The Sun. — London, England, 1839-06-28 00:00:00

ng In ;ht ice n 'Y e it VEN TG PIT lON for Med in the beer-houses. From thrty-one eountie, the Magistrates had almost unauimon,ly pehinnel against the existing law. When the Act was under consideration in the House, the debates were long, and the divisions very narrow ; and it was really remark able to observe how accurately the predictions of those who had then opposed it had been fairiiied.—(Hear, hear.) Undoubtedly this was no party question. Tee Beer Act had been proposed by the party with whom he had the honour usually to vote. But the great, man who had been then at the head of the Government had now been the foremost to avow that the measure had failed, and had since recorded his vote tbr the repeal.—(Hear, hear.) It had been said, in deed, that in 1834, legislation had taken place upon the subject, but it was legislation abortive and miserable. The present Bill was founded upon the Report of the Committee in 1 2 ,34 ; and the proposal for a 10/. qualifi cation was in reality lower than the 10/. proposed in 1834, as 10/. rating then would be equivalent to 15/. now, owing to the Local Assessment Act, which had since passed ; with regard to the hours, he must say that the licensed victuallers had been hardly dealt with, and he would. agree to the principle of the clause sug gested in this respect by the Right Hon. the Chancel or of the Exchequer, though he thought it was very loosely worded, and would be difficult to frame accurately, especially in regard to travellers. Believing that the Bill was intimately connected with the morals, welfare, and the happiness of the people, he hoped the House would not be led away by the statistical statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reject it.--(Hear.) Mr. M. PHILLIPS said he concurred in requesting bis Hon. Friend, the Member for Kilkenny, not to per sist in opposing the Bill going into Committee.—(Hear, hear.) He regretted that this Bill, which had been in troduced so long ago as the 7th March, should now be under discussion.—(Hear.) He wished the subject had been referred to a Select Committee, which might have inquired into the different charges against both the beer houses and licenced victuallers, and might have made a Report, on which legislation would perhaps have been more satisfactorily founded than upon the discus sions in that House. Upon one point he thought there could be no difference of judgment—that some legis lation upon the subject was imperatively required. He hoped the lion. Member for Kilkenny would con sent to withdraw his motion, and not interfere at pre sent with the Hon. Member (Mr. Pakingham). Mr. HUME agreed to do so, on the condition that be should be permitted to move the rejection of the Bill altogether on the third reading. The House then went into Committee on the Bill. Lord SANDON replied to the statements made in favour of the beer sellers by the Hon. Member for Kilkenny. The petition that he had presented that evening against the beer retail system from Liverpool was signed by sixteen Roman Catholic clergymen, who had the best means of knowing the injury it had effected amongst the working classes. But the same objection applied to all other classes cf society. The evidence of the deputy constable for Manchester stated that such were the temptations that it held out to the lower classes, especially the Irish, to distil illicit spirits in the beer shops, that the revenue lost 50,000/. a year in that town alone. The objection against the system was almost unanimously strong amongst the best in formed and the least prejudiced persons. The Grand Juries of Essex, Oxfordshire, Huntingdonshire, Surrey, the Western Circuit, and many other important dis tricts, were all against it. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was his intention to move the postponement of the clause, for the purpose of substituting a clause of his own. Mr. HUME thought there could be no doubt the Noble Lord's (Sandon's) amendment was a new clause .altogether. After a desultory conversation, in which Lord San dal, Mr. S. O'Brien, and the Chancellor of the Ex chequer took part, M 4 -: HUME said lie would put an end to the diffi culty shat appeared to have arisen, by moving that clause I be postponed. Sir R. .ING LIS suggested that the Noble Lord should withdraw his amendment, and bring it up as a separate clause. Mr. ATTWOOD thought the proposition was most monstrous, to prevent a poor man consuming beer upon th e premises. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said they were not yet in a condition to discuss that question. They were in what the Americans called a very unhandsome fix.—(Much laughter.) Mr. PAKINGTON said the clause as it ori gitudly stood required that the party should reside for twelve months previously in the House for which he required the license. He was willing however, to waive the residence and to substitute the provision that he s hotild be rated to the poor rates in the annual sum of 101. for the house he carried on business in, or some other house in the parish. The O s tIANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was g l a d the twelve months' prevous residence was abandoned. Be thought however the other pro vision equally' unreasonable. The result of adopt ing it would be that 15,518 beer houses, which at present were rated under 10/. would he disqualified. Is. would be also manifestly unjust, