The Press. — London, England, 1856-02-16 00:00:00

I 150 actual obstacles as a deficiency of impelling force. Now, if consolidation of the Statute Law were deter mined on, there were two modes of accomplishing the work : The one mode was to have a fixed body—whether it assumed the shape of a Minikter of Justice or a body of commissioners, still a fixed body—to deal successfully with all those subjects. The other plan was to divide the Statute Law into groups—to take each group separately, whether simultaneously it mattered not, and to confide it to special persons who had made that particular branch of the law their study. There were advantages incidental to the adoption of each of those plans. By the first they would have the advantage of uniformity of action always to be derived from the operation of a single fixed mind. By the second plan they would utilise to a much greater degree the services of those who had famili• arised themselves with a particular subject; and they would have it in their power to employ the services of able men, whom it might be difficult to take altogether away from their professional duties. In the work of consolidation he thought that uni formity of language was desirable, and, consider ing that in the Statute Law there wtts so much that was obsolete, and so many cases in which the statutes were virtually repealed, that reform ought not to be overlooked in the consideration of this question. As to the popular objection that the constant passing of new acts must seriously interfere with the con solidation of the law, he denied it. It was no argu ment against clearing the statute-book of its pre sent encumbrances : It was clear that they required some competent autho• rity—whether thLt of a Minister or that of a board—to revise and examine every act as it came before Parliament. (Hear, hear.) They needed some authority to see that their legislation did not contradict itself, or clash with former statutes that it was not meant to repeal, and that it accurately and fully expressed the intentions of the legislature ( Hear, hear.) That was a proposition which had been put forward again and again—put forward years ago by very able men, and which was now, he believed, engaging the attention of some of the most eminent lawyers of the day ; and fur himself, he should say that he had heard no valid reason against its adoption (Hear, hear.) The ATTORNEY- GENERAL believed there was no difference of opinion as to the necessity of a consoli• dation of the Statute Law ; but he thought the quickest way of proceeding would be first to sweep away from the . statute. book all repealed or partly repealed statutes, and then to consolidate the re mainder. He did not agree with Sir F. Kelly's scheme of taking the laws in detail; and believed that, if that were adopted, we should have to wait for two centuries instead of two years for the completion of the task. He would recommend in preference an analytical compilation of the Statute Law, subdivided under different heads, so that the whole might be simultaneously dealt with. However, so far from opposing the motion, he was ready to give Sir F. Kelly every assistance. Mr. S. "WORTLEY acknowledged the plan proposed by the Attorney General would be preferable to that of Sir F. Kelly ; but the question was, what was prac ticable consistent with our constitutional Govern ment? For his part he thought Sir F. Kelly's the more likely of the two measures to succeed. After some further remarks from Sir G. Grey, Mr. Baines, and the Solicitor-General, in favour of Sir F. Kelly's motion, Sir F. KELLY made a brief reply to the objections of the Attorney-General, and leave was given to bring in the bills. FORMATION OF PARISHES BILL. The Marquis of BLANDFORD, in the House of Com mons, on Wednesday, moved the second reading of the Formation of Parishes Bill. The object of the measure was to perfect the parochial system by faci litating the subdivision of existing parishes into new parochial districts, for the purpose of church endow ment. Various changes in local condition, the increase of population, and the growth of cities, had, he contended, rendered it expedient to remodal the old parish system, and adapi its boundaries to the present circumstances and wants of the country. After describing the provisions of the measure, arid explaining the means by which he designed to pro vide for the patronage of livings, and avoid any nterference with existing interests, the noble lord agreed, if the house wished it, to refer the details for adjustment by a select committee. Mr. HADFIELD resisted the further progress of the bill, being opposed to its principle. He complained of the enormous powers it conferred upon the ecclesiastical commissioners, and urged various ob jections to the measure from a nonconformist point of view. He moved to defer the second reading fbr six months. Sir G. GREY said, although the bill had been brought in on the responsibility of Lord Blandford, without the previous sanction of the Crown, its ob ject was of such importance, and the principle (so far as it could be abstracted from the details), that of providing for a more efficient subdivision of large and populous parishes, so well deserved the attention of Parliamert, that he thought it would be wrong