The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-13 00:00:00

LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN IRELAND.

tries at that period, and contended that throughout the
period since the Union the taxation of Ireland had been so
unduly severe as to bring about a state of things quite con-
trary to the spirit of the Act of Union. The theory always
_ _

had been thatthe Union was to be for the benefit of the
two countries ; but when it was found that one was pros-

pering, while the other was being exhausted by over-taxa-
tion, it was clear that the Act of Union was not being fairly
carried out. He had no wild or absurd notions about the

future of Ireland; but, instead of seeing the population
frittered and driven away in emigrant ships to foreign
shores, he sincerely hoped and trusted he should live to see
the people of Ireland happy and prosperous in their own
country, That day would not arrive, however, until some
different system of taxation were adopted; and, with the
view to obtain some recognition of that by the house, he
would conclude by moving for the committee of which he

had given notice.
Colonel FRENCH seconded the motion.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
question was one that deserved serious consideration, and
there was no necessity for any apology for bringing it be•
fore the notice of the house. He could not, however, agree
with the hon. and gallant member in all his views. For

instance, he could not agree in the general statement that
taxation was no diminution of the wealth of the country

so long as the money was spent within the limits of the
country. With regard to "absenteeism," as it was called,
that was undoubtedly a matter for very deep regret; but
he could not see how it could be made less frequent
except by setting before the landlords' eyes the better
example of the British landlords. The. hon. and

gallant gentleman complained that Ireland paid more than
her fair share of taxation, and that, though the figures
showed but seven millions, she actually paid eleven mil-
lions; the difference being made up by her in, as he said,
the Irish tradesman taking duty-paid goods from England
to the extent of £1,600,000. If that were so, Ireland must
be richer than England, because England did not pay
4600,000 on Customs' duties annually. The Customs re-
venue levied in England was equal to 18s 7d per head, and
. _ _

in Ireland 7s 10d ; excise in England was 13s-6d'per head,

and in Ireland 9s; stamps in England 7s 6d per head, and
in Ireland is lOid ; land and assessed taxes in England 2s
ild per head, and in Ireland nothing; the income tax in

England was N id per head, and in Ireland 2s 6 d; but
those figures were no proof that Ireland was lighter taxed

han England, because the low rate of taxation might, ow
ing to the poverty of the country, be in fact more oppres

sive than the higher rate in England. Ireland, however,
paid no duties which England did not ; but England paid
duties which Ireland did not. The right hon. gentleman
then entered into minute details of Irish expenditure in com-

parison with England. The property-holding classes in
Ireland must not be considered poorer than those in Eng-

land, but in the adjustment of income tax in Ireland con•

siderable modifications had been made in favour of the lat-
ter. In England the owners of landed property were as-
sessed up to the rack rent, and in some instances on more
than they received (exception only being allowed for the
land tax and sewerage), but in Ireland the assessment

cour t-martial ?

On the motion for going into committee of supply,
Sir H. BRUCE rose to move that the restrictions placed
by the Board of Works in Ireland and the Treasury on the
advances of money for the building of labourers' cottages
in Ireland were inexpedient and calculated to render the act

sanctioning the advances in a great degree inoperative. The
hon. baronet referred to some correspondence between the
Treasury and Sir Richard Griffith in support of his motion.

Mr. F. PEEL reminded the house that it was not with-
out considerable difficulty that the principle of the Land
Improvement Act was extended to building operations in
Ireland—in the first instance to farm buildings, and ulti-
mately in 1860 to the erection of labourers' cottages. then
Parliament authorised Government to make advances for
the purpose, it was necessary at the same time to lay down
conditions under which they should be made, and the hon.
baronet now asked whether the restrictions created were not
unnecessary. He believed they were quite defensible, not
merely as protecting the Government, but likewise as pro-
tecting the owners of property, and especially those who
had eventual interests in land.

Sir F. HEYGATE called attention to the extraordinary
character of the specifications required by the Treasury.
Why, for example, should the best description of slates be
required for labourers' cottages, and why should none but
the best foreign timber be used ?
Mr. POLL ARD -URQUHART hoped the Government
would do nothing to induce Sir R. Griffith to relax the very
salutary regulations laid down by him. If the working of the
act were not so guarded it would lead to the greatest abuses.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE asked the hon. baronet to re-
member that such legislation was entirely exceptional, and
that it was with great difficulty the bill was passed by the
House of Lords. In the interest of the remainder man espe-
cially, it was necessary to fence the act with conditions, and
under those circumstances he asked the hon. baronet not to
press his amendment.
Sir H. BRUCE Withdrew the amendment.
THE STATE OF IRELAND.

