. As to the impracticability at the moment, that is admitted even in Gaelic circles.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

The Minister has stated that he does not think this amendment would be suitable for the purpose contemplated by its author, but he is quite prepared to consider the matter between this and the Report Stage, and may possibly bring in a Government amendment which will tend to carry out the wishes and the objects that you propose. Do you accept that?

Mr. KENNY

I quite accept that.

Amendment by leave withdrawn.

Question: "That Sections 42 and 43 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

SECTION 44.

In case the accumulation of business so requires there may be appointed such number of temporary Assistant Circuit Judges on such terms and conditions as the Minister for Home Affairs with the concur rence of the Minister for Finance may determine: Provided that no person not qualified for appointment as a Circuit Judge shall be appointed a temporary Assistant Circuit Judge.

Mr. JAMESON

The amendment I move is to delete the whole Section. From the remarks I made in regard to Section 36, the Seanad will have seen that there was no course open to me except to make this proposal. Now that the Seanad has decided that there are to be only eight Circuit Judges, something is necessary to meet what is undoubtedly an inevitable situation now; that is to say, an accumulation of business with which the eight Circuit Judges will not be able to deal. This is now the situation before the Seanad. I admit that to delete this Section will land both the Government and the country into a quandary in which nobody can deal with the situation. It would be quite a different thing if they would have been able to deal with the matter by a necessary increase, in their judgment, of the number of permanent judges. That has been declined. The business will be there and it must be done. Therefore, it must be done by temporary judges appointed in this way. The wording is: "Power to appoint temporary assistant judges." To a person looking at that casually, it would appear that that applied merely to the present situation and was not a permanent part of a permanent Bill. If we pass this clause as it is we are giving permanent power in the Judiciary Act to any Government in the future, whenever that Government chooses, to appoint temporary judges on any conditions which the Government pleases.

I hardly think that even the Government itself believes that is a proper way to deal with the situation. They are dealing with a temporary situation, and I had hoped they would have dealt with it in a temporary way, that they would introduce a Bill to meet the present situation only, appoint temporary judges, and name a limit of time after which the appointment of such temporary judges would not be possible by the Executive. By so doing they would have protected us in the long future from the evils which this clause must undoubtedly bring. Take the situation we are confronted with now. The President has said that what is causing the greatest amount of work for the judges at the moment is the damage question. Suppose we had a Government extremely anxious, as I have no doubt this Government is, to protect the public purse, what would they do? They would appoint temporary judges who would view the applications of private persons for compensation under the Acts from the standpoint of a Government anxious to save the public purse. A Government who, for any reason, wished to carry out anything at the expense of private persons, and who had the power to appoint these judges, would appoint judges, and on such conditions that at least the parties to the cause before the court could say they were prejudiced.

We, Senators here, who read or listened to the debates on the Compensation Act, and who know the spirit in which that Act was drawn up, and who know the members of our Executive Council who are going to carry that Act out, have no such suspicion of the present Government. I am perfectly certain that those temporary judges would not be proper persons before whom to bring actions in which the Government was implicated or were parties to, they will meet the situation by saying that these temporary judges will not handle any of the cases to which they are a party. If the Seanad passes this section as it stands, and leaves the Government to do what it likes, if nobody makes such a request to the Government, if these temporary judges are used to try the cases of private parties who have suffered damage, if the Government are a party to those cases and the cases are being tried before one of these temporary judges appointed under their conditions—judges who can possibly be put out of business when the Government chooses—then I think every applicant under those circumstances has a perfect right to say he is not before a fair tribunal.

