The Press.
London, England, 1857-02-14 00:00:00

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC JUSTICE.

Mr. NAPIER moved an address to the Crown, pray-
ing her Majesty to take into consideration, as an
urgent measure of administrative reform, the forma-
tion of a separate and responsible department for
the affairs of public justice. He cited as authorities
Bacon, Lord Langdale, Lord Brougham, and Lord
John Russell, in favour of such a measure, and urged
that it would be a compliment to the other meditated
legal reforms, while it would give to the profession
of the law a better position. Call it a Ministry of Jus-
tice, or by any other name, but let there be a separate
department. He discussed the objections to the
proposal that it would interfere with the Lord Chan-
cellor. Why, that functionary had too much on his
hands to do, and it was to relieve him of an impor-
tant duty that he brought forward this plan ; while,
as to interfering with Ireland or Parliament, the
objections were untenable. He admitted that there
were difficulties to be encountered, but they were not
insuperable, and he claimed the aid of the Go-
vernment.

Mr. COLLIER seconded the motion; he attributed
the evils of our present legal system to the system
itself, no high officer having a staff capable of dealing
with those evils, far less of exercising the functions
which should be given to a department of justice.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL would not resist Mr.
Napier's resolution with the omission of the words
"as an urgent measure of administrative reform,"
but he did not consider that at present there was any
necessity to create such a department as that of a
separate Minister of Just;ce.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL supported the motion, but
recommended that it be attached to the office of
Home Secretary. Ho resisted the omission of the
words mentioned.

Mr. MALINS hoped that the present state of things
would be brought to a termination, for it was a farce
to attempt to maintain two courts of appeal in the
Court of Chancery ; there was not enough work for
them to do. The hon. member then, noticing the
attacks upon the Lord Chancellor, paid Lord Cran-
worth a high compliment:—

He had practised very extensively before the Lord Chan.
cellor, and he would say that a judge more patient, more
painstaking, who more thoroughly and undividedly gave
his attention to the business committed to him, he had
never practised before, and probably never should. He
had no reason for saying this; but when he saw that
attacks were made which he believed to be totally unwar.
rantitl, he thoul,ht it was only right as a matter of jus-
tice that he should express that which was within his own
knowledge. Althouvh he might sometimes differ from the
Lord Chancellor on his judgment upon appeals, he was
sure that the conclusions at which the learned lord arrived
were the result of the most painstaking efforts, and there-
fore, both on account of his exertions and his abilities, be
deserved to be spoken of with the highest respect.
Sir E. PERRY contended that the proposed de-
partment of justice should be intrusted to a layman
and not to a lawyer.
Lord PALMERSTON assured the house that, in
agreeing to the motion, it was the intention of the
Government to endeavour to give effect to the prin-
ciple involved in it. With respect to the particular
method of carrying the object into effect, the variety
of opinion exhibited during the debate showed the
difficulty of dealing with details, and the necessity
of allowing the Government time for deliberation.
Among other points to be considered was, whether
the proposed department of justice should be in-
tru,ted to a new officer or conjoined with some
existing branch of executive administration.
The motion was ultimately agreed to intact.
GENERAL POLLOCK AND THE BOARD OF CONTROL.

Capt. LEICESTER VERNON moved for A copy of all
correspondence relating to the removal of General
Pollock, G.C.8., from the direction of the Hon. East
India Company. Captain Vernon's complaint was
that General Pollock, who in 1854 had been nomi-
nated by Sir Charles Wood, in acknowledgment of
his great services in India, as one of the directors of
the East India Company, had in 1850 been removed
from his post by Mr. Vernon Smith. General Pol-
lock's period of service had expired, it was true, but,
instead of renewing the appointment, as is usual and
quite in accordance with the Act 16 and 17 Viet. cap. 05,
sec. 7., Mr. Vernon Smith had removed the gallant
general upon the plea that it was the intention of
the Legislature that a fresh appointment, and not a
re-appointment, should always he made. In his
letter, March 20th, 1850, announcing this to General
Pollock, Mr. Vernon Smith gave a delicate intima-
tion of the line of conduct the gallant general should
pursue

153

I am unaware at this moment whether, if I had found it
compatible with my publio duty to offer you the office
again, you would have wished to accept it, and therefore it
is quite open to you to let it be considered that you would
not, if more agreeable to you.
To this Sir George Pollock, with manly straight•
forward feeling, replied :
I am obliged by the consideration for me with which
you suggest that (if more agreeable to me) " it is quite open
to me to let it be considered, that I would not accept office
if again offered ;" but in answer to this, I beg to say that
with reference to the policy you assign, as a reason for the
course you pursue, I do not see why any disguise should
be adopted ; and as I certainly should have accepted the
reappointment bad it been offered to me, I think it is
better for the public service and more honourable to you
and myself that the truth (whatever it is) should
appear.

Mr. VERNON SMITH said that his answer would be
that there was no official correspondence in existence
on the subject. General Pollock bad never been
dismissed ; but he had not been reappointed on
account of his age and infirmities. Mr. Vernon Smith
expended a good deal of virtuous indignation at the
notion of the whole affair having been a "job" :
Did the hon. gentleman mean to accuse him ( Mr. V.
Smith) of any sinister motive in that appointment? Could
he attribute it to any corrupt motive—to what might be
called a job—when, if he had consulted his own ease and
power, he should have appointed a man who would least
interfere with him in any way ?

Mr. DISRAELI was willing to believe that Mr. Vernon
Smith had acted upon the " purest convictions " of
what he thought to be his duty ; but the defence of
Mr. Smith was an implied attack upon his colleague
and predecessor at the Board of Control (Sir C.
Wood), who appointed Sir G. Pollock. If that officer
was incapable through infirmity of holding the office
of director, why was he appointed ?
Lord PALMERSTON defended the original appoint•
ment, and the motion was then withdrawn.