The Sun.
London, England, 1864-06-04 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIMEs.—A less attractive subject for a debate
than Irish Chancery procedure can hardly be ima-
gined, and yet it proved capable of sustaining a
somewhat lively discussion on Thursday night. Our
readers will easily guess the reason. The reform of
most institutions, and especially of Law Courts,
entails the creation of new offices and the superan-
nuation of many "valuable public servants." This
is always a painful process, and though the scale of
compensation is generally excessive as compared
with the working salary, the struggles of the victims
about to be laid on the shelf are often distressing to
witness. Masters in Chancery notoriously die hard,
and that in more senses than one, for, after exhibit-
ing the greatest tenacity of official life, they gene-
rally manage, as Mr Whiteside says, to punish the
public by prolongir g their natural lives, on comfort-
able pensions, for an unconscionable time. Now, it
happened that the Government bill for reorganising
the Irish Court of Chancery threat( ned to displace
several of these formidable functionaries. It is pro.
posed to retain one only out of tour, and to substitute
for the remaining three a Vice-Chancellor with two
chief clerks. The object of this change is to intro-
duce " the Vice Chancellor sy stem ;" in other words,
to assimilate the constitution of the Irish to that of
the English Court. Having said this much, we have
already suggested to persons conversant with such
matters the arguments proper to be used on the Con-
servative. What have these masters done to deserve
such treatment ? Did not Master Litton hear some
6,000 causes and nearly 40,000 motions in thirteen
years and a half ? Were not similar prodigies of
industry performed in the offices of Master Brooke,
Master Murphy, and Master Lyle, and is it not
well-known that not above a fraction of their decisions
was ever reversed on appeal? Would their successors
or rather their substitutt.s, the Vice-Chancellor and
his clerks, be equally efficient ; and would it not be
as well to know the names of the gentlemen to be
appointed before passing the bill ? Has any com-
plaint been made against the present system by the
bar? Will not the alteration be more expensive
than it looks on paper ; will it not give much scope
for jobbery; is it not, at least, " premature No
one expects objections of this class to be answered
seriously. They are duly paraded, because they
have a sort of prescriptive right to be employed on
such occasions, just as ushers and pages are always
in attendance at Court ceremonials, though their
presence is not not:ced. There is, however, a real
principle involved in this measure, though it is
rather difficult to disentangle it from these acces-
sories. That principle is the expediency of a cause
being prosecuted through all its stages under the
direction of the same Judge or judicial officer. It
was the impossibility of carrying out this improve..
ment by any addition to the staff of Masters under
one Chancery Judge that led to the appointment of
our own Vice-Chancellors and the abolition of
Masterships in Chancery. The opponents of the
bill now before the House contend that while the
English Chief Clerks are Masters in disguise, the
Irish Masters are not Masters at all, but Vice-
Chancellors in all but the name. The obvious
answer is that, if so, there are too many of them,
and that the name of the officer who is hereafter to
act as Vice-Chancellor had better be made to cor-
respond with his duties. " What is wanted," how-
ever, replies Mr. Longfield, is " men not above
their business, and accessible to the practitioners
with whom they are daily brought in contact."
A Vice-Chancellor is a man of " unapproachable
dignity," and might be tempted to job—a thing
which no Master has ever been known to do. In
short. " what is wanted," is the retention of their'
situation by the individuals now called " Masters,"
and herein consists the chief difference between the
Government sc;eeme and that formerly advocated by
Mr. Whiteside him,
self. In the year 1856 he brought
in a bill of his ovir„,. the preamble of which fully
recognised the "delay, expense, and other incon.
venience" arising from the practice of references
to Masters, and the enactinj clauses of which pro-
vided for the substitution of tlsssee Vice-Chancellors,
with a Chief Clerk and two Junior Clerks apiece.
But then he proposed that the, first Vice-Chancellor
should be selected from the body of Masters, and
otherwise "utilized the existing staff, as inr. Long-
field calls it, thereby admitting the plea "ii taut
que j'existe" and propitiating vested interests. It
was perfectly competent, therefore, for Mr. White-
hide to oppose Mr. 0. Hagan's Bill on personal
grounds, but it was scarcely consistent to oppose it
on grounds of principle. There is nothing less credi-
table to our legislative wisdom than the difficulty
experienced in maturing and carrying reform in
the administration of the law, and the worst is
that our Constitution provides no alternative or
remedy. Take the history of this very question.