I believe if this law passes as it stands it will be necessary for someone in the Seanad or the Dáil to raise the question of the right of the private individual to be tried by a permanent judge, and not by a temporary judge. To bring in a clause which will give any Government, at any time, power to handle the matter in that way, is wrong. The Government ought to have dealt with this in a temporary way. That clause should be a temporary clause, dealing with a temporary situation. I would ask the Seanad under no circumstances to let that clause go through as it stands in the final Judiciary Act. As it stands, it gives any Government, when they would think fit, the power to appoint temporary judges to deal with cases in which the Government themselves might be interested, and where the right of the private citizen would come up against the Executive of the day, and the only man to defend it would be a judge sitting on the Bench, who would be appointed for a temporary purpose on conditions laid down by the Executive Government of the day. If a stronger case can be made out against the clause than that I do not know of it. I would ask the Seanad and the Government seriously to consider whether they would allow such a blot as that to exist in a permanent Act of the Irish Free State.

Sir JOHN KEANE

It is a matter of great concern that this Seanad and this nation, embarking on constructive legislation, should have to press an argument in favour of a principle of this kind, a principle that has been hallowed by long centuries of tradition. That principle is the principle of the independence of the Judiciary. I would like to say that not to-day, but on other occasions, the Government have resented our emphasising these principles in somewhat strong terms. Personally, I have been at a loss to understand the mentality of the Government. It seems to me the Government are inclined to say or to think "We are here for all times and we are to be trusted and therefore these innovations are not dangerous."

I cannot believe that the Government have not looked further than that and do not realise that these very principles are for their own protection and to protect the State against the inroads of autocracy. Will anybody stand up here and say that democracy cannot be as autocratic as any other form of Government in this or in any other country? I feel that the day may come when the Ministers who are responsible for the government to-day may be very sorry and may live to regret that they allowed these dangerous principles to be placed on their Statute Book. Unfortunately, in this matter the ground has been somewhat cut from under our feet by the action of the Government in regard to Section 36. Having failed there we must only try and fall back on something else, by no means so satisfactory, but we must try and stop this great danger to the utmost of our power. I would ask the Government before we reach the Report Stage to consider whether this cannot be done— whether these temporary judges, if the necessity arises for appointing them, could not be appointed from a panel taken on rotation on the nomination of the Chief Justice or some other party independent of the Government. On that panel should first be placed the County Court Judges who have retired and who are under a certain age, and, after them, barristers should follow. That would be imperfect, perhaps, but it would be some safeguard against this very real and dangerous encroachment of the Executive upon the powers of the Judiciary. It makes me smile and yet it distresses me very much, to hear it said that a Government of the kind we have now will not offend one section or another. The President said "I should like to see a Government do a certain thing if the Labour Party objected." I do not see any undertaking on the part of any Government not to do anything they like if they have a majority.

All the Government looks to—and all Governments are the same—is to what they can get on the division in the lobby. When they get their majority they will proceed, and we have to protect ourselves. To tell us that we have now a popularly elected Government and that there is no danger that that Government will abuse their power is to ask us to believe a thing that has not happened and will never happen in any country. There is just as much need for protection against a popularly elected Government as against any other Government. I was travelling the other day with a farmer friend, who claimed to understand the country better than I, and he said: "You do not know what goes on. I can tell you that there is any amount of influence brought by all kinds of relations and connections of people, not necessarily in the Government, in positions of power and patronage, and whatever you may say there is a feeling throughout the country that these influences are at work." I think we must all admit, and it is common knowledge, that that is merely human nature. You do not find it in the Free State alone. You find it in Whitehall just the same. It is our business to protect the State against these influences which will be always present. Therefore, I would ask the Government, if they do insist upon these temporary judges, to give us some assurance that their appointment will cut right away from the Executive, and that there will be a panel of the kind I have indicated, and that the judges will be taken on a rota which will be left to the Chief Justice, or some other independent party to operate.

