New Zealand Times. MONDAY, JANUARY 25, 1875.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4320, 25 January 1875, Page 2

New Zealand Times. MONDAY, JANUARY 25, 1875.

" Very great indignation is felt here at " the proceedings of the Government, in " this matter [the removal of the Judges], " so far as they are known ; and nothing " could have struck a greater blow at the " independence of the Judges, in the " opinion of many leading people hero. " That they should be liable to be worried, " and their positions be at the caprice or " will of a Ministry, has startled most " people. It was always believed that. " circuits, and other internal arrange- " ments, were settled by the Judges " themselves. This is now proved not to " be the case, and confidence in the as- " sured independence of the Bench has " received a rude shock from which it will " not readily recover." This is the learned discourse of its Auckland correspondent the other day in the columns .of the Otago Laity Times. It is tall—very tall discourse this ; but it is, sooth to say, very stupid discourse also. A little learning is said to be a dangerous thing ; but no learning at all, when it is found in company with utter want of discretion, or perhaps still worse, when it is the sai case of an "own correspondent" who lies under the necessity of " saying something " for his money, and who is at the same time in the unlucky predicament of having nothing to say. IVe have on several occasions already recorded our deep sense of the imperative need of an independent Bench, and in the conviction of the absolute necessity for every legitimate and regulated buttress of judicial independence we yield to none, not even to the Auckland correspondent of the Otago Daily Times. We own, at the same time, to a certain contempt alike for the correspondent's learning, for the cheap indignation, and for the opinion of the " leading people " to which he refers. In all the English legislation on this subject of the independence of the Judges, from the 2. Edward 111., c. 8, which protected the Judges from the interference of the Itoyal seals, and the 18. Edward 111., c. 4, which regulated the judicial oath, down to the Act of Settlement, which alters the tenure of their office from that of "during pleasure of the " King" to that of " during good beha- " viour of the Judgo," and tho amending Act of 1. George 111., c. 23, which fixed the salaries, and made their commissions independent of the demise of the Crown; — in all this stream of legislative enactment, can this learned correspondent, we ask, refer to a single clause whose purpose is to make the Judges independent of Parliament 1 Nay, so far from that being so, tho Act of Settlement —tho greatest enactment on this important mattor—in the very.clause establishing judicial independdonce of tho Crown, adds a proviso, preserving and confirming judicial dependence on Parliament. The priceless freight of constitutional experience, carried down to us from " tho far times " on that grand historical streftm of "Freedom, " broadening Blowly down from precedent "to precedent" has been adopted and secured, we need hardly say, in tho legislation of this Colony. Most people, except perhaps this learned correspondent, are well aware, without our prompting, of this fact. The gin«or-beer froth and indignation of this correspondent and his "loading people," aeem to us wofuily out of place, when drifted by tho gales of faction oven in the direction of tho noble current, whose outlines wo above slightly touch. It is a pity—a pity for his own sake and for tho sako of those under whoso inspiration he writes (not certainly that of tho

Judges); -a pity for all sakes, the correspondent should forget that the action of the Government, in changing the judicial districts, is simply the faithful fulfilment of a promise to cany out the explicit recommendation of a Parliamentary Committee which sat during the late session. Under Responsible Government every Ministry is neither more nor l.'Rs "de facto than the general agents of the PsirJi" merit; but heri the case is very much stronger, for the Governmei.t, in this matter, are merely acting in good faith as the particular and special agents of a Parliamentary Committee. Ohco more, it is n puy the gentleman forgets this important fact. It is indeed quite pitiful that he is somehow blinded to it, for it needs no learning at all to remember it. This is, we believe, a fitting occasion to express freely and unmistakeably our deep conviction, which we know is universal with all disinterested people over the colony, that in this affiiir of the shifting of the Judges' districts th.-re must be no shirking whatever. And we freely acknowledge, that so far the Government show every sign of a resolution to carry into effect the salutary recommendation of the Parliament To set down one sii.gle man on the judicial Bench in alittle town, to call that single man the Supreme Court, and to leave him there alone in that solitary and dangerousglory, year after year, is a system so absurd that it needs hut to state it to make its absurdity and its dangerous nature clearly seen and deeply felt. It did not at all heed experience to prove its overpowering inexpediency ; but the experience has come notwithstanding, and the colony demands, and will have, by hook or by crook, this most necessary change. " Such a position for a Judge is too much for human nature, and most unfair to any gentleman of high attainments and sensitive conscience. At the same time, our strong feeling is that the measure of change, now about to be effected, cannot be regarded with satisfaction in any other light than as a step in the right direction. In the right direction, we say, towards the right thing, but not by any means the right thing itself. Nothing will satisfy the" colony but the ultimate fixation of all the members of the Supreme Court in some one permanent, centre, and the establishment of c'rjuits, covering the whole area of the C'llotiy. This is the only system which can guarantee at once a consolidated Supreme Judicature, and reconcile that first and prime necessity with the personal comfort of the Judges. We want to secure both of these objects, but the plan -which keeps the Judges living apart, and periodically shifting their home, accomplishes neither the one nor the other. Still, we hail the change as a decided step in the light direction. There is another pass ige in the correspondent's letter above referred to, worth noting. Itisasfollows :—" The attempt ■' to cajole or worry Sir G. Arney into '■ resignation is becoming a public scandal. " No one even hears of, from, or through " him, a single word on the subject. " The information wo have may, there- " fore, be untrustworthy." Notable little fact ! The Chief Justice is better informed both as to the law and the.facts than " our ownest," and having besides some self-respect ho is significantly silent. Beyond doubt the " information" is untrustworthy ; and we will add that the criticism betrays pitiful ignorance of the s-.ibjeet it presumes to criticise, and is, therefore, worthless. We may remark in conclusion, that there is in a certain part of New Zealand a little clique to which this shifting of the Judges' districts is specially inconvenient. They see in this recommendation of the Parliamentary Committee, what Edward I. saw in the answer of David of Wales to his demand of " feudal homage,—" some of the ugliest " words that over soiled paper." Nine illce lachrimcE. From that source, from that inspiiation, we strongly suspect, come theso tears of spite and this indignant cry, this ginger-beer froth and foam. The indignation may boil over, and the ginger-beer may effervesce, but the change of the judicial districts will be carried out all the same.