Col. DUNNE rose to bring before the house the present
depressed condition of Ireland, together with the amount
of taxation imposed upon that country, and to move for a
select committee to inquire into the cause of such depres-
sion, and the effects of the taxation she now bore. The hon.

member regretted his inability to bring forward the motion I
at an earlier period of the session. Comparing the returns
of 1841 with the returns of 1861, he found that the popula-
teifon2,oofool,roeredudhamdedecreased within 20 years to the number
con-
gratulation,
eats
iolirtetlharnaned. was capable of supporting a much
1847, which was the ehe
That could not be a matter for con-
possessed in 1841. Again, since
larger
agricultural produce of firstall year after the potato famine, her
sortshe had diminished enormously ;
green crops Were less, and
her cereal crops were less,
country was less. Heretofore
but of late years she
the quantity of stock in the r
o:Lptrhoeperty had been
Ireland had been an exportegrroafingrteeitni:
had been obliged to import
judged by
lc));
or £5,000,000. Then the value of railway extent
of
14'°°°'°°°
depreciated, and there was a falling
every species of Irish manufacture. So tdhePaurt°‘ll
every possible test, there could not be any
as
depressed condition of Ireland. It might have beennteeo nthe
sary to have detained the house at great length
in developing his contention, but that had been
rendered unnecessary by the frank admissions of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer in his budget speech. The
hon. and gallant member then proceeded to take a general
review of the taxation of Ireland from the Union to the
presert time, comparing the public debts of tke two coun-

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JUNE 13, 1863.

no dockyard in that country, as promised at the time of the
Union. Every statement he made on a former occasion
relative to Irish distress was substantiated by reliable evi-

dence. With regard to the religious question, he asked the
Protestants to leave Roman Catholics alone, and their

harmony would be complete. The conduct of the right
:non, gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland in attending
an aggressive meeting of an aggressive body was an insult
to Ireland, and it was a gross violation of civil and religious
liberty. The right hon. gentleman had said that he was
induced to attend the meeting in consequence of his reading

a book entitled "Good News from Ireland." He (Mr.

Maguire) had read the book, and he declared it to be a mere
trap for the religious credulity and fanaticism of England.
The meeting was an attack on the Roman Catholic Church,
and the right hon, gentleman had acted imprudently in
attending it. The tenant queation was one of the causes of
the misery of the country and the exodus of the people. He

supported the motion.
Mr. WHALLEY hoped the Government would accede
to the motion. He should vote for it, believing that the

inquiry might result in something that might atsist the
house in the future discussion of the subject.

Col. DUNNE replied, and said, considering the period
of the session, he would not press the motion to a division.

The motion was then withdrawn.
THE CASE OF SERGEANT-MAJOR LILLEY.
Viscount PALMERSTON appealed to the hon. member

for Brighton not to bring forward his motion on this sub-
ject, seeing that the Commander-in-Chief had decided upon
referring th«, conduct of Colonel Crawley to a court-martial,

Hear, hear,)
Mr. CONING HAM replied that there were other per-

sons in high places compromised in this matter, and upon

this ground ho could not agree to postponing his motion.
This matter was only a part of the whole military system,

and as long as he had a seat in that house he would stand
up for non-commissioned officers, whether against general
officers or royal highnesses and commanders-in-chief. The
bon. member then proceeded to call attention to the court-
martial held upon Paymaster Smale.

Col. NORTH rose to order, and asked whether the hon.
member was justified in referring to the proceedings of a

Gen, PEEL supported the motion of order on the ground
that the hon. member was not justified in quoting from a
document not in the possession of the house.
The SPEAKER ruled that the hon. member was in
order.

Mr. CONINGIIAM then proceeded to read quotations
from the protest addressed to Col. Crawley by Paymaster
Smale on the subject of his court-martial and with reaped,
to the gross infringements of her Majesty's regulations of
which he had been the victim, and continued—Those quo-
tations, which have been corroborated by the memorandum

just issued from the Horse Guards, conclusively manifested
that the mere trial of Col. Crawley by a court-martial would
but imperfectly fulfil that wide and searching investigation
in this country into the conduct of all concerned, which
public opinion demanded. They had never had the opinion
of the Judge Advocate upon the question, although that

opinion had been referred to in the memorandum of his
Royal Highness. He should like to know what was that

opinion. It was perfectly idle to attempt to burk and
suppress inquiry; the interests of justice, the discipline of
the army, required that it should take place. If non-

commissiOncd officers were liable to be treated as they
had been in India, not only by Colonel Crawley, but like-
wise by general officers, the disaffection would be wide-
spread through the army. He would therefore entreat

he noble lord at the head of the Government,

he was without doubt as to the authority of the Secretary of

War, not to hesitate, but to enforce that authority to its
utmost limits ; and that, notwithstanding his high position
and his high birth, his Royal Highness should be made to
feel, in common with the most humble individual in the
realm, that if he had done wrong he should not escape jus-
tice. He appealed to the noble lord not to make a scape-
goat of Colonel Crawley, but narrowly to investigate the
conduct of every one engaged in a most discreditable
transaction.