read the bill a second time, as Lord consented that the details, some of THE PRESS. which required much consideration, should be dis cussed in a select committee. After a brief discussion, in which Mr, Liddell, Sir J. Fergusson, Mr. l'ellatt, and Mr. Gladstone partici pated, Mr. Hadfield withdrew his amendment, the bill was read a second time, and ordered to be re ferred to a select committee. • to refuse to i Blandford had 11111161 COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES. Lord LYNDHURST, on Tuesday, explained the course he intended to pursue. His lordship proposed to produce various documents from the Records in support of his statements on the previous Thursday, and to have those documents translated and printed so as to be regularly before the house. The noble and learned lord alluded to the hardship of having personally to seek for the details while the Lord Chancellor had so many persons at his disposal for such purposes. Mr. H. G. SHARPE, Assistant Keeper of the Rolls, was then called to the bar, and produced the original patents of creation of two peerages of the reign of Richard ll,—Guiscard d'Angle, created Earl of Hun tingdon ; and De Were, Earl of Oxford, created Marquis, and then Duke of Dublin. He gave in a list of several others, which have been printed in the series of national records containing the patents of peerage. The patent of the Earl of Huntingdon was almost illegible from age and discoloration, and the witness read the contents of the parchment roll from the printed volume of the records. The crea• tion of this peer was for life. The patent of the Earl of Oxford was also a creation for life only. Mr. Sharpe was reading the latter patent when he was interrupted by Lord Ellenbcrough, who requested him to read clearly and slowly, as the house could not follow the old Latin law when read rapidly. The LORD CHANCELLOR said it was not to read these documents, to give them was sufficient. A lively discussion followed, and it was ultimately arranged that a select committee, consisting of Lord Lyndhurst, Lord St. Leonards, and Lord Brougham, should be appointed, to consider and report upon the case to be submitted to the Committee of Privileges. The committee adjourned till Monday next, when the necessary documents will be ready. Lord CAMPBELL moved that notice be given to Baron Wensleydale of these proceedings having been entered into, and that he be heard by counsel in support of his claim. This was agreed to, and their lordships adjourned a few minutes before four o'clock. THE FERMOY PEERAGE. The EARL of DERBY, on Thursday, called the atten- tion of the house to the creation of this peerage by the Government in direct opposition to the law as regulated by the Act of Union, which limits the creation of a new peer till three of those existing have become extinct. One peer might hold three or more baronies, but the extinction of those dignities by the death of that one individual was not to he considered legal ground for as many new creations. Yet her Majesty's Government now contended, the first time for fifty years, that the extinction of an earldom, under those circumstances, was an extinction of a peerage authorising a new creation. This was directly contrary to the intent and meaning of the act. tie thought it unfortunate that her Majesty's Government should in a single year have contrived to involve the Crown and the house upon two questions in which the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown was diputed and proved to be contrary to unvariable precedent. The present case had been very properly referred to a Committee of Privileges, but as these was no one interested in opposing the claim, and the Crown neither opposed the claimant nor questioned the validity of the patent, he world suggest that some one be appointed to watch the case on behalf of their lordships. Lord GRANVILLE did not see any analogy between the Wensleydale and the Fermoy peerages. The latter peerage had been created under the advice of the law officers of the Crown. There was no doubt that the case should he argued by counsel before the committee. Lord BROUGHAM and Lord CAMPBELL thought there was a close analogy between the two creations. The prerogative of the Crown to grant honours to any person was not questioned, the only right con. tested was the right to sit and vote in the house. The case should be regularly debated by counsel on both sides. THE IRISH JUDICIAL BENCH. Sir J. SHELLEY, in moving for returns showing the dates at which each of the judges in the superior courts of Ireland had been called to the bar, the dates of their appointments as judges, the number of times they had been absent from their duties, and the reasons, if any, assigned for those absences, drew the attention of the house to the physical infirmities of several of the Irish judges, and alleged that they were incapacitated from performing their judi• cial duties, to the inconvenience of the public, the disparagement of the bench, and the expense of tl►e country. The bon. member specially alluded to the case cf Baron Pennefather, who was said to be Mt SATURDAY, afflicted with blindness, and adduced instances of trials by that learned baron in which his physical infirmity, he (Sir J. Shelley) alleged, had