The Sun.
London, England, 1857-02-13 00:00:00

LEGAL REFORM.

Mr. NAPIER rose to move, " That an humble ad-
dress be presented to her Majesty, pra3ing that she will
be graciously pleased to take into consideration, as an
urgent measure of administrative reform, the formation
of a separate and responsible department for the affairs
of public justice." But the noise occasioned by metn•
bers leaving the house, and the buzz of conversation
which prevailed for some time after the exciting seene of
personalities above reported, rendered it impossible to
gather even the purport of the right hon. and learned
gentleman's observations. He was understood to de-
plore the confusion, the inconvenience, and the inefficient
administration of justice, arising from the want of an
efficient central supervision of all matters relating to
judicial procedure, by some person armed with auth,
rity who should be in constant communication with the
judges and those who administered the law, to ascertain
what difficulties they experienced, and to suggest reme-
dies, and to devise and superintend the framing of acts
of Parliament, and the expurgation, classification, and
consolidation of statutes. The right hon. gentleman
proceeded to urge, that if we bad one department of the
State for taking charge of the details of legislation and
of the administration of the law, and it was properly or-
ganised, all that he had spoken of as defective its our
system would be remedied, and, just as you had a de-
partment of finanoe, of trade, of war, of the colonies, you
should have one of justice. Lord Bacon suggested that
there should be commissioners of both houses whose
business it should be to keep their eyes on the law. His
(Mr. Napier's) object was only to get something done, to
get an efficient remedy for the existing state of things, and
he was confirmed in the course proposed by the opinions
of many eminent med. The right hon. gentleman thee
read extracts from a speech of Lord Langdale in 1836, and
also from the last speech the same noble and learned Lori
wade in the House of Peers, in which he advocated the
appointment of a Minister of Justice ; and especially
in alluding to the extension of local jurisdictions
by the establishment of the county courts, he said that
that that circumstance bad rendered more necessary both
the appointment of a Minister of Justice and the simpli-
fication of the law. Fortified by these opinions, and
also by that of the noble lord the member for London,
he (Mr. Napier) had thought it desirable to bring this
subject again before the house. The law of this country
was now in a transition state; and he believed that the
law had declined in public opinion. He therefore urged
the necessity of legal education ; the reform of existing
law and a better mode of law-making for the future, all
carried out on the most enlightened principles. This he
believed could best be done by Parliament giving to the
country a separate department for the affairs of justice,
and he was sure that it would tend to give the law and
the administration of the law a better position in the eye
of the public. With regard to the objections which had
been made to the principle of his motion : in the first
place it was asked if we were going to have a Minister
of Justice ? were we going to have an office with a con-
tinental name ? He did not care about the name—he
wanted the thing ; although, as ;regarded continental
law, he would say that, in communications he had had
with continental jurists, he had found that they were
men of ability and learning, and their knowledge imbued
with the best principles lof law. But call it what you
like, let there he a department 'for the affair of justice.
Then another objection was on the score of expense. lie
did not think, however, that the country would grudge
any expense for the establishment of a really efficient de-
partment of justice. Again, it was said that it would in-
terfere with the rights of the Chancellor ; but as the mat
ter now stood, it was admitted that the Chancellor was
without such an organisation of a body of assistants as to
enalslehim to perform the functions of a Minister ofJustice;
and, indeed, the Chancellor could not do everything. As
to interfering with the Home Secretary, a department of

justice could not interfere with him in anything with which
he had properly to do ; and on that the question came to
one of the proper distribution 4)t work which must or
ought to be done by somebody, and which the existing
departments could not do. Then it was said that it would
interfere with the Irish executive. Now, he wanted to in-

terfere with the Irish execuf ive ; and he believed that no
part of the United Kingdom would be benefited so much
by the appointment of a Minister of Justice as Ireland.
In that country what was wanted both in the administra-
tion of the law and the appointment of the judges, was the
introduction of English principles ; and the putting an end
to all that went on at the castle. He wanted to see uni-

