62 / 114
58
The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.
[DECEMBER, 1913
Mr. W. S. Hayes moved, Mr. G. Collins
seconded, and it was resolved that Friday,
the 15th May be fixed as the date of the
next Half-yearly Meeting.
THE
PRESIDENT,
in moving
the
adoption of the Annual Report of the Council,
said :—I have the honour to propose for your
consideration and adoption the Report of the
Council of the Society for the past year. The
Report has been in your hands for some time,
some days at any rate, and I, therefore, do
not propose to go through the items in
detail.
1 wish to refer to only one or two
the principal one, is the
COUNTY COURTS (IRELAND) BILL
Now,
the County Courts (Ireland) Bill
has
been
before
the Council
and
the
Society year in and year out for a good
many years past.
It is intended to bring
about a reform in the very antiquated pro
cedure of the County Courts—a reform that
was more or less antiquated in 1851, when
it got the imprimatur of the Legislature.
Nearly everything else has advanced, but
the procedure in the County Courts has been
absolutely at a standstill for upwards of
sixty years. Now this is a matter that' really
only indirectly affects this Society and the
members of this Society.
It only affects us
through the public. Of course anything that
works for the due administration of justice,
and that facilitates the public in getting their
disputes settled and their business transacted
rapidly and efficiently, also works for the
benefit of the members of this profession
(hear, hear). In this and many other matters
that come before the Council and the Society,
although we, perhaps, ought not to say it
ourselves, we are acting greatly
in
the
interests of the public as well as in the
interests of the profession to which we belong.
The history of our efforts in connection with
this County Courts Bill is written in the
present and previous Reports, and I do not
propose to go into that history.
I only desire
to take it up where it was left off in previous
Reports. Early in this year we had very high
hopes that this Bill would be taken up as a
Government measure and pushed through.
We had succeeded in reducing it to a Bill
that should have pleased everybody, all
contentious matters having been excluded.
We had got the length of pressing it upon the
Government as a measure to be promoted by
them. They sent it down to the County
Court Judges for report. The observations
of
the County Court Judges and
their
suggestions have been very much misrepre
sented in the House of Commons, and that
is one of the reasons why I mention this
matter here to-day.
The representations of the County Court
Judges were sent to this Council, and the
Council made their counter observations on
them, in the main agreeing with every
thing
the County Court Judges desired.
The matter then went back to the Chief
Secretary, and after persistent requests on
our behalf for information as to what was
being done, the Chief Secretary admitted
from his place in the House of Commons the
necessity for reform, the adequacy of the
remedy proposed by the Council, and the
public demand that was behind it. We
continued asking repeated questions through
our colleague, Mr. Brady, in the House to
ascertain what was being done with this Bill,
and on the 29th May of this year, in reply to
a question, it was announced on behalf of the
Chief Secretary, who was not present himself,
that inasmuch as the County Court Judges
recommend the codification of the entire law
relating to County Courts in Ireland, and also
certain alterations in the existing law, some
of which he considered would certainly give
rise to controversy, he (the Chief Secretary)
regretted that in the existing circumstances
there was no opportunity for introducing
legislation on the subject.
Now, gentlemen, in the whole history of
Parliamentary procedure I don't think there
is anything more weak or more feeble than
the excuse that has been given for not pro
ceeding with this Bill. The fact is, I think,
that ours is a humdrum piece of legislation
which does not make votes for any party,
therefore it was thrown aside on the flimsiest
excuse that could be raised. As for codifica
tion, which was the principal reason given
by the Chief Secretary for not proceeding
with the Bill, it must be understood that
amendment by affirmative statute must
precede codification, and that it may be two,
three, four, or five years before the Parlia
mentary draughtsmen can include it in the
codifying statute. Therefore, as^to the first
suggestion, there seems to have been no