The Press. — London, England, 1855-08-11 00:00:00

750 that very reason, it should be the more careful of the assertions it makes. It is good to have a giant's strength, But tyrannous to use it like a gii‘t: The Times seems to 'think it nedessary that it should every now and'ihen sacrifice's victttld to the power of which' it is the high prieitt. The evil passions of democratic clamour must be appeased. If the 'guilty are not at hand, the innocent will do. Only, never lei Moloch wait for his victims, or he may get angry with his priests. There are contemptible features in the grandeur of our civilisation, but none so contemptible as the utter disregard of decency, truth, and justice by the Times when it is in search of prey There is one consols tioh, however, fbr those whom it assails. If vilified to-day, they have a fair chance of being deified to morrow. It is as ready to unsay as to say. It presumes much on the forgetfulness of the public. Who more forward than the Times in crying down the principle of the Foreign Legion last December; who more ready than the Times to cry it up in yesterday's impression ? The Times has a nettle-like ptoperty of injuring only the sensitive touch. Grasp it boldly, and it is harmless. It has a most bully-like discretion about it of knowing when it is for its interest to curl its tail between its hind-quarters and slink away. Throughout the whole of this war the Times has systematically attacked officers in high command, both personally and generally ; has denied their claims to distinction, spoken contemptuously of their merits, depreciated their services, and endeavoured in every way to render gallant men contemptible in the eyes of the troops they command and the country they serve. To say that its constant effort has been to sow dissension between officers and men by frequently and upon every opportunity drawing invidious comparisons between the services of the one and the duties of the other, and to elevate the indi vidual bravery of the men by depreciating the devotion of the officers, would not be saying more than the truth. In this instance it is insinuated that Lord GEORGE headed a charge because he did not dare to shirk it ; that he only did not run away—that his valour was discretion—that he went because there was no help for it, and returned safely be cause he had sought the only protec tion there was—the protection of numbers around him. His good service consisted in not bolting outside the column. What achievements could possibly stand against this Thersites style of criticism ? WELLING TON liberated the Peninsula. What of that ? It was his only chance to escape destruction himself. He conquered at Waterloo; but wasn't it his interest to do so? By this standard of estimating men's actions, courage is degraded into cunning, achievement into necessity, and success itself resolved into the instinct of self-preservation. If such ideas are to prevail, all chivalry and heroism must be degraded to the sordid level of mercenary cal culation. The whole assertion that Lord GEORGE PAGET went out with his regiment because he " could not sell," from a quarrel with a brother officer, and consequently against his will, is a fabrication. Lord GEORGE, when he married in February, '54, had arranged to sell out and settle the value of his commission upon his wife. The gallant old Field Marshal his father was averse to his son's leaving the army, and Lord GEORGE, in deference to his father's wish, postponed his retirement. The Marquis of ANGLESEY died in the course of the spring; but, matters having by that time as sumed a serious turn in the East, Lord GEORGE resolved to go out, if ordered, Faith his regi merit, and still further to postpone his retire ment. His visit to England in the winter, at a time when no active service for the cavalry was possible, was with a view to make a proper provision for his family in case of his death. But need the officers of the army or Lord GEORGE himself be surprised at this attack? Was not their brave old chief misrepresented, decried, abused, and—regretted by the Times! How often were we told in the winter that Lord RAGLAN was never seen in the camp, that he felt himself unequal to amend the ills, and .TmErkept out of sight"—a charge utterly dis- THE PRESS. I'&4 • N ‘ l4 ‘ ll K l s • 400•' ) SATURDAY, 2 trary, gain it, and therewith also wealth, if perchance they succeed in persuading the tribunal before which tbey plead to contra vene, ignoVititly, ttkifttd*Mns of Parliament and the eftity of The tise. Let("ltot;'the meailitig of these remarks be miscckultrited. AgaitiA bitted advocacy we say nothitik: gte system has' faults, but it is necesNky,nd du 4.111 i perhapswheit( as little bad Edith() drrangemenfalifisociety will permit. Nor ii 'it the appoilYttrient of lay magistrates that we densure ; for the law ought to be intel ligible to all laymen of intelligence, at least in those simple and ordinary cases which consti tute the great bulk of criminal and even of civil business. The fault rests with the law itself with the absence of system and order which distinguishes it : in one word, we want a Code. It is an idle fear that lawyers will lose by Law Reform. On the contrary, bad laws, or bad administration of them, drive men out of the courts, and cause almost any amount of social wrong on a small scale to pass with impunity. When a barrister who has earned fame and fortune in his profession is forced to declare (as we not long since heard from the lips of one of the most eminent counsel of the day) that ho himselt would submit to almost any pecuniary injury short of ruin, rather than become a litigant in his own person, it is time for all who are thus employed to reflect whe ther, even with an exclusive view to the pecuniary interests of their friends and suc cessors, some amendment is not imperatively called for. But there is more than a mere money interest involved. The law, it cannot be denied, has a bad name. Ignorant persons confound the practitioner with the system: they see injustice perpetrated in the name of law—they see that the law wants reforming— they know little or nothing of the many ob stacles to be encountered—and they jump to the conclusion that the abuses they witness are found profitable, and that in the profes sion itself there exists no wish for their removal. On