The PRESIDENT

I have been very much struck by Senator Sir John Keane's speech and from it, it would appear to me that there is really only one independent profession in this country, namely the Bench and the Bar. I do not know so much about the Bar, but I am certain that Sir John Keane is convinced that the Bench of this country is the only independent institution in it. That view, however, is not shared by ten per cent. of the people. We are now in an extraordinary sort of delirium. On the 12th May last an Act was passed which came before the Seanad and, I think, it will be admitted that every representation that came from this assembly by reason of the sufferings of its members whose property was damaged, was accepted by the Government. I find on looking over it that Section 18 gives power to appoint assistant judges to deal with claims under the Damage to Property Act. It says, in effect, that if the Governor-General of the Irish Free State is satisfied on the advice of the Executive Council, that the judge of any County Court is unable to deal with the number of applications under the Criminal Injuries Act, or under this Act, he may, on the advice aforesaid, appoint a judge of the County Court, or any other court, to be a judge to administer these Acts. That was good enough in May, when our property was destroyed, and when we knew that we had to go before them. Now, however, there is an extraordinary delirium with the object of depriving the Executive Council of the power to examine the claims of particular barristers for promotion. So far as I am concerned, I do not care twopence what barrister is appointed, and I do repudiate, on the part of the Government, all those allegations about influence and so forth. Rumours have been going about to the effect that members of the Government have appointed their brothers, sisters, cousins and other relations to positions of profit. No such thing is taking place, and it is an injustice to the country, at a time when you have a young State, that anyone should come to us and say: "I hear allegations from this and that farmer." No man should listen to them without repudiating them, whether these allegations come from farmers or anybody else. I am prepared at any time to leave my position as head of the Government, and I will have a very much easier job outside. When one is working eleven or twelve hours a day, it is not easy to stand all this sapping and mining outside, and I am perfectly satisfied that the majority of the Seanad do not agree with these allegations. We are asking for additional or assistant circuit judges to deal with the abnormal situation that is prevailing, and I am prepared to put a limit on their appointment of three years. There is an enormous number of claims for damage to property, and a considerable amount of criminal business to be dealt with. I am just as anxious as others to keep the Executive Council in a position by which, if an additional judge is required, it will have to come to Parliament to get him appointed. We are quite prepared to agree to that.

Mr. BROWN

I would like to assure the President that nothing could be further from my intention, and I am sure from that of any of the speakers, than to suggest that any influence would be brought to bear by the Government on those temporary judges. That is not the objection to the appointment of temporary judges at all in cases where Government liability is involved. What you want is to be certain that the claimant against the Government will feel he is getting an absolutely impartial trial, and that he will not feel —you cannot blame him for it—that a case is tried by a judge who has merely got his appointment for the time being. The necessity for the section is admitted to be due to a large number of claims for malicious injuries. Is there any objection to having all those cases of malicious injuries tried by the permanent Circuit Judges and letting the temporary judge appointed under this section deal with the ordinary business of the Circuit Court? That will get rid of a difficulty many of us foresee, the trouble of having in the mind of anybody the thought that he is not having an impartial trial. I therefore suggest to the President that he should consider the suggestion I make, that a proviso ought to be put into this section which will prevent the temporary judges from trying those cases. Let the permanent judge, whom nobody will assert is not impartial, try those cases.

The EARL of MAYO

I understand that the President has met the amendment in this way. He will limit the appointment of the Temporary Assistant Circuit Judges to a period of three years. I suggest that the President add that to the clause when we deal with the Report Stage of this Bill. May I ask the President if this is so?

The PRESIDENT

I will be prepared to do that. I say three years as a maximum. We have to get rid of the extra work in claims under the Property Act alone, the malicious injuries, criminal offences and other business held up for one reason or another. Some people would not go into the Courts at all, and would not recognise the old Courts. I am not disposed to agree at all to Senator Brown's suggestion that we should not appoint those judges to deal with the Property Act cases. I take it that is virtually an amendment to the Damage to Property Act. I put this up to Senator Brown: Is it a fact that absolutely impartial justice and absolutely impartial decisions were given all over the country by County Court Judges under the Malicious Injuries Act? That is certainly not the case. I know it. The same thing applies to actions for criminal injuries to the person. Reference was made to the judges of the Northern Government. I say nothing on that more than that quite recently a case came before one of them under the Criminal Injuries to the Person Act. I am not at all satisfied that there was an independent decision given in the case. I hope when our judges are appointed under the Judiciary Act that we will have men who will give impartial justice to all citizens, regardless of their political opinion.