formity of legislation for the whole kingdom, and that the
administration of the law should be as imperial as pos-
sible. In France the Minister of Justice published every
year a report giving a full account of all the proceedings
in and the state of all the courts of that country. If we
had suoh a thing in this country could we have got into
such a mess as we have with regard to the Inoumbered
Estates Court in Ireland ? It was also said that this de-
partment would interfere with the freedom of Parlia-
ment. He denied that the having a minister of justice in
Parliament to take charge
iof and explain all matters re-
lating to the law could n any way interfere with the '
frecuom of Parliament. In the proposition he had made
for the appointment of a minister of justice, he did not
desire to fetter the Government as to the way in which
the matter was to be worked out. He knew that there
i
were difficulties to be met n arranging the details of such
an establishment ; but he did not think that they were
insuperable. All he wished was that his motion for an
address to the Crown should be carried, and then let the
Government take the matter into their serious conside-
ration, and he was convinced that if they had the will
they would find the way to effect the object desired. He
hoped the house would support him in carrying the
motion.
Mr. COLLIER seconded the motion. He lamented
the unsatisfactory progress of law reform, which he at-
tributed in great measure to the indifference with which
both the great parties regarded it. The Premier was no doubt
willing to forward the progress of legal measures, but
he did not regard them with great anxiety, for he knew
well enough that the right hon. gentleman opposite was
not likely to oust him on a question of law reform. But
the real fault lay in the present system. Neither the
Lord Chancellor nor the Attorney and Solicitor-General
could act as that Minister of Justice whiels Mr. Napier
desiderated. The remedy lay, he believed, in the sug-
gestion made by Mr. Napier, and, therefore, he had no
hesitation in seconding his motion.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that his right
hon. friend the member for the University of Dublin
had added to his distinguished reputation by bringit,g
forward this motion. Unquestionably the subject was
one which had not escaped the attention of the Govern-
ment. The terms of the earlier part of the resolution
showed that it had received the consideration of Minis-
ters; but the rest of the motion might be said to be the
property of the right hon. gentleman, inasmuch as he
had brought it forward in the year 1845. It must be
distinctly understood that in accepting, with a slight
modification, the resolution of the right boo, gentleman,
the Government did not see in the language used by
him, nor would it recognise as a consequence of the
adoption of the resolution, the necessity of any such plan
as that which had been spoken of by him—namely, the
establishment of a separate Minister of Justice. He did
not conceive that at present there was any necessity for
the introduction of any suck officer. (Hear, hear.) He
thought that all the objects of the resolution might be
more effectually carried out by means of the existing
machinery than by introducing the change recom-
mended. There were abundant means at disposal for
effecting all that was required without the addition to
the Cabinet of any each Minister. It would be utterly
impossible to introduce into the Cabinet the addition of
a Minister of J ustice whilst they had the Lord Chancel-
lor there, and whilst they had the Secretary there, with-
out introducing discordant elements, the possibility of
contention, and an absence of that unanimity which was
essential in order to carry out just and proper views.
Some years ago, when bills were introduced in 1852, for
what had been called the reform of the Courts of Chan-
cery, hon. members would recollect that a new tribunal
was constituted, called the Court of Lords Justices of
Appeal. This court having relieved the Lord Chancel-
lor of a considerable portion of his judicial duties, it
would be in the Lord Chancellor's power to discharge
the duties which would devolve upon him under this pro-
posed measure, without the nomination of a Minister of
Justice. It was certainly within the power of that dis-
tinguished officer, if he were only assisted by an effi-
cient staff, to accomplish, in a Most complete manner,
the three great objects which they desired to attain—
viz., the effectual administration of justice in all its
departments ; secondly, the superintendence and effec-
tual carrying out of the process of the amendment of the
law ; and, thirdly, the giving prompt, effectual, and
complete assistance to the conduct of the business of