the many problems involved in that well sounding phrase, "Consolidation of the Statutes," we have dwelt before, and may possibly return to the subject. But our pre sent scope is more limited. To fuse the legislation of past times into one consistent whole, rejecting the superfluous, and simplify ing the obscure, is a magnificent. vision, but one whose realisation seems far, very far, distant. Some steps are being taken in that direction—slow, indeed, vacillating, and, as to us appears, somewhat tortuous. Progress, however, there is ; and rapid progress in such a work cannot be expected. Perhaps the next age may improve on the ideas of the present, and what is for a time delayed may in the end be better done But one improvement mean time is really practicable—the means of ac complishing it are within our reach—and, as compared with the result attainable, they are not even costly. If the multitude and inco herence of our existing statutes be hard to remedy, at least we can guard against their becoming more numerous and more incompre hensible. The mode of so doing is easy : it has been often suggested—by Lord BROUGHAM, we believe, once ; by Mr. WILLMORE, Q.C., in a pamphlet published some two years ago ; and, more lately, by a distinguished member of Lord CRANWORTH'S Commission for the con sideration of his colleagues. All that is re quired is a standing Board of not less than three competent lawyers, named either by the House of Commons or directly by the Administration, whose function it shall be to examine all bills brought before Parliament, once previous to their introduction, and again before they are sent up to receive the Royal assent. The duties of such a Board would be simple, and ought to he well defined Its members should limit themselves strictly to the carrying out of the professed intentions of Parliament in each instance, accepting, of course, without com ment or dispute the policy involved in such intention. Where the probable meaning is doubtful from defective wording, they should indicate the doubt, and show by what means it may be removed. By this easy process one half at least of the confusion which hangs round modern acts of Parliament would be done away. But one further step might be proved by the testimony of hundreds who are ready to I moment to the constant RAGLAN, alone or with one I the camp and tret(p_laes7, a diSe to that he *as neglect dir tictorioeli etructO? . by the 7'ilites one which told that it was ,r in command -t' le, and that ids fight a great and if ruin and de what is admitted( his reputation i§ proud to enjoy and the be envy, IL.- , pursued his en terprise with undaunted firmness, and that no event . short 'of his death could have excited more general and sincere sorrow. In that death ride of Balaklava Lord GEORGE displayed much higher and nobler qualities than mere negative courage He commanded the second line, composed of the 11th Hus sars and 4th Dragoons. He rode at their head, passed beyond the Russian guns, fought with the overwhelming masses of the enemy until it was possible to fight no longer, then rallied the remnants of his line, and brought the survivors from the field with that cool and collected courage which is still rarer in retreat than the impetuous heroism which characterised him in the charge. Not only did he not run away, but he maintained the fight till the last moment, and face to face with death gave his commands as firmly as if he had been engaged in parade duty. " What man's life did he sa% e?" asks the Times. It wuuld not be unfair to reply—the life of every soldier whom he brought safely out from the fray. bear witness at any i appearance of 4,ord I ) aide4dibainio,' about Z Hovtl6ftedVere we o keefiltim au longer Vas of 3 9rd ffittipable his utie Old broul d arm ‘o titii verge a t Yet, Vie' dies, w ithes ? ; ' that hi Li the braves' migla Le >est to envy, tlntthe p LAW REFORM. THE state of English law, partly sketched in some earlier articles, remains, and seems likely to remain, the opprobrium of our civilisation. The statutes alone, up to 1851, are comprised in thirty-eight quarto volumes of the largest dimensions, containing 33,000 pages of close type. There is nothing to tell the layman who consults these whether the law which he reads has been repealed, amended, or in any way altered by subsequent enactments. Some statutes include a heterogeneous jumble of provisions relating to different, and even totally unconnected subjects. Many are in consistent with others, and even contradict themselves in different clauses. Of method, order, arrangement, there is an absolute and lamentable lack. In a word, the Written Law of England, as it stands, contains little more than a heap of raw material for legislation, the disjointed members of some future possible system, at present lying dispersed, and not even bound together by the link of any one guiding principle. To leave the law in such a state, be its interpreters who they may, would be no light evil. But its magnitude is in creased tenfold, when we remember that not merely judges learned in the profession (though even their decisions present occa sional instances of uncertain and conflicting judgment), but a vast number of magistrates, for the most part educated and sensible per sons, but devoid of all technical knowledge, are required to comprehend and give effect to this complicated body of enactments. In the union of these conditions the very height and climax of absurdity seems to be reached. First, you make that complex which all man kind has an interest in having as simple as possible Next, by perpetual additions you so enlarge the mass that no one knows accurately what may or may not be in it. Thirdly, having rendered the task of administering justice as difficult as art can make it, and having trained, or allowed to be trained, a body of men whose exclusive business it is to disentangle the knots which society has so laboriously tied, you commit the solution, in great measure, to individuals who have not acquired this skill; but, lest they should con sult only their own common sense, and refuse to play according to the rules of the game, you assist their understanding by setting two trained masters of the art to perplex them by contrary readings of the legislative intention : nor do these lose reputation, but, on the con-