The Gazette 1958-61

find what exactly is the principle which indicates the difference. The same difficulty arises regarding almost every aspect of the functions and work of a local authority. As each new local government act is passed the difficulty becomes more acute. New terms are used ; sections and parts of sections of previous repealing acts are again repealed. In an effort to find our bearings in this labyrinth, we solicitors strike out repealed sections in our copies of the statutes and make marginal notes of the alterations in the alterations. Then we interleave notes and interpolations in an effort to find unifying principles between the newest amendment and the existing legislation. After all this, when our opinion is asked on the legal position on a simple set of facts we find that there are some further sections or sub sections of unrepealed ancient statutes or statutory orders which appear to conflict with and negative some of the most recent statutes. Our system of local government is very different today from what it was half a century ago. Yet many old statutes and statutory orders which have little or no relation to the facts of today still have the force of law. The main function they serve is the creation of endless confusion. County managers are charged with the expenditure of many millions of pounds each year which must be in accordance with the lawful exercise of their powers. It is a great tribute to the intelligence and to the integrity of our county managers and of their senior officials that they discharge their duties so efficiently when on many occasions they can have no more than a pious hope that they are putting into effect the requirements of our existing legislation or that they are making a lawful exercise of their powers. Those of them who know precisely the right time to disobey certain statutory orders are a big help to the community as for certain sections of statutory orders there appears to be no legislative sanction, and so they would seem to be void. Surely it is an unfair imposition on these officials to be expected to discharge their onerous duties and an outrageous imposition on the civil servants in the Department of Local Government who must supervise this dis charge, that they should be expected to carry out their onerous duties in a veritable legislative jungle. One easily agrees with the views of one of our High Court judges who, about ten years ago, in the course of a judgment, expressed the fear that the affairs of local authorities could easily degenerate to the level of " parish bumbledom ". Time alone prevents me from referring to other branches of law where a similar unhappy state of affairs exists owing to lack of consolidation. The longer this state of affairs is allowed to continue the worse it will become. There is a danger of our legal

system falling into disrepute through confusion and absence of reasonable certainty. The cynic may feel tempted to say that the uncertainty of our law is of more advantage to the lawyers than the knowledge of it. It is doubtful if that be so. The general public who can foretell their own business affairs with reasonable accuracy will frequently suffer what they believe to be grave injustices and forego what they believe to be their legal rights rather than get in volved in litigation of which the outcome is so highly problematic. The only way in which this situation could be rectified is by the consolidation or the codification of the law relating to these various aspects of our social order. No Irish Government, even with the best possible intentions, can hope to get this done without the assistance of a law reform committee constituted on the lines which I have indicated. The civil servants in the Department of Local Govern ment and our local officials, by the very nature of their positions, are the least vociferous section of our community. Those gravely affected by injustices from the nature of other aspects of our existing legislation are not organised and are equally in articulate. Undoubtedly every Government and every political party which has been in power since we attained our freedom has been assiduous for the public good and sincere in their efforts to attain it; but all Government time available for legislation is occupied by pressure from sections of the community who are organised and vocal. In the welter of legislation that is pressed upon the Government in those circumstances, it is inevitable that fundamental principles going to the roots of our system of juris prudence are apt to be overlooked. If the public conscience could be awakened to the need for a law reform committee consisting of experienced lawyers such as exist in other countries our Govern ment could be kept constantly informed of the existing position relating to fundamental principles and where our existing legislation is defective. Then, the Government charged with the responsibility for public good, could decide, whether any and if so, what steps should be taken in accordance with their political principles to remedy existing defects, to keep legislation in harmony with our everchanging social order and outlook, and to have our laws as they should be—a mirror of the nation's social conscience. Ladies and Gentlemen, May I conclude on a personal note by saying how deeply grateful I am to the Council of our Society for the honour they have paid me in electing me as your President. With the kindly co-operation and the help so unselfishly given by the Council and by some other members of our Society who have so