The Sun.
London, England, 1856-02-15 00:00:00

beginning to end of the statute book-, through every one
of the subjects which he sought to classify and consolidate.
His hon. and learned friend said he objected to any other
than an analytical arrangement. He (Sir F. Kelly) under-
stood his objection to be this—" You propose to consoli-
date the statute, law in a certain order. I object to that
order, on the ground that it will throvi the statute book
into a state of confusion, equal to that which now exists.
I would rather, therefore, that you should pirsue a strict
analytical plan." His (Sir F. Kelly's) answer to that ob-
jection was simply this-,lf the Attorney-General, who in
this had been followed by the Solicitor-General, would be
good enough to furnish him with what he thought a cata-
logue of subjects in the-order in which he thought the con-
solidation ought to bo carried out, he would confer a groat
obligation upon him ; and if he found that it was in any
degree more easy, practicable, or expedient, than the order
which he himself had selected—not from choice, bat ne-
cessity, he would be thankful fOr the suggestion, and adopt
it. But it was said that they ought to have made an
attempt at codification ; and his hon. and learned friend
the member for Leominster (Mr. • J. G. Phillinsore) had
addressed the house as if he (Sir F. Kelly) were the enemy
and opponent of the improvements in the l•tw which ha
sought to carry into effect. They would permit him to
say that he was as much in favour of codification, if it
could be made out to be practicable, as his hon. and
learned friend or any other member. ,of the house—(hear)
—but let him remind his hon. and learned friend that when
he talked of the Pandects of-Justinian and the code of Na-
poleon, that Justinian and Napoleon were both absolute
monarchs. (Hear.) Their will, when expressed, became the
law of the empire they ruled ; and if his hon. and learned
friend could find a power in this country by which he could
at once prepare and establish v. code of laws equal to the
Pandects of Justinian or the Code Napoleon, he would
not only have the applause of tho house, but of the whole
country. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Leave was then given to bring in the bills.
BILLS -OF EXCHANGE.

Leave was also granted on the motion of Sir F. KELLY,
to bring in a bill to consolidate the law relating to bills of
exchange and promissory notes.
The bill was introduced and read :a first time.
THE IRISH JUDICIAL BENCH.

Sir J. SHELLEY moved for a return of the date of the
call to the bar of each of. the judges of the superior courts
of law in Ireland ; the dates of their respective appoint-
ments as judges; the number of times each had been ab-
sent during the whole'of any assize, or, if absent during 3
part only, stating what part, and the reasons, if any, given
'for such absence ; also, id how many, and in what in-
stances substitutes had been appointed by the Crown to
pre,ide at any assize or any portion thereof, in the absence
of any such judge, giviog in each case the name of the
town. He said he rose to perform the duty which he bad
undertaken—that of calling the attention of the house to
the state of the judiciiel bench in Ireland, and to move for
a return, showing the fact, as he believed it to be, that
several of those judges were incapacitated by old age and
infirmities from attending properly to their duties. Ike
hoped it would not be said that it was a subject which
ought not to be brought before Parliament, and he could
refer the house to a great precedent to prove that it was a
matter which might be brought before them. In the. year
' 1842, the noble lord, the member fer the City of London,
proposed a resolution having reference to . the judicial re:
signations of Ireland and Scotland. The .noble bold
moved for certain papers and correshondence, and, be
believed, stated that certain reeignations having taken
place, at a time of change of administration, it ivas
necessary there should be some further inquiry into
tho matter, in order that -some explanation should
be given, because as things then stood, the resigna-
tioas appeared one of twe'things, either that the judges In
question had attained their position long after their infir-
mities had disabled them from properly fulfilling their
duties; or else that their particular party, having come
into power, they had been placed on the retired list when
their services might and ought to have been applied to the
duties of their office. His reason fer bringing the subject
forward bad not in any way 17efei once to political opinion.
