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

beginning to end of the statute book, through every one
of the subjects which ho 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 throw the statute book
into a state of confusion, equal to that which now exists.
I would rather, therefore, that you should pursue 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 be carried out; he would confer a great
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, but ne-
cessity, ho 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. Phillimoro) had
addressed the house as if he (Sir F. Kelly) were the enemy
and opponent of the improvements in the law which he
sought to carry into effect. They would permit him to
say that he was us much iu 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 whoa
he talked of the Pandects of Justinian and the code of No'
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 a code of laws equal to the
Pandects of Justinian or the Code Napoleon, ho would
not only have the applause of the 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 judgep ; the number of times each had been ab-
sent during the whole of any assize, or, if absent during*
part only, stating what part, and the reasons, if any, give°
for such absence ; also, in how many, and in what ins
stances substitutes had been appointed by the Crown
preside at any assize or any portion thereof, in the absence
of any such judge, giving in each case the name of the
town. He said he rose to perform the duty which he boa
undertaken—that of calling the attention of the house t°
the state of the judicial bench in Ireland, and to move fat
a return, showing the fact, as he believed it to be, that
several of those judges were incapacitated by old age .0
infirmities from attending properly to their duties. isie
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 wail e
matter which might be brought before them. In the year
1842, the noble lord, the member for the City of London,
proposed a resolution having reference to the judicial re:
signations of Ireland and Scotland. The noble lord
moved for certain papers and correspondence, and,,....11
believed, stated that certain resignations having Wen
place, at a time of change of administration, it Vas
necessary there should be some further inquiry
the matter, in order that some explanation shell'
be given, because as things then stood, the resign!:
tious appeared one of two things, either that the judges
question had attained their position long after their infix'
mities had disabled them from properly fulfilling their
duties ; or else that their particular party, having corns
into power, they had been placed on the retired list whoa
their services might and ought to have been applied to 004
duties of their office. His reason for bringing the BA°
forward had not in any way reference to political opilli°11::
(Oh, oh.) No such motive could be attributed to him. -or
ground for bringing the matter before the house was sinell
this, that however eminent these venerable men nil. •
have been in their time—however ornamental to the judi'
cial bench—the infirmities of age had come upon theil?,.
and they were not now in a situation to perform that=
duties in a way to be creditable, to themselves or to df,
justice to the country. The subject first attracted his e"t.
tention in consequence of a question which was put W
session by an hon. member on the other side of the helle
to the right hon. gentleman the Secretary for Ireland'
That hou, member asked whether the Secretary for DI.
land was aware that a'large en °portion of the Irish jedg a
were incapacitated for a full discharge of, their duties, a!,
that some of them wore called to the bar in 1796 and the
following years. The reply given by the right hon. gef
Merman on that occasion was, that the only official keer'
ledge the Government had of the circumstance referred e'f'
was derived from the fact, that when a judge was unsil
to go the circuit he provided a substitete, who was paid
out of the consolidated fund. To the latter part of to
question the Secretary for Ireland said he could only at.
that the circumstances had been brought to the netie
of the Government, and they were still under considers;
tion. He (Sir J. Shelley) left the matter to the close
of the session, and then gave notice of his inten4o3
to bring the subject before the house at au early ner2e,,
of the pressnt session. Ho must say that her Me.leelte
Ministers had been to blame for allowing such a A,'
of things to grow up, as the return he now asked 10';
if granted, would prove. He had tried to find 501
excuse for such apathy on their part, and he though
it must have arisen from certain feelings of delicacy.
was quite possible the Government might have not dee4
that which they thought they ought to do for fear it show
be said they had endeavoured to remove these venerable
men from their of43es in order that during the, time Wilt
held office the Government might place eminent men 0:
their own opinions in their place. But if he found some
excuse for her Majesty's Ministers, he really was at a le'
to find any excuse for her Majesty's Opposition ; for tbei
had remained perfectly quiet, and allowed this state °
things to grow up. While he said this he felt bound to de
justice to ono right hon. gentleman—he alluded to the rib
hon. gentleman the member for the University of Dublin.
The report was, that in the time of Lord Derby's Govern'
meet an Irish judgeship fell vacant, and that the right
hon. gentleman, with a proper regard for the public service'
_
upon having that judgeship offered to him, refused it r'
consequence of having the infirmity of deafness. (Cries 01
" Oh, oh.") He mentioned the subject, feeling that it •
a very creditable one to the right hon. gentleman; beeCig
he had given any offence by his observation, all he e°".9
say was that the right hon. member's conduct had bee'
highly creditable on the occasion referred to. With 'gni
to the subject-matter of his Motion, he should not thieeft,
necessary to trouble the house by going through the wiled
list of these gentlemen. There were 12 judges in Ireton j
and he should only allude to two or three of these wb°,,,13,%1
arrived at the longest period of existence. There was
Justice Lefroy, who was born in the year 1774, and tber:Te
fore was now 82 years of age • he was called to the bar eY.