Mr. W.B. YEATS

I have not spoken hitherto on this Bill though I have voted in favour of the amendment of Senator Brown. What I rise for is to point out, to the President, a point of view which has occurred to me. Some of us so far from being hostile to the Government are deeply influenced by sympathy for the Government. We feel it has acted with great courage and justice in difficult times. We are scrupulously anxious to put aside our question of sympathy in favour of the question of judging these amendments. We want to judge these amendments in an abstract way, in the light of history, keeping in mind the fact that all civilised Governments that we know of, have found it necessary to insure the independence of the Judges from the Executive. It is difficult for us to press that point because we have felt that the Government have no desire to influence the decision of the judges. There is a feeling in this country among a number of people—it may be an unjust feeling—that the judges have hitherto been subservient to an alien Executive. Some members of this House have gone to the other end of the balance and thought that they would secure safety by being quite sure that an Irish Executive would have considerable control over judges. Those who take my point of view have done their best to secure that the Irish Judges shall be independent of every Executive whatsoever.

Mr. BENNETT

I was very much struck by the arguments of Mr. Jameson that there was a grave danger that temporary Justices might not do justice because they might be biassed. In the abstract that was all very well. Senator Yeats said that we should be guided by abstract thoughts. I had my mind made up abstractly that this was a good amendment but in the argument we were brought down to a concrete position. We were coming from the abstract to the concrete. Therefore, as it is not a broad basis of liberty for the great mass of citizens but a particular and specific form of justice for a particular class of individuals, I do not think we ought to pass this amendment. After all, if there is no fear for any other class of litigants than that suggested by Senator Brown, I do not think that is the standpoint we should take up. If it is wrong for a temporary Justice to be allowed to try a specific case of malicious injury surely it ought to be wrong to allow him to take up any other form of case which may come before him. We have been asked to direct our minds in a concrete channel, and for that reason I certainly think it is my duty to oppose this am endment.

Mr. JAMESON

I think Senators are dealing with a situation not really be fore the Seanad. The Earl of Mayo put it to the President that it is agreed that the life of this Section is to be three years.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

As a maximum.

Mr. JAMESON

As a maximum. I knew the President was out for some specific thing he could deal with. I am perfectly prepared to leave it with the President, and I have no doubt that when it is time to look into it he will embody that in some amendment to be brought in on the Report Stage. Once we get the Section taken out of the permanent Act, the future of the country, in my view, would be safe enough. If we have any discussion about the Section we can take up that discussion when the President brings forward his proposal on the subject. So far as I am concerned he has met my argument as regards the permanent Bill.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

What do you suggest I should do with your amendment?

Mr. JAMESON

The President is not here at the moment, and I am rather in a difficulty. I would be guided by you.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Let the question stand over in view of the undertaking given by the President that he will provide some means by which this clause will be limited to a maximum period of three years.

Mr. JAMESON

If that is understood, I would be prepared to withdraw the amendment, but whether that is a wise course I do not know.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I am not going to advise you at all; you are as good an authority as I am, but I am sure if you put yourself in the hands of the President he will carry out any undertaking he gives, and you are always protected because you can give notice on Report to raise the matter again.

Mr. JAMESON

I am quite satisfied to leave the matter in the hands of the President.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sections 44 and 45 agreed to, and added to the Bill.

SECTION 46.

