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

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 the
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

FEBRUARY 16, 1856.

established, and he objected to the house interfering
in the matter.
Mr. G•:orge, Mr. Phillimore, and Sir R. Fergu-
son, severally opposed the motion.
Lord PkLHERSTON observed that the question had
been improperly narrowed, during the course of the
debate, to a personal issue, respecting the efficiency
of Baron Pennefather. The motion now brouelt
forward related to the general conduct of the Irish
judges, and was justified by the allegations made
publicly during the last session. Concurring in the
opinion that Baron Pennefather was disqualified by
infirmity for his functions, he repudiated the charge
that Government were sanctioning an attack of that
venerable judge for the sake of creating a vacancy.
The noble lord concluded by suggesting the with-
drawal of the motion, though promising to vote for
it if pressed to a division.
Sir J. V. SHELLEY briefly replied, and the house
divided on the amendment for leaving out the words
"in Ireland," which was negatived by a majority of
134 to 120-14.
A second division was taken on the original ques-
tion, when the motion was carried by 132 to 121-11.

SUPPLY.
EXCESS OF EXPENDITURE.

On the question that the house should go into a
Committee of Supply,
Sir HENRY WILLOUGHBY called attention to the
objectionable practice of expending more than the
sums voted for particular branches of the public
services, and then calling upon the house to vote the
excess.

Mr. WILLIAM WILLIAMS suggested that, as nego-
tiations were going on for peace, it would be well to
delay taking a vote for the whole year till the issue
was known. He disclaimed all intention to cripple
the preparations for renewing the war, believing the
more liberal the expenditure now the cheaper would
be the ultimate cost of the contest.
Tile house then resolved into Committee of
Supply.