1797, and consequently he had'
been at the bar 59 year;
He (Sir J. Shelley) need not say that infirmities wee
upon
upon that gentleman, and he believed that he had
AM
obliged to absent himself from his duties? The next
Judge Torrens, who was born in the year 1772, and Zia
consequently 84 years of age; he was called to the wh„
in 1798. The next oldest was Baron Pennefather,
was born in 1771; he was called to the bar in 1795, 1,1,-41
had therefore been at the bar 61 years, and on the ben
t,
35 years, and was now 85 years of age. It would dolly e
less be said, and he (Sir J. Shelley) did not deny it, Os;
Baron Pennefather performed his duties with Pier.
activity, wonderful as it was to say so, than most of the!„
venerable men. (Hear, hear.) They all knew eae°l4
which that learned judge had distinguished himself g=ee ,e
by his elaborate summing up, and the physical streugterar
had displayed ; but, unfortunately for him, and .alseeee-ss
his country, that learned judge had for a long time ere"
deprived of his sight. Looking at the duties which sill.
had to perform, it was quite impossible, indeed, it wig
awful to thick of, that a judge deprived of his sight bh9114
sit to try persons for their lives and characters, With°t
being able to take a single note cf the proceedings. se
there might be no question of the learned judge belt'
really blind, he (Sir J. Shelley) wished to be allowed
refer to a newspaper, which was certainly not favourably
to his motion or to the party on that side of the boils.'
Cries of " Order.") He would refer to a document. (Oider'
order.) This published document was the organ of a partp
and in alluding to the present motion, it said that it coil
safely assert— (The hon. member was here interrupted
loud cries of " Order.")
Sir F. THESIGER said he believed it was not in order
for hon. gentlemen to read from a newspaper. The ht
member began to read from a newspaper, and when he le-
checked, he immediately called it a document. He, there'
fore, appealed to the Speaker to know whether the 11°P.
gentleman was strictly in order ? '
The SPEAKER said the hon. gentleman had correctly
stated what the rule of the house was a few years ago Oche had checked an hon. member in accordance with that
rule, when, however, his opinion was overruled by that 01
the house. (Hear, hear.)
t°
Sir J. SHELLEY said he might, then, be permitted t
refer to this document. It stated that it was the aka°
unanimous opinion of the bar in Ireland that Baron Yen.;
nefather, although suffering from impaired sight, re°:,
fully discharged those judicial duties, in the admirable Pe'
formance of which he had passed nearlp 50 years of Wag:
He (Sir J. Shelley), therefore, might fairly say, that the
learned judge performed these duties while suffering from
impartial sight. (Loud laughter.) Ho meant imperfect
sight ; but however that might be, ho found frees the Thir
lin correspondent of the same paper a further reference
Baron Pennefather, to the effect that he wis now iu
84th year, but still retaining all the vigour and acuteness of
his intellect—(hear)—but it went on to state that for tbo
last year he had been totally deprived of sight. He he;
lie ced they might read for " lust year," the " last Orel
years." At the present moment, however, that venerable
I was struck with total blindness. Was it possible for
a blind man to execute properly the duties of a Judge ? Out
of the first duties of a judge at a trial was to take calo.
notes of the proceedings. In cases of handwriting a jetiegr,
should be able to compare the different styles, and yet tit"
could not be done. Those concerned in courts c f Justr.
knew there was nothing more important than taking ev".
dunce, fo2 in many cases they turned upon the evidence
and reports of conversations, and it was very imports*t
that judges should be able to take it down, and yet thie
could not be tone. How often had it happened that ail
had been bewildered by the counsel on both sides, and lid
called upon the judge to explain the evidence, and yet thle
f could not ho doue as regarded one of the judges to whem
he referred. Me might bring many instances to show re'
inconveniences which had occurred 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
obtaining a conviction because of want of proof of the
handwriting. The whole question turned upon the hod'
writing, but in this case the judge could not assist the pre'
soner at all, who said to his lordship that if " he would eve'
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, and was now undergoing
term of iurprisonment. He would ask whether that was
state of things which ought to exist. (Hear.) The nest
cese was that of Fitzgerald v. Hammond, in which ever°
ler olved 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 thesignat sr*
In this case, also, the judge could give the jury no assist
anee, and when 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 iu such a state that be conk'
afford the jury no assistance." This involved the character
of a man in high position, and he (Sir J. Shelley) would sill
that the judge could not do justice between the parties•
Se
would mention that the spring circuits had been struck,
and Baron Pennefather had 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 of those potions appealing against being tried 14

•