The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-20 00:00:00

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF SATURDAY.
GLOBE.—Sir Robert Peel's Administration was
opened by high-sounding announcements of approaching
law reforms. Public expectation was on tip-toe. Lord
Lyndhurst was Chancellor. As head of the law,
whatever changes were proposed in the existing eco-
nomy of the law courts, must, of course, be first sub-
mitted to him for his sanction, if they were not ac-
tually the suggestions of his own mind. The name of
Lyndhurst and Reform, of any kind, was rather an
unpromising association for any beneficial results ; no
very strong anticipations in the public mind, or among
professional men, were therefore caused by the announce-
ment. Still there was hope. Political chemistry is
possessed of extraordinary powers. It can neutralise
antipathies, and bring into affinity bodies which
once seemed to be incapable of cohesion. Lord
Lyndhurst was Chancellor. For the purpose of pro-
ducing a favourable impression, law reform might be
seriously taken up by the Cabinet. Even Lord Lynd-
hurst might consent to forego his well-known dislike to
reform ; take the part assigned him in the State drama,
and play Reformer of flagrant abuses in the adminis-
tration of the law, as a means of obtaining popularity
The Court of Chancery was the first Court in which Lord
Lyndhurst's newly-kindled zeal for Law Reform
was to be tested. The Six Clerks' Office, with its enor-
mous impositions in the shape of fees, and incessant im-
pediments to the progress of litigation in the Court,
had long drained the resources, protracted the suits, and
exhausted the patience of the unhappy suitors. There
was, therefore, a considerable degree of satisfaction, ac-
companied by a more than equal portion of surprise,
when Lord Lyndhurst's Bill for the abolition of these
useless offices was announced ; satisfaction, that
the nuisance was likely to be, at length—abolished;
surprise that its abolition should emanate from
such a quarter; proposed, as it was by the very
individual who had pertinaciously contended for
retaining it when a Bill for its removal was introduced
by his predecessor. Still, as we have said, there is a
vast difference between being in, and being out, of office.
The same measure which faction may oppose end de-
nounce as impolitic and unjust, will be taken up, and
recommended to Parliament as excellent, when its adop-
tion is likely to give eclat to a Cabinet, or will minister
to the personal advantage of a Minister of the Crown !
Lord Lyndhurst'a Chancery Offices Abolition Bill is
a fine illustration of the mysterious influences which
a seat on the woolsack exercises over the visual faculties
of its possessor. In 1833 Lord Lyndhurst violently
and successfully opposed a Bill introduced to the
House of Lords for the very objects his own Bill of
1842 carried into effect. True, Lord Lyndhurst would
not have had the power of awarding the compen-
sation under the Bill of 1833. There would then have
been no compensation clauses smuggled into the Bill
at the last hour, enabling the holders of the abo-
lished offices to claim upwards of a million ster-
ling. No " orders" would then have issued, with
" Lyndhurst, C." affixed, by which that enormous
amount of compensation would be allowed, and annual
pensions assigned to these sinecurists during life—with
remainders after death—which should exceed the an-
nual salaries of Cabinet Ministers. These concomi-
tants of Chancery Reform were left to the ingenuity
of Lord Lyndhurst to devise and carry into effect. They
certainly throw a halo around the measure, by which
the distinguishing characteristics of Law Reform, under
such auspices, are seen by their own light. They serve
to show how much the country is indebted to Sir
R. Peers Administration for improvements in the judi •
cial institutions of the country ; and will ensure a cer-
tain kind of immortality to Lord Lyndhurst, as one of
the most extraordinary law reformers of his times.
We are glad to see that the Lord Chancellor is se-
cured in the possession of undivided merit in the
matter of these enormous compensations. Sir James
Graham, in the course of the debate on Mr. Watson's
motion on the subject, endeavoured to produce an im-
pression that Lord Cottenham had assented to the
scheme. It appears, however, that Lord Cottenham
declines the honour assigned to him by the Right Hon.
Home Secretary. It is Lord Lyndhurst's own. The
compensation plan—with all its munificent provisions for
the holders of the offices abolished by the Bill—is the
emanation of his mind and will. The Chancellor must
have consented, after a long struggle with himself, if
not with his colleagues in the Cabinet, to abolish these
offices ; seeing that in 1833 he regarded them as an
essential part of a perfectly wise and good system of
equity jurisprudence. No wonder, then, that his com-
pensation-scheme was so munificent ! The value of
the offices to the public was in the Lord Chancellor's eye
when he drew up the scheme which allots a million
sterling to the holders of such posts. The idea of
continuing an interest in the compensation fund to the
holders of the offices for a given period after their
decease, is also worthy of commendation. Lord
Lyndhurst, possibly, had a reference to, and put a
liberal interpretation on, a much-controverted pas-
sage of Scripture:—" Make to yourselves friends
of the mammon of unrighteousness." We have
remarked that Sir James Graham endeavoured
on Tuesday night to assign a part of the merit to Lord
Cottenham. The mistake into which the Right Hon.
Baronet fell was very properly rectified, at the Noble
and Learned Lord's instance, by Lord John Russell.
Sir James Graham said something about having been
misled by Mr. Wainwright, who drew the Bill. There
will, however, be ample opportunity for ascertaining who
occasioned the mistake, so derogatory from Lord Lynd-
hurst's merits. The subject will be resumed, when, in
colloquial phrase, " the saddle will be placed on the
right horse."
STANDARD.—The Globe undertakes to criticise
our remarks upon the foolish speech with which the
Dublin Conservative Association was dissolved, and
charges us with inconsistency, because we formerly
gave our support to the Society in question.
But there is no inconsistency in our conduct.
The Association was formed fur a temporary
purpose—to rescue Ireland from the tyranny of Mr.
Daniel O'Connell ; and, under the guidance of such men
as Mr. Butt, whom we do not find taking any part in its
late proceedings. it nobly accomplished that purpose.
"Thenceforward its occupation was gone." Mr. O'Con-
nell is not now the tyrant of Ireland. He is " scarcely
lord of himself." Nobody complains that any good
class of Irishmen is either injured or oppressed, or
of any danger threateeed to any good institution.
Why, then, might not the Dublin Conservative Associa-
tion follow the example of so many similar associations
in -England, that have dissolved themselves because
they have fulfilled their mission, in restoring Con-
ssrvative legislation and government ? Why should the
few, who may have kept the thing alive beyond
its proper periol, for the indulgence of personal vanity
or the prosecution of personal gain, reflect disgrace
upon the pure and rueful period of its history,
by ascribing to the whole body their own mean
feelings? It is of that that we complain, and there
plainly is no inconsistency in this complaint with
the highest possible respect for the Association in
those days when it was the rallying point of the
good and the wise, because it was necessary then for
the good and wise to take an active part in public life.
By the way, it may ba the means of saving the Globe
some leboer, and sparing the Irish Chief Justice some
abu'e, if we remind our Contemporary, that Mr. Ed-
ward P, nnefatlier was a Whig when he advised the
Corporation of Kilkenny, and was Lord Grey's first
Attorney -General.