The Marquis of HARTINGTON said that, although the
Speaker had decided that the hon. member for Brighton
(Mr. Coningham) was in order, there could be no difference
of opinion in that house as to the good taste and command
of temper which the hon. member had displayed in advert-
ing as he had done to the court• martial on Paymaster Smale,
when his motion only referred to the memorandum of his
Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief on the case of
Sergeant-Major Lilley. Now, he did not think that was
the proper place to discuss questions of detail affecting the
discipline of the army. (Hear, hear.) Nor would it be
consistent with the feelings of hon, members generally that
an hon. member should come down to that house and make
detailed statements against the characters of officers who
were not present to defend themselves, and against the cha-
racter of the Commander•in-Chief, who was not present to
defend himself—(hear, hear)—and when those whose duty
it was to defend his Royal Highness could not be adequately
prepared to do so. He utterly declined•to follow the hon.
member in his observations, either with respect to the court
martial on Paymaster Smale, or as to the conduct of the
Commander-in-Chief in India or the Commander-in-Chief
at home, who had sanctioned the proceedings of that court-
martial. He would only say that he was corroborated in
that view by the opinion of the Judge Advocate-General, and

on the proper occasion hQ should be perfectly ready if neces •
sary to defend that opinion. The hon. gentleman had made
a somewhat violent attack upon his Royal Highness the
Commander-in-Chia. The grounds of the attack ho was
utterly at a loss to discover, seeing that the finding of the
court-mart ial never came before his Royal Highness at all.
The final decision rested entirely witth the Commanders-
in-Chief in India.

Mr. PIGOTT—But the memorandum.
The Marquis of H ARTINGTON —His Royal Highness
did certainly, in that memorandum, make some general ob-
servations upon the discipline of the regiment, and stated
his reasons for retaining the two officers referred to in the
service, which he had a perfect right to do. The hon. gen-
tleman said he did not want a victim, or a scapegoat. The
course, however, now adopted by his Royal Highness
would probably be satisfactory to everybody. The officer
who was stated by Col. Crawley to be responsible for the
severity and cruelty of Sergeant-Major Lilley's imprison-
ment had made a directly contrary allegation, and it had
now been resolved, in justice to both, to summon Colonel
Crawley before a court-martial to decide whether he or
Capt. Fitz Simons was really responsible. (Hear.) He had
only to add that, pending such an inquiry, it was highly
improper and unjust that warm discussions should take
place in that house.
Col. NORTH also protested against discussion before
the inquiry took place. No one had heard with greater
astonishment and reg ret than himself the lamentable occur-
rences that had taken place in one of the finest regiments
in hr r Majesty's service, and he could only say that where
an officer converted what might and should have been a
bed of roses into a hell upon earth, the sooner he was re-
moved from his command the better. The only question
was, was it really Colonel Crawley who was responsible for
that state of things. The honourable gentleman had quoted
from the proceedings of the court-martial, but he was pro-
bably the only member of that house who had seen
them, and it was hardly just to ask the house to form an
opinion on evidence they had never seen. (Hear, hear.)
So far us related to the Commander-in-Chief in India he
was one of his oldest friends, and he could assure the house
that whatever that officer did was what he sincerely be-
lieved to be for the honour and dignity and the interests of
the service. (Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Sir P. O'BRIEN,
Lord PALMERSTON much regretted the course taken
by the hon. member for Brighton (Mr. Coningham). Ho
stated that he was only standing up for justice, whereas he
had in fact done the greatest possible injustice himself. He
had launched into abuse of his Royal Highness the Com-
mander-in-Chief without the slightest ground, and no doubt
to-morrow morning when he returned to his ordinary
calmness of mind, he would be sorry for the expressions
he had been tempted into using while defending his friend
Captain Smale.
Mr. CONINGHAM—Captain Smale is no friend of mine.
Lord PALMERSTON said he had only to add, that the
character of his Royal Highness, as Commander-in-Chief
of the British army, std:.'.', far too high to be in the least de-
gree affected by the animadversions of the hon, member for
Brighton.
Mr. BOUVERIE complained that the hon. member
(Mr. Coningham) had attempted to make the house a court
of appeal from the decision of a court-martial. (Hear,
hear.) If such a course were pursued. there would be an
end, at no long time, to the discipline of the army in India.
(Hear, hear.) A more unwise, imprudent, unfair, or harsh
course could not have been taken towards any officer than
that which was adopted by the hon. member for Brighton,
and he trusted that, whatever might be the attempts to in-
fluence public opinion against Colonel Crawley, he would
still have a fair trial, and prove himself innocent of the ac-
cusation with which he stood charged.
The subject then dropped.
The house then went into supply Pro forma, and imme-
diately resumed.

