Lords Sitting of 28 June 1853

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—la Malicious Injuries (Ireland).
2a Juvenile Mendicancy (No. 2); Church Building Acts Amendment.
ROYAL ASSENT.—Income Tax; Bail in Error; Hackney Carriages (Metropolis).

CASE OF MR. JAMES BIRCH.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that he had a petition which he had had some doubts about presenting; but on consultation with the Lord Chancellor, his noble and learned Friend had advised him that it was his duty to present it, as their Lordships' House ought to be open to the complaints of all persons. It was the petition of James Birch, of the City of Dublin, complaining of an abuse in the administration of justice, and praying against a recurrence of the same. The petition was, in fact, a complaint against an Irish Judge—Chief Justice Lefroy—a very learned and very honourable man. He (Lord Campbell) had at a former period of his life been opposed to him in politics; but he had always respected him, and had every reason to believe that he merited the respect of mankind. The petitioner, James Birch, said, that having been libelled by a great number of different persons, he brought actions against them; that the defendants aggravated the injury by justifying the libels, so that there was necessarily a record of great magnitude and complexity; that the cause stood for trial at the last assizes for the county of Kildare; and that then the Judge refused to try it, and struck it out of the list, on the ground that he was not furnished with a sufficient abstract of the issues joined upon the record, which it appeared was in Ireland usually furnished to the Judge by the plaintiff in any action at Nisi Prius. The Chief Justice, on looking at the abstract supplied to him, said it did not put him in the slightest degree in the possession of the facts, and ordered the cause to be struck out of the record. Mr. Birch complained of this, and stated that the Court of Exchequer in Ireland had, after a discussion which lasted two days, held that the Chief Justice was not justified in striking the cause out of the list; and he set forth that although this decision had relieved him from the payment of the costs of the other party, still he had had to pay his own; and he desired that some measure might be taken to prevent the recurrence of what he considered to be the grievance which he had suffered.

907
He (Lord Campbell) having informed Chief Justice Lefroy that he was about to present this petition, had received from that learned person a letter, which it was only just to him to read. He said—
"By the rules and practice of our courts the plaintiff is bound to furnish to the Judge at Nisi Prius a full abstract of the pleadings and the issues joined. Mr. Birch brought an action for libel, in which the pleadings, including several special pleas of justification, occupied—horresco referens—sixty skins of parchment, closely written, amounting to over 600 office-copy sheets. The abstract furnished, the total insufficiency of which was admitted by the plaintiff's counsel, consisted simply of a statement of the number of counts in the declaration, and the number of the pleas, without any information as to the nature of the counts or the pleas, or of the issues joined, leaving the Judge as ignorant of the cause he had to try as your Lordship is at this moment. When the record was called on—I mean the sort of abstract which had been furnished—I ordered it to be struck out; and this, I suppose, is the grievance complained of."
If there were, as no doubt there was, such a rule in the courts of Ireland, it was quite clear there was an evasion of it in this case; for the petitioner had not furnished the Judge with the necessary information to enable him to try the cause. It seemed to him that Mr. Birch was mistaken in supposing that he had any ground of complaint, and still more so in supposing that he had any ground of complaint to that House. There did not seem to be the least occasion for any legislation on the subject. He (Lord Campbell) had done his duty in laying this petition on the table of the House for the inspection of their Lordships; and he had no doubt that, notwithstanding this complaint, Chief Justice Lefroy would still retain the high reputation which he had hitherto enjoyed.
LORD ST. LEONARDSobserved, that what the noble and learned Lord had stated entirely absolved the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland from the slightest imputation. If he had fallen into an error as a Judge, that error would have been redressed by the proper court, and it was not for any one to come to this House on every occasion to prefer such charges against a Judge in the discharge of his duty. No one could say one word to impeach the character of the very learned person against whom the petition was presented; a man more capable of dealing with the business of his court, one more painstaking, with a higher character, or with greater learning, did not exist, than Chief Justice Lefroy; and it would have been with the greatest pain that he would hear a word uttered against him. He had no objection to the petition
908
being laid on the table, as it would not be acted upon.
Petition ordered to lie on the table.

JUVENILE MENDICANCY (No. 2) BILL.
The EARL of SHAFTESBURYmoved the Second Reading of the above Bill, and proposed to take the discussion when they got into Committee. He was anxious, indeed, to go into Committee pro formâ, in order to facilitate the progress of the measure.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, there could be no objection to giving opportunity for putting the Bill into the best possible shape. He thought, as it stood at present, it would be impossible to carry out the Bill, as it would interfere with the provisions of the poor-law in regard to the separation of children from their parents.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that he believed none of his noble Friend's (Earl of Shaftesbury's) labours would redound more to' his credit than this. Juvenile mendicancy inevitably led in one sex to prostitution, and in the other to theft. He was shocked to see children wandering about the streets, pretending to ask for halfpence, but really wanting to pick pockets; and if the noble Earl would add a clause forbidding any boy or girl under a certain age to sweep a street-crossing, he would confer a great benefit on the community. It was quite distressing to see little girls of eleven or twelve years of age sweeping crossings. Their fate, if not removed, was inevitable; and therefore the sooner they were placed in some refuge the better. It had been objected that this Bill would separate children from their parents; but he thought it would be a great advantage to remove them from contact with those who had sent them into the streets.
The EARL of WICKLOWdid not approve of any part of this Bill, except the first clause. He thought it would be most objectionable to allow any parent to get rid of his child merely by sending him or her into the streets, from which it was to be taken by a police constable and placed in a workhouse.
The EARL of SHAFTESBURYthought the noble Earl had read no part of the Bill but the first clause. The principle laid down was this, that children should be taken from the care of those who sent them out into the streets for purposes of mendicancy. It was known that these persons sent out their children at an early hour, from 3 to 4 and 5 o'clock in the

909
morning, and that they did not return till late at night, and sometimes not at all; and unless they had a certain sum when they came back, they were exposed to the most cruel tortures, which, in the end, drove them to profligacy. The Bill would hold the persons who acted in this way responsible for the maintenance of their children in their persons and their purses.
Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the. whole House on Thursday next.
House adjourned till To-morrow.