interfered with the due administration of justice. Mr. KENNEDY moved that the words " in Ireland' be omitted. Mr. NAPIER, after a pause, complained of the silence of the Government, and with great power de fended the characters of the three judges, Lefroy, Torrens, and Pennefather, from the attacks of Sir John Shelley. For the last thirty-five years Baron Pennefather had been absent from circuit once from an attack of gout, and once, when circuit was half over, from the death of his son. Chief Justice Lefroy had never been absent from circuit, and Jus tice Torrens only twice in thirty-three years. lie regarded the motion as an insult upon learned, venerable, and absent men, to whom age was imputed as a crime. The honourable member then proceeded to read letters from Chief Baron Pigott, Baron Greene, and Baron Richards, expressing their high opinion of the capacity and judicial efficiency of Baron Pennefather, and denying that any incon venience was ever experienced by the public from bis infirmity of sight. The proposal of Sir J. Shelley was an attack upon the independence of the bench, and unwarrantably intruded into the house matters in which it bad no legitimate title to interfere. Sir GEORGE GREY asserted the right of the house to inquire into the efficient discharge of judicial functions. hi a correspondence between himself and the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, his Excellency, though fuily recognising the high talents and cha racter of Baron Pennetather, could not from his infirmity of sight justify the learned baron's reten tion of his seat on the bench. Sir George Grey fur ther defended the conduct of the Government in the matter, justified the constitutional character of the proceedings, and intimated that the Government had taken the only course left open under the circum stances. Mr. DISRAELI thought the observations of Sir George tirey unsatisfactory, and contended that the conduct of the Government in sanctioning a motion founded on an assumption which they themselves had proved to be fallacious was spiritless and incur. sistent. 01' the three cases alluded to by the hon. member for Westminster, the Secretary for the Hon.. Department admitted that all three had failed. Wh), then, was the house called upon to interfere?— What is the cause of our interference, and what is to be the consequence of our interference ? What are we to think of her Majesty's Government sanctioning the inco herent proposition of the hon. member for Westminster? And what are we to think of the opinion of the accom plished and amiable Viceroy whose communication they so unadvisedly asked ? Wnut was the answer of the Lord Lieutenant to the perplexed Cabinet? The Lord Lieu tenant writes and informs her Majesty's Ministers that so far as—l will not call it the public accusation—but the public suspicion had been impressed last session in the House of Commons with regard to the Irish judges, and their inability to attend circuit—the Lord Lieutenant is pleased to inform her Majesty's Government that all the judges were in perfect health, and were about to Wend circuit; but on abstract principles the Lord Lieutenant says he cannot vindicate judges being blind, but it was his duty to state if baron Pennefather quitted the bench it would be a serious injury to her Majesty's subjects. let, because you want to give him a hint to quit the beach, you are sanctioning this miserable and indecent motion. As to the constitutional point of the question, there was no difference of opinion : No one would venture to say that it is advisable the con duct of the judges of the land should be brought under discussion in the House of Commons, unless the case be clear and strong. A motion of this kind—a return of this nature, leading to nothing, and introduced in a manner so little entitled to command the confidence of the house, and the attention of the country, is shown by the Minister who assents to the motion that if granted it will not refer to the only point which can be of interest to the house—the peculiar infirmity of one individual. That appears to me the most unsatisfactory course Government can take, se far as the constitutional point is concerned. Upon the question of principle he recognised t he right; and in irresistible cases considered it the duty, of tie house to interfere, but be submitted that in terposition should be reserved for solemn and special occasions, not to be applied to cases in which there was no petition against the individual, no public complaint, and not even an anomymous slander. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL remarked that the mo tion was not one of censure but simply of inquiry. An assertion had been made, and the returns asked for would test the truth of that assertion. Sir FREDEhICK THESIGER argued that the motion had broken down on the question of fact. All the assertions on which it was ostensibly based had been disproved, and the single point left related to the blindness of Baron Pennefather, whom it was now sought to remove from the bench on,the plea of that infirmity, in spite of his acknowledged efficiency and ability. Mr. S. WORTLEY opposed the motion, considering that it cast a stigma upon the whole judicial bench of Ireland. A primd facie case bad not even been ■