The Akaroa Mail. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 25.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume 3, Issue 237, 25 October 1878, Page 2

The Akaroa Mail. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 25.

The cause celebre of Mr George Eliot Barton must be fresh in the memory of our readers. During the delivery of some decision by the Supreme Court before the Chief Justice and Mr Justice Richmond, lie was very pertinacious in making some demand upon the judges for the reasons of their ruling. This pertinacity appeared to their Honors to amount to a contempt of their authority, and they cut the Gordian knot by sending him to gaol for a month. This extreme and unusual course naturally excited considerable attention, and would have evoked discussion and criticism, but that the judges of the Supreme Court claim the right summarily to repress all criticism on their actions. The electors of the city of Wellington, however, took an indirect method of expressing an opinion on the matter by electing Mr Barton to a seat in the House of Representatives, while he was expiating his offence within theii walls of Wellington gaol, Mr Barton applied to the Government to grant him an enquiry. He was informed that he should move in the House for one. Now, the only course that can be taken in Parliament on the matter is to move an address to the Crown praying for the removal of the judges, and it was not pretended that such an extreme course was justifiable. A considerable feeling existing both in and out of the House, however, that some enquiry ought to take place, the result was the introduction by Mr De Lautour of the Judicial Commission Bill. This Bill proposed to oppoint a Commission to enquire and report: —

" As to the powers possessed by the judges of imprisoning or otherwise jwnishing any person for alleged contempt of Court; α-itoiho reiuive positions occupied by the Parliament of this colony and the judges thereof, and as to what control, if any, the Go v ernor or Pailiament can exorcise in the case of the misbehavior of any judge or judges ; as to the power, authority, or precedent under which George Elliot Barton, barrister-at-law, in the month of February, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-eight, was imprisoned, by the direction of the Chief Justice and Mr Justice Richmond, for one month in Wellington Gaol, and as to-the procedure followed in the exercise of such power in such imprisonment;; as to the practice and procedure of the Supreme Court in regard to the right of audience, and of freedom of speech in the said Court; and generally to report the opinions of the Commission upon the aforesaid subjects of inquiry. ,. The second, reading of the Bill was

moved by Mr De Lautour in a very able speech j which was commended on all sides for the moderation of its tone. A good debate ensued, in which some opinions were given utterance to as, to the legal powers of the judges, ■which ate enough to astonish many who have never considered the, question. It was laid down by the lawyers in the House that the judges have an unlimited power of fine and imprisonment for contempt, and that they are themselves the sole judges of what constitutes contempt. Reduced into plain English, this means that in spite of Magna Charta, which provides that no man may be punished, except by judgment of his peers, the judges can imprison a man for life, or take away all his property, they being both accusers and judges, and that no power exists by which their proceedings can be reviewed, that even the Crown cannot exercise its prerogative of mercy. It seems singular, supposing these enormous and irresponsible powers to be vested in the persons of those who, after all, are but mortal, that the House should have decided that no case for enquiry existed, in fact have declined even to take into consideration the propriety of confirming , or curtailing them. Yet such is the case. By a majority of twelve the House refused to read the Bill a second time. Sir George Grey made an admirable speech in favor of the Bill, in which he reviewed the circumstances from an historical point of view, and showed how various powers which had been claimed by the judges at various times had bten wrested from them—for instance the use of torture, and the right to press witnesses to death who refused to give testimony. *

Since the rejection of this very moderate Bill, however, the matter has assumed a new phase. Judge Richmond thought fit to write a letter to the Government on certain matters of fact which are at issue between the Bench and Mr Barton. The latter, in his place in the House, not having the fear of " coivtempt" before liis eyes, replied in a speech in which he made the most serious charges against the judges. It is now felt that the matter cannot end here. It will be necessary to have an enquiry ; only, instead of its being an enquiry into broad questions of legal right and expediency from a public point of view, it will take the form of an investigation into the truth of certain offensive allegations.

Wo regret that the Bill was rejected, as we think every citizen has a right to know the exact limits of the powers of those in authority, and if he considers these excessive, should be enabled to use his influence to get them modified.