A Royal Commission issued in 1854 to inquire into
the working of the Landed Estates Court in Ireland
reports in favour of changes in substance the same as
these now contemplated. Mr. Longfield himself
gave evidence in support of them, but now recants
his opinion. Various attempts were made to em-
body the recommendations of the Report in a
s.' -mal Amendment Bill—Mr. Whiteside's among
Lo.
the ra:st— and the result was that a Select Commit-
tee was Th2minated, took evidence on their compara-
tive merits, a.nd elaborated thecompromise now in
operation, whim, Mr. Longfield considers perfect.
Lord Clanricarde on the
Then came a mota" of
abuses of Chanter in' Ireland, and the House of
Lords, too readily belieo:ng, that " nothing Irish
could be "right," inanifestea a desire for a new
Commission. The new Commissio: being composed
of most eminent lawyers, both English and Irish,
and of both political parties, unanimously Con fin:led
the practical conclusions of the former one. It is
not, we believe, denied that the bill under con-
sideration faithfully represents these conclusions,
which are, in fact, those of Mr. Whiteside him-
self. We cannot help thinking that the pubdc
would have been quite content to take it on trust.
The spirit, however, of Parliamentary govern-
ment will not suffer this ; the whole centre,
versy must be re-opened, the private opinions of
Irish Judges and English lawyers must be quoted
against the authority of the Commissioners, esnd the
bill, if allowed !to be read a second time, must be
made, if possible, to run the gauntlet of a select
committee. There it is pretty sure to be so muti-
lated as to be robbed of some essential feature, and
so the way is paved for further legislation. How is
all this waste of power to be avoided ? The House
of Commons is perfectly incapable of examining in
detail the 192 clauses of such a bill as this. Yet
how can the house delegate its duties to any other
tribunal ; and what other tribunal would be satis-
factory ? Mr. George, inveighing against the course
taken by the Government, thinks " a mixed Com-
mission of English and Irish barristers" might be
able to produce something superior between them;
Mr. S. Fitzgerald, following on the same side,
thinks the last Commission " lost much of its value
by the fact that it was composed of professional
men." At all events, Parliament cannot part with
its ultimate responsibility, and if this constitutional
safeguard is worth preserving it seems that we must
he content to pay for it in this way.
HERALD.—The Yelverton case, which is again
occupying public attention, presents in the midst of
its romance some strange anomalies. We have the
wild Irish trial. We have the sober Scotch inquiry.
The former was a boisterous Hibernian ovation for
the lady. The whole fact was summarily prejudged,
on the instinct of a people, that the man who takes
a woman for his wife at the foot of the alter, and
lives with her, is to all intents and purposes, by the
law of God and man, her husband. Major Yelver-
ton himself and his counsel felt the strong force of
such a prejudice, so to call it, in Ireland. The
object, therefore, was to show, not only that the
marriage in Scotland by consent was illegal,
and the more formal ceremony by the priest in
Ireland, but that the sole cause for both pre-
tences was the strong affection the gentleman had
entertained for the lady. He was resolved to
have her. But as, on account of family reasons,
he could not do BO in the usual public manner, he
determined on ricking such a union as would
constitute a marriage in Scotland, and such a
ceremonial matrimony as was binding in the
Catholic Church, and therefore on him at least
in honour, and on the lady strictly in religion
and conscience. This may be the conduct of a
weak and unprincipled man, but it certainly is that
of an ardent lover. But, when we come to the .
Scotch case or cases—for there was a judgment
in one court and an appeal from it in another,
the latter decision setting aside the farmer; and
when we examine the arguments urged by Major
Yelverton's counsel in Scotland, we find his ground
of defence strangely ehifted. He is no longer the

gay Lothario, the infatuated lover, or even the wily
and reckless seducer. The hero of the story be.
comes suddenly a victim. Tnere he is—a hand-
some Irie!ernar, an honourable, and the heir to a
noble title, a valiant officer withal, and one too in
the roll of brave EiLid clever artillerists. Here is
this valiant soldier pursued by a pertinacious lady,
who is resolved to capta're him at any hazard. If
Major Yelverton, the ea;
dier, by the advice of his
Scotch counsel, thought he' to adopt this droll line
of defence, his friends and
he are alone answer-
able for and must accept the' consequences. We
are only concerned for the pubt.'e morality,
and wemust say that we do net like to find any English
lady, and one in particular who ho Ids a good posi-
tion in society, described as pursunlg a man and
determined to make him her town eve.l at the cost
of all that a woman holds most precious eteld Buffed--
for even this last of imputations is freely
charged.