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIMES,—It is little to the credit of English law-
yers that a Lord Chancellor, in the reign of Queen
Victafia, should be planning for the first time a
comprehensive digest of our law. From the age of

,he Norman conquest something like a regular sys-
;em of civil and criminal justice has existed in this

country, and lor several centuries the principles
and practice of jurisprudence have been the special
duty of a learned profession. Yet it would be
hardly too much to say that not a single law-book
worthy to be called philosophical has emanated from
this body during all these long ages; that no attempt

whatever has been made to abridge, or even to ex-

pi:agate the eleven or twelve hundred volumes em-
bodying the Case Law, which by a strange perver-
sion of ideas we call " unwritten ;" and that not one
considerable branch of our Statute Law has been
consolidated, much less codified. Again an again
the need of a thorough revision has been recognised,
but it has been recognised as men recognise the
value of a blessing which they never hope to enjoy.
Edward VI. expressed an honest but futile wish
that useful enactments might be fiimplified, and the

Aseiess ►end tedious ones eliminated from the Statute-

book. Bacon pointed out in his weighty language
the formidable growth of precedents and statutes,
and indicated the remedy in a treatise every word
of which Lord Westbury could adopt without quali-
fication. The Reformers of the 17th century applied

themselves, though in vain, to the same subject, and
now and then in later times the awakened con-

science of Parliament has feebly echoed the despair-
ing cry of the lawy er•ridden public, and committed
itself to some abstract pledge to reduce the bulk of
our law. Mean while the two famous maxims, that
-very man is presumed to know the law, and that
the l-aw expects impossibilities of no man, are left to

stand together in the glaring antagonism to each
other which Romilly ridiculed so :sappily. Nothing
—that is nothing amounting to a first instalment of
this colossal work—has yet been done—a few Con-
solidation Acts, copying the provisions, and often
stereotyping the defects of those which they
superseded, have been passed within the last
twenty years. The Criminal Law has been
condensed into several consecutive statutes which

were happily taken on trust by Parliament, but
which are far from perfect as specimens of legisla-
tion. One or two similar experiments have been

tried in Ireland, and that is all. The rules of com-
mon law and equity have still to be extracted from
a series of reports which fills whole libraries; our
statute law still reposes in more than forty huge
quarto volumes. We are assured on excellent
authority that above half the business of all the
courts consists in settling disputed questions on the
construction of the latter; and, of the rest, at least
half consists not in applying but in ascertaining the
legal purport of the former. This is the state of
things which lawyers of the old school tell us is
beyond remedy, but which the present Lord Chan-
cellor has undertaken at least to mitigate, His object
is twofold—to bring into a manageable compass all
the precedents which have any real value, and to
divest the statute book of all superfluous matter.
Of these two enterprises the first is probably the
more difficult. A pernicious theory has long domi-
nated over judicial decisions. That theory is that a
principle of law, applicable to every possible com-
bination of facts, already exists, and that the judge
has nothing to do but to discover and declare it.
The consequence of this theory is that the plainest
rules of inference or analogy have to be strained or
set aside in order to make the raw deadendi in
some obsolete and irrelevant case cover an entirely
new group of conditions. No sooner has this been
done than the fiction is dropped, and the next judge
whe has to deal with a similar point does not scruple
to quote and follow his predecessor's judgment as a
substantial addition to the law. A very good in-
stance of this clumsy and absurd process was given
by Lord Westbury last night. When the sudden
development of railways created a new class of
associations called provisional committees, it was
necessary to make out that such a contingency
had not escaped the foresight of the common
law. The only thing that looked at all like
the relation of provisional committeemen was the
relation of partners, and accordingly the stringent
Law of Partnership was brought to bear on a
totally different status, to the ruin of many, while
the false analogy governed the practice of the courts,
and to the ruin of many more after it was at last
detected and abandoned. It is vain to deny, as Lord
Cranworth appears to do, that such a system
produces uncertainty in the law itself. When it