(Oh, oh.) No such motive could be attributed to him. W.°.
ground for bringing the matter before the house was simply
this, that however eminent these' venerable men IniAt
have been in their time—howeVer ornamental to the judi-
cial bench—the infirmities of age bad come upon theta,
and they ware not no.v in a situation to perform their
duties in a way to be creditable to themselves or to do
justice to the country. Tho subject
.first attracted his at-
tention in consequence of a question which was put lest'
session by an hou. member on the other side of the house
to the right hon. gentleman 'the Secretery for Ireland,
That hon. member asked whether the Secretary for Ire'
land was aware that a hrebe p oportion of the Irish judges
were incapacitated for a fult discharge of their duties, and
that some of them were called to the bar in 176 and the
following years. The reply given by the right hon. gen-
tleman on that occasion was, that the only official know'
ledge the Government had of the circumstance referred to,
was derived from the fact, that when a judge was unelele
to go the circuit he provided a substitute, who was paidout of the coneolidated fund. To' the latter
part of the
question therEecretary for Ireland said he could only state
that the circumstances had been brought to the notice,
of the Government, cod they were still under considera-
tion. He (Sir J. Shelley) left the matter to the close
of the session, and thna gave notice of hie iutention
to bring the subject before the house at an early period
of the present session. He must say that her Majesty's
Ministers had been to blame for allowing such a state
of things to grow up; as the return he now asked for,
if granted, would prove. He had tried to find some
excuse for such apathy on their part, and he. thought
it must have arisen from certain feelings of delicacy. It
was quite possible the Government might have not done
that which they thought they ought to do for fear it should
be said they had endeavoured to remove these venerable
'men from their offices in order that during the time they
held office the Government Might place eminent men of
their own opinions in their place. But if he found smile
excuse for her MejeSty's Ministers, be really was at a i°°'
to find any excuse for her Majesty's Opposition • for they
had remained perfectly quiet, and• ellowed•thie state of
things to grow up. While lie said this lie felt bound to do
m
justice. to one right hon. gentleman—he alluded to the right
hon. gentleman the ember for the University of Dublin.
The report was, that in the time of Lore Deiley's Govern-ment Irish judgeship fell vacant, and that the right
hon. gentleman, with a properregard for the public servicet
upon having that judgeship offered to him, refused it .
cesoequence of having the infirthitz of deafness. (Cries o
"Oh, oh.") He atentionel the subject, feeling that it
a very creditable ono to the right hon. gentleman ; but if
he had given any effence by hie observation, all he could
say was that the right bon. member's conduct had boa
highly creditable on tfireoccasion refereed to. With regar.`t
,
to the subject-matter of his motion, he should not think it
necessary to trouble the house by going through the
list of these gentlemen. There were 12 judges in Ireland,
and he should only allude to two or three of these who bad
arrived at the longest period Of existence. There was Chief
Justice Lefroy, who was born in the year 1774, arid there-
fore was now 82 years of age ; he was called to the bar in
1797, and consequently he had been at the bar 59 yea":
He (Sir J. Shelley) need 'not' say that infirmities were
upon that gentleman, and he believed that he had been
obliged to absent himself from his duties? The next Nvae
Judge Torrens, who was born in the year 1772, and was
consequently 84 years of age; he was called to the bar
in 1798. The next oldest was Baron Pennofather, who
was born in 1771; he was called to tho bar in 1795, and
ett
had therefore been itkthe bar 11 years, and on the bench
35 years, and was now 85 years of age. It would doubt-
less be said, and he (Sir J. Shelley) chid not deny it, that
Baron Pennefather perforfeed his duties with more
activity, wonderful as it was to' say so, than most of these
venerable men. (Hoer, hear.) They all knew cases in
which that learned judge had distinguished himself greatly
by his elaborate summing up, and the physical strength be
had displayed ; but, unfortunately for him, and also for
his country, that learned eitidge had for a long time been
deprived of his sight. Looking at the duties which.a judge
had to perform, it was quite imposable, indeed, it was
awful to think Of, that a judge deprived of his sight should
sit to try persons for their lives and characters, without
being able to take a single cote of the proceeding. That
there might be no questioh of the learned judge being
really blind, he (Sir.J. Shelley) wished to be allowed to
refer to a newspaper, which was certainly not favourable'
to his motion or to the party on that side of the houge.
