THE MANAWATU HERALD. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1878. the judicial-commission bill!

Manawatu Herald, Volume I, Issue 12, 4 October 1878, Page 2

THE MANAWATU HERALD. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1878. THE JUDICAL COMMISSION BILL.

The Judicial Commission Bill was thrown out of the House of Eepiesentatives on Tuesday evening last For the second reading the "Ayes" numbered 27, whilst the "Noes" counted 39, thus rejecting the Bill by 12 votes. The objects of the Bill were three-fold. It proposed to prepare the ground for a definition, by Statute, of the powers of the Judges of the Supreme Courts of the Colony ; it also sought for a definition of the relative positions of the Judges and the Parliament ; and it also— having asked the Commission to ascertain what powers of arbitrary commit* ment were possessed by the Judgeswent further,and asked them to ascertain under what power Mr Barton was committed to prison in Wellington gaol for one month. "We very much regret that the last part of the Bill was inserted at all, we mean that referring to Mr Bauton. The other parts of the Bill have our heartiest approval, and were it not that Mr Bar&x's case was tacked on to the question involved, we are inclined strongly to believe that the House would have passed it. Had Mr De Lautqjf^ instead of incorporating Mr Barton's grievance into the Bill, merely" employed it as a glaring illustration of the necessity of the law being defined, then public sympathy would have been much stronger with the Bills. We had no sympathy with Mr Barton at the time of his committal. Undoubtedly the punishment meted out was severe, but when it is remembered that he constantly made covert and ofteg

direct charges of mnl-prnctieo against tho Judges beforo whom ho pleaded ; that ho repeatedly said that the Court refused to do him or his clients justice ; that nlmost every time he entered the Court, there was a most disgraceful "scene," utterly at variance with that calm dignity which should characterise tho proceedings of the Supreme Court of the land ; —wo say that anyone who remembers these facts, and the repeated warnings Mr JSarton received, will feel that, if severe, his punishment was merited. The way to test the question, is to change the parties in the case. An illiterate and impetuous layman has a case in Court, and, conceiving (perhaps in his ignorance) that a wrong has been done him, lie mutters some opinion of "partiality,"which strikes the ear of the Magistrate or Judge, and is at once committed for " contempt of Court." Yet no outcry is made, no Commission is asked for, no Parliamentary speeches made on liberty ! Mr Bartox, on the other hand, displays a settled disposition of petulance, contempt, and insolence towards two learned Judges of the Court, and he does more by his innuendoes and covert charges of injustice in open Court, remembering his position as a banister, lo sap the foundations of public opinion in the integrity of the Bench, than one hundred, aye one thousand, muttered opinions of ignorant and disappointed litigants. Why, then, in the name of all that is fair, should Mr Barton be held up as a martyr to judicial tyranny any more than the case we have supposed? What was the result of Mr Bauton's imprisonment ? In a frenzy of horror at the liberties of that gentleman being thus violated, tho Wellington people elected him to Parlia-. me'nt. .But we are bold to say that now the excitement has passed away, ninety out of every hundred feel that a mistake was made. Popular feeling is evanescent, and frequently the masses are as impetuous as the individual ; whilst the feeling of self-reproach similarly affects the multitude as the individual, after the committal of a foolish action ; — not the same in degree of intensity, but undoubtedly the same in kind. If proof be demanded, we ask, how many Wellington electors are proud of Mr Barton as a representative ? And unless some other " martyr scheme " is worked up, we do not anticipate ho will be returned again as M.H.E. for Wellngton.

Apart from Mr J3abton*3 case, however, the law relating to contempt of Couvt needs to be clearly defiued. Like the law of libel, which overhangs the Press, it is a sword of I>Aiioc r Es suspended by a hair over the head of all who go near the Courts of Law; end, because this needs to have its clouded uncertainty removed, we deeply regret that Mr Barton's case being mixed up with it has caused a good and u-seful BUI to be thrown out. The Lower House has shown a broad spirit in refusing to mix up tha merited punishment of a cantankerous lawyer with tho discussion of a great principle .