217 / 338
incubus militating against the prompt and efficient
discharge of legal business. Most sections of the
Irish community—farming and business— have en
deavoured to gear their own work so as to produce
maximum efficiency. They find it difficult to under
stand why legal transactions move at such a dilatory
pace.
Besides being an irritant to the general public the
delays which arise from cumbersome procedure
occasion financial loss to the legal profession. The
solicitor is paid to bring a transaction to a con
clusion. It is in his personal interest to perform his
work expeditiously.
The statutory rules of procedure which relate to
litigation and title are not the only aspect of our
legislation which need to be revised if legislation is
to keep abreast of the ever-developing outlook,
civilisation and business requirements of our nation.
Some of our legislation is so antiquated and out of
harmony with present day requirements as to be a
possible source for chicanery. Much of it has been
enacted to meet temporary necessities and overcome
temporary difficulties. No blame for this unsatis
factory state of affairs rests with our Government
nor with the Department of Justice. In a democratic
community, where the Government is inundated
with a maze of problems requiring legislation, it is
human and natural that priority will be given to the
demands of the most vocal sections of the com
munity.
In other countries there is a law reform
committee of experienced practical lawyers who
keep the Government advised on laws that need
amendment or consolidation so that the evolution
of legislation may keep pace with the constantly
changing nature of the country's development and
obviate injustice.
Any expense incurred by the
establishment of such a
law reform committee
would not be more than a very small fraction of the
loss in money and time at present caused to the
general public by the existence of archaic laws and
cumber some procedure.
Much of the statute law still applying to this
country was passed at a time when we were not a
free nation and does not make provision for the
altered social order which ensued from our libera
tion. We are young as a free nation, but we boast
an ancient culture, tradition and civilisation innate in
our people and of which we are proud. The laws
under which a nation lives should be a reflection of
the public conscience of the people and should
contribute to
the nation's moral and spiritual
strength. The respect for justice under law is vital
and abiding in a country only when the roots of the
laws are grounded on the traditions of social justice,
ethics and philosophy and
indigenous
to
that
country. Can we truthfully say that our laws are an
example of our philosophy and way of life and that
they reflect our national culture and tradition ? Are
they frequently a pale reflection of something found
suitable to our neighbouring country where social
and economic life are completely different ? Does
far too much of our legislation continue unamended
since it was passed by an English Parliament to suit
different circumstances -in our country ? Is too much
ofwhat has been amended in the nature of patchwork
without adequate order or system and badly in need
of proper codification ? Those are deep and involved
questions, but they go to the roots of our national
life. They could be properly answered only by people
skilled in jurisprudence who have a wide practical
experience in the application of our laws. It would
be unfair and unreasonable to expect any Govern
ment or even any Government department whose
lawyers would not have an extensive practical
experience to deal with them efficiently.
There is a legal maxim which says that " ignorance
of the law is no excuse ". This dictum is rather
hard on lay men and lawyers alike in so far as
certain branches of our law are concerned, which,
owing to lack of consolidation are a morass lacking
unifying principles and making it impossible for any
lawyer to express a confident opinion as to the legal
position regarding many matters of every day occur
rence. No one can give a, satisfactory estimate of
the amount of public money that is wasted by this
unnecessary complexity occasioned by the lack of
consolidation in some branches of our legislation.
It must certainly be enormous.
To exemplify my point, I shall take just one
instance of the grave difficulties which arise from
having a patchwork legislation superimposed on old
statutes and statutory orders which were handed
down to us since the days of English rule in this
country, namely, the law relating to local govern
ment. In one case involving a claim against a local
authority the High Court judge in the course of his
judgment stated :— " Both parties to the action
were bewildered at the trial in their efforts to discover
and interpret the actual laws in force in the years
1942 and 1946 though the subject matter is quite
simple and easily regulated ". A more clear and
impartial condemnation than is exemplified by these
words it would be difficult to get.
If a
local authority wishes
to have a
lawful
exercise of its powers relating to any of its employees
it must first consider whether under the various
statutes and statutory orders the employee is " per
manent " ;
" casual " ;
" temporary " or " quasi-
permanent ". All these terms are referred to in
various local government acts and orders as being
distinct classes of employees ; but nowhere in the
vast maze of local government legislation can one
J