The Circuit Court shall have and exercise the following jurisdiction in civil cases:—

(i) On consent—jurisdiction without any limit as to amount of claim or value of property involved in the proceedings before the court where all necessary parties sign, before the hearing, the form of consent prescribed by the rules to be made under this Part of this Act; such consent may provide that the decision of the Circuit Court shall be final and conclusive, in which case the decision shall not be appealable;

(ii) In contract and tort (save matrimonial and criminal conversion actions) — jurisdiction when the claim does not exceed £300;

(iii) In title to land and rectification of the register—jurisdiction when the Poor Law Valuation of the property in question does not exceed £60;

(iv) In probate matters and actions, and suits for administration of estates—jurisdiction when the value of the personalty does not exceed £1,000 and the Poor Law Valuation of the land does not exceed £60;

(v) In equity cases (including winding-up of companies)— jurisdiction within the same limits as in the preceding subsection (iv) and in winding-up cases where the issued capital of the company does not exceed £10,000;

(vi) In bankruptcy—In Local Bankruptcy Courts which may be established under the Local Bankruptcy (Ireland) Act, 1888, for which purpose that Act shall be construed and take effect as if the expressions "Executive Council,""Order of the Executive Council,""Minister for Finance," and "Chief Justice" were respectively substituted for the expressions "Lord Lieutenant,""Order in Council,""Treasury" and "Lord Chancellor" wherever those expressions respectively occur in the said Act, and the words "in any circuit" were substituted for the words "in Londonderry, Galway, Waterford, and Limerick, respectively, or in any of those places" where those words occur in section 5 of the said Act;

(vii) In proceedings at the suit of the State or any Minister or Government Department or any officer thereof to recover any sum not exceeding £300 due to or recoverable by or on behalf of the State, whether by way of penalty, debt, or otherwise, and notwithstanding any enactment now in force requiring such sum to be sued for in any other court;

Provided that any party to an action commenced in the Circuit Court and pending therein may at any time apply to the Circuit Judge that the action may be sent forward to the High Court, and thereupon in case the action is one fit to be prosecuted in the High Court and the High Court appears to be the more appropriate tribunal in the circumstances, the Circuit Judge may send forward such action to the High Court upon such terms and subject to such conditions as to costs or otherwise as may appear to be just, and an appeal shall lie from the exercise of the discretion of the Circuit Judge in granting or refusing any such application:

Provided also that a Circuit Judge may on the application of any party or without any such application, if he thinks fit, change the venue for the trial of any action pending before him from any one place of hearing to any other within his circuit.

Mr. JAMESON

I beg to move Amendment No. 16:—

"In Section 46, line 57, to delete the figures ‘£300' and to substitute therefor the figures ‘£100.'"

I am not accustomed to arguing and speaking as I have been doing this afternoon, and I hardly feel prepared to take up this amendment at present. This is a very serious amendment dealing with the question as to jurisdiction on claims up to £300. I dealt with it on Second Reading but to reiterate these arguments and to bring forward all the pros and the cons of the case now would be rather a heavy job. If the House would give me some little consideration and allow me to deal with the matter to-morrow I should be very much obliged indeed.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

The way to accomplish that is for some Senator to move that the further consideration of the Bill, in Committee Stage, be adjourned until to-morrow.

Mr. BROWN

I beg to move that the further consideration of the Bill be adjourned until to-morrow at 3 o'clock.

Mr. BENNETT

I beg to second.

Sir JOHN KEANE

Could we not commence earlier than 3 o'clock?

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

You could, but I do not think you will find that suggestion universally palatable. If it is the wish of the Seanad I would be very glad and I will come here at any hour they fix.

Sir JOHN KEANE

Why not 12 o'clock?

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

If you make any change at all make it worth while. If you do not meet until 12 o'clock you will have to adjourn for luncheon and the total amount of time gained will be very small. If it is to be worth while why not take the whole day?

Mr. O'FARRELL

I cannot see the force of suggesting that we should meet earlier. We have only been sitting now for 2¾ hours and yet we are exhausted and what is the use of meeting earlier, if we become exhausted so soon.

Question—"That the further consideration of this Bill be postponed until to-morrow at 3 o'clock"—put and agreed to.