Unfortunately for the inventors here, we Lave the
previous account in the Irith court of jtestice,
corroborating in many a strong outline the
real dispositions of the wronged woman—her
depth of affection—her respect for appearances--
her firm resolution under all trials to defend her
honour—and her thorough coufidingness in the.
truth of her lover. We do not say that it 'was the
wish or the direct aim of Major Yelverton, in
the Irish trial, to bring into relief these genuine
traits of character; but unquestionably there was
much in his testimony throughout to prove the rea
solution of Miss Longworth to b, come nothing in.
ferior to a lawful wife. If this lit dy was resolved to
be married to the suitor of her choice, she certainly
succeeded in obtaining from him who professed to
be eo ardently attached to her as bold a confirma-
tion of wedlock, both in Scotland and Ireland, as he
mid make under existing circumstances. The lady
was formally married, and there the matter would
have ended had not Major Yelverton, according to
his own showing, chosen to pursue a course of.
fl Trent betrayal. The breach o f good taste and:
judgment which we complain (lid not occur in
Ireland. Maio r Yelverton was in his own country ;
he had Hie men for his counsel, for his judge, for
his jury, for his audience, and he dared rot libe
the whole of the sex in the person of the lady who•
was his lawful wife in the sight of the nation..
The lesson, howeve.", ought not to be lost on our
countrywomen. The)' cannot be too ceutious and
circumspect with men Vho have pretensions above
their own condition. It were far better that the
charge of prudishness should remain than that any
now Major Yelverton should be enabled to get up
a sham defence on the strengtt`e of a free outpouring
of simple and sincere affection in a woman. No one
can doubt that the lady in this i.nstaatee was fatally
attracted to her suitor by a wk trm return of at-
tachment and by professions of mutual regard.
This is the common sense view of the case. It is
borne out by the evidence of Major Yelverton him-
self on the Irish trial, it is confirmed by the entire
tenor end language of his correspondence, and by
much of the coneuct he formerly pursuod towards
this truly unfor'unate lady. It is utterly incredible
that the persistent pursuit of Miss Longworth was.,
to become the mistress of Major Yelverton if she,
could nor be his wife. Border marriages and other'
facile contrivances and substitutes for matrimony
may habituate our northern neighbours to an aspect
of the sex so strange in itself and so unusual in the
world. There must have been some strong
im-
pelling motive to urge counsel to proffer this plea
of the woman's reckless pursuit and the man's
constant avoidance and escape. To represent a
gallant officer worried to death by the attentions of
a lady determined to have him " will he, nil he,"
might be a truly original picture, or one with soma,
foundation in the marriage customs of Scotland.
The common beaten track of defence proved a failure
in Ireland, EO new ground had to be taken. But, as
if ill-luck haunted the gentlemen, we find him more
unpopular in Scotland than even in his own coun-
try. The universal public voice is decidedly against
him, as, indeed, it ought to be; for at best Major
Yelverton can only plead an iniquitous law against
his lawful marriage in Ireland, and his consent to
this union is of a character to constitute wedlock in
Scotland. The pretext that he was the victim of a
cunning Englishwoman's designs may have been
sought as a last refuge in the Scotch trial and appeal;
but it will never do to persist in an assertion so
flimsy, involving the unreasonable supposition that
this accomplished lady pursued Major Yelverton—
not, be it remembered, to make him her husband,
but her paramour. This is the immoral and absurd
conclusion, urged against his own former evidence
in open court, against his published letters, against
the testimony of most respectable witnesses, and
against the known and recognised usages of English
society. The whole plea is, as we have said, a gross
libel on the sex, and will, we trust, for the honour
of the country, be completely abandoned in the
appeal to the House of Lords.