current legislation. With the omission of some words in
the resolution, which he considered unnecessary—viz ,
" an urgent measure of administrative reform," the rest
of the resolution might be accepted in the language of
the right hon. gentleman, and the Government would
certainly give the subject all that attention which
the right hon. gentleman desired. (Hear, hear.) Tkey
ey
misfortune proceeding,
several of them upon antagonistic principles. They had a
great number of tribunals, none of which were armed
with the power of dealing complete justice on any given
subject—(hear, hear)—and there was the necessity im-
posed upon individuals to resort to a great number of
tribunals to obtain justice. They obtained a little por-
tion of justice at one tribunal and a little at another.
(Hear.) That state of things must still continue for
a considerable length of time. The apa'hy of the people
with regard to any alteration in the shape of reform was
so great that it would be idle to expect any complete re-
construction at once without the process of patching.
If this system continued therefore, as he apprehended it
would continue, it spoke plainly enough in favour of
having some great department charged with the duties
of carefully watching over and superintending the work-
ing of our numerous tribunals, and endeavouring to in-
troduce harmony and conformity into a system which
hitherto, in theory and practice, was in many respects in-
congruous. They bad a portion of the laws in insolvency
dealt with by an Insolvent Court ; another portion was
committed to a Court of Bankruptcy ; a third portion was
committed to a sort of statutorytribunel, under the Wind-
ing-up Acts ; and a further portion still was assigned to
the Court of Chancery. They had also courts of law, which
were in a great measure opposed altogether to courts of
equity. Again, they had a great number of county
court judges, and they had a defective system of crimi-
nal procedure—prosecutions were instituted and con-
ducted without any control. There was no adequate super•
intendence in point of judicial authority over the sen-
tences and procedure of the county courts. In point of
fact, the whole system stood in such a position that the
only hope of order and unity would be to charge some
great and responsible department with the duty of super-
intending it ; of collecting the details of its working, and
the duty of pie ;enting them in a great report to Parlia-
ment. With regard to the manner in which prosecu-
tions were conducted, what was the present system ?
There was no machinery at all for improving it in any
effectual manner ; and, therefore, when an emergency
arose, no means of meeting it were at hand. With re-
gard to the amendment of the law, the house must un-
questionably recollect the diffioult position in which they
had been placed on various occasions during the la 4
two or three sessions. To what was it due that there
was no department to which could be committed in
a satisfactory manner the consideration of any great
subject of legal reform ? If a measure caine before
the hisuse with the authority of such a department,
they would then be able to receive a report of it.
The effects of the present system he would
illustrate by the following example :--He had the ho-
lorn-
G e e r forward) a recommendednour of proposing a bill on the subject of the Courts of
Testamentary Jurisdiction, and for providing a chief and
efficient mode of conducting the proceedings now
he for
(thSeuAfftot Suffolk broughtey dis-
charged by the ecclesiastical courts. The moment that
project was brought before the house, the hon. gentle-
man
the member
competing
plan;
his proposal, and the right hon. gentleman recommended
another
his, and to this two contending remedies there was a
third difficulty added—a third bill was introduced, and
the house had before it then three projects at one and
the same time. Another argument to be brought for-
ward was with regard to the written and unwritten law.
The written law consisted of a great variety of statutes
which were frequently obscure and inconsistent, and it
was difficult to ascertain what the law was. The un-
written law was in a worse condition. They had to find
it in a hundred volumes of reports, added to without any
sufficient authority, and any gentleman of the bar who
published a volume of reports and affixed his name to it
added to the law, and these reports were being produced
year by year in very considerable numbers, and when
cited in courts of justice judges felt themselves bound to
act upon them as authority ; but it was impossible to al-
low that the law of the country did not require consoli-
dation, and if the written law required consolidation, the
unwritten law required it much more. In the observa-
tions which he had made as to the necessity of immediate
attention being given to the subject, it must be under-
stool that he had merely stated his own opinion of the
matter, and that the Government must not consider him
as being pledged to it.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought the whole argument of
the Attorney-General was in favour of retaining the
clause to which the Government objected. He strongly
objected to vesting the controlling power alluded to in
the hands of the, Lord Chancellor, whose hands he be-
lieved were already more than fully occupied. It was
only on the supposition that the Lord Chancellor was
already overworked, that Ile could attribute the other-
wise imacswerable fact that, in proposing to reform the
law of marriage, the present Lord Chancellor omitted to
sweep away the abominations of actions for seduction
and for criminal conversation. He rallied the Attorney
General on the difference of opinion that existed be-
tween him and the Lord Chancellor, comparing them
to the physician and the cook of Sancho Panza, the
one of whom produced most savoury dishes, which
the other forbade him to taste. He would rather
appoint the Home Secretary as Minister of Justice,
relieving him of other duties which did not pro-
perl belong to him. He had no hope of any great re-
forms of the law being carried without the formation if
a separate and responsible department of justice.
Mr. KEATING hoped the Attorney-General would
not insist on the omission of the clause. He thought
the proper and natural head of such a department as was
referred to was the Lord Chancellor, and not the Home
Secretary.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said rather than
raise any discussion he would accept toe clause recom-
mending the motion as an "urgent measure." He only
objected to it as unusual, if not unnecessary, in an ad-
dress to the Crown.
The discussion was continued by Mr. IngriAn, Mr.
Evart, Sir E. Perry, Mr. M. Chambers, Mr. L. King,

and Mr. Warren, who supported the motion, and Mr.
Matins, who contended that it wouli produce no good
effect.

Lord PALMERSTON promisee the hou-e that the
measure should receive the serious attention of Govern-
ment, and in reference to the different opinions expressed,
whether the new department would require a new Minis-
ter, or whether it ought to be attached to some one of
the present functionaries, he expressed his own prefer-
ence for building upon the old foundations.
A fter a few words from Mr. HADFIELD, Mr. NAPIER
replied, and the motion was agreed to.