lies entirely within the discretion of an individua
either to interpret a previous decision as though it
contained a. doctrine of universal application, or to
narrow it so as to deprive it of all significance ex-
cept where the circumstances are precisely identical,
consistency is impossible, and without consistency
how can there be certainty ? As the Lord Chan-
cellor truly says, our Judges become law-makers
ex arbitrio, and Judge made law fluctuates as much
as the course of legislation. The real doubt is, not
whether the law is now uncertain, but whether the
standard could be fixed by analysing, abridging,
expurgating, or amending the Reports. To do so
would be in effect to distinguish between sound and
unsound decisions, to select some as deserving of
respect, and to set aside others as mischievous, un-
intelligible, or effete. This would require great
judgment, but we cannot see why it should be con-
sidered impracticable, and we are quite sure that if
done it would infinitely facilitate further reform.
In " revising" the Statute Law Lord Westbury will
not meet with so much opposition. Every one admits
that Statutes should not contradict each other,
either expressly or by implication, and the ground
has here been already broken by the Statute Law
Commission and the two gentlemen who have suc-
ceeded to its labours. " Revision" is but the first
step towards the dreaded end of codification, which,
of course, would not be complete unless it included
the whole corpus jurzs of Common Law and Equity.
Let us see, then, what revision involves. We must
exclude from the new edition all Acts that are other
than general and public ; all that have been speci-
fically, implicitly, or virtually repealed ; all that
have ceased to be in force either by expiration of
the term to which they were limited, or by failure
of the purpose for which they were passed ; and
all that have been superseded or become obsolete.
All the misquotations in the residue would still
remain to be corrected, all the inaccuracies of
language to be amended, and all the doubtful con-
structions to be replaced by less equivocal terms.
When this has been done, it is calculated that four,
five, or at most six volumes will contain all the
operative parts of our 15,000 or 20,000 Statutes,
being from a seventh to a tenth of the space which
they now occupy. Then will come the still more
arduous task of classification—that is, of arranging
under proper heads and titles the chaotic materials
hitherto rudely stratified in chronological order.
Later still must be the endeavour to give harmony
and symmetry to the mass thus formed out of the
ruins of an earlier legislative epoch. Last of all, if
we may look forward so far, is the grand consum-
mation which we call codification, an aim which, as
the Lord Chancellor wisely reminds us, cannot be
realised, and ought not to be entertained, till our
system of law shall have passed through the tran-
sitional, and shall have entered the stationary,
period. We have briefly glanced at a grand subject
of which Lord Westbury did but trace the outline
in his lucid speech last night. It is a subject which
deeply concerns every one of us, and which we have
been too long content to leave in the hands of
lawyers. Here is the secret of our failure. Lawyers
are not only trammelled by professional interests
and prejudices, but prevented by their professional
engagements from doing effective service. A brief.
less barrister cannot venture to turn Reformer, and
would have little influence if he did ; a retired bar-
rister or judge seldom cares to leave the law better
than he found it; while a barrister in full practice
is too much engrossed in construing and evading
statutes and cases to devote much time or thought
to systematising them. To this, as well as to the
want of any responsible authority, whether a minis-
ter of justice or a board of commissioners, we are
disposed to attribute the apparent apathy of the
country at large to the state of its law. The highest
legal intellects have never been brought to bear on
this great work, and until such men are employed
upon it in sufficient numbers, for a sufficient time,
and at a sufficient salary to command their exclusive
devotion to it, it will never be taken up in earnest.
Let this be done, and we firmly believe that in 10
years' time our law would have emerged from its
present barbarous condition into a state which
would enable us to compare it without shame with
that of modern France or Imperial Rome.
POST.—Turkey has at length regained the ser-
vices of her ablest and most trusted Minister in the
post of Grand Vizier. Fuad Pasha has returned to
the headship of the Government; and it is one of
the least important incidents of his restoration that
the notorious Riza Pasha and his two auxiliaries,
'Hassib and Saffeti, are put on their trial, and that
five other former official peculators have been ban-
ished the empire. Some three months ago Faud's
retirement created a general alarm at Constantino-
ple, and an undisguised satisfaction among the
enemies of the Porte. To him had be&n owing—
under Abdul Aziz at least—nearly all the vigorous
measures of reform that had been introduced during
the pr.esent, reign. It was Fuad Pasha who went
to Syria with a'Turkish force, and suppressed the
civil war between the Druaes and the Maronites,
before the French troops that were sent out osten-
sibly for this purpose had so much as landed at Bey-
rout. His success in this mission gaining for him
the Grand Viziership of Turkey, his appointment
coincided with inauguration of the leading reforms
of the present reign, and with the financial mission