Cries of " Order.") He would refer to a document. (Order,
order.) This published document was the organ of a party,
and in alluding to the presebt motion, it saict that it could
safely assert— (The hon. niember,was here interrupted by
loud cries of " Order.")
Sir F. THESIGER, said he believed it was not in order
for hon. gentlemen to read from a newspaper. The hon.
member began to read from a newspaper, and when he was
checked, ho immediately called it a document. He, there-
fore, appealedeto the Speaker to know whether the' hon.
gentleman was strictlye in order ?
The SPEAKER Said the•hon. gentleman had correctly
stated what the rule of the house was a few years ago, and
he had checked an member in accordance with that
rule, when, how ever, his opinion was overruled by that of
the house, (Hear. hear.)
Sir J. SHELLEY said he might, then, be permitted to
refer to this document. It stated that it was the almost
unanimous opinion of the bar in Ireland that Bailin Pen.'
nefather, although suffering from impaired sight, most
fully discharged these judicial duties, iu the admirable per-
formance of which lee bad Passed nearlp 50 years of hislife.
Ho (Sir J. Shelley), therefore, might-fairly say .that the'
learned judge performed these duties while suffering from
impartial sight. (Loud laughter.) He meant imperfect
sight ; but however that might'be, he found'from the Dub-
lin correspondent of the same paper as further reference to
Baron Pennerather, ate the effect that he wss now in his
84th year, but still retaining all the vigour and acuteness of
his intellect—(hear)—but it went on to state that for the
last year he had been. totallyeleprived of sight. He be-
lieved they might read for " last yOsr," the " last three
years." ,At the present moments however, that'venerablo
man was struck with total blindn'ess. Was it possible for
a blind man to execute properly the duties of a judge ? One
of the first duties of a hedge at atrial was to take correct
notes of the proceedings. e In cases of handwriting a judge
should be able to compare the different styles. and yet this
could not be done. Those, domeerned in ends cf justice
knew there was nothing more important then taking evi-
dence,caets theylurned upon the evidence
n
ofconversations, and it was very important
end reports
fo in many
that judges should be able to take it down, and yet this,
could not be done. How often had it happened that a jell
had been bewildered by the counsel on both sides, and had
called upon the judge to explain the evidence, and yet this
could not be done as regarded one of the judges to whom
by referred.' lie might brintoiany instances to show the
inconveniences which' had acquired in consequence of the
misfortunes of this venerable man. At the spring assizes
last year a man was indicted before Baron Pennefather for
writing a threatening letter, and' there was a difficulty in
obtaining a conviction because of want of prod of the
handwriting. The whole question turned upon the hand-
writing, but in this case the judge could not assist the pri-
soner at all, who said to his lordship that if "he would exa-
mine the paper himself he would see the letters were not
written by the same hand," but this the judge could not do.
The prisoner was convicted, eisel was now. undergoing
term of imprisonment. Heewould ask whether that was a
state of things which ought to exist. (Hear.) The next
case was that of Fitzgerald v. Hammond, in which were
involve I charges of fraud and forgery in regard to a bill
of exchange, and the, question .was, whether the writing
on the instrument was written before or after thesignature
In this case, also, the 'judge could give the jury no mild
ante, and m a new trial was moved for the point made
by the learned counsel was, that " the learned judge before
whom the cause was tried was in such a state that he could

afftri the ju;y7noassi;ta,nce." This involved the character
of a man in .high position,. and he .(Sir J-Shelley) would say
that the judge could not do justice between the parties. He
would mention that the, spring. circuits had been struck,.
and Baron Penn efather bad selected the north-west cir-
cuit, on which some important cases of murder and other
charges, amongst others that of the persons indicted for the
murder of Miss Hind, would have to be tried. Now, in
the event 0 thole peze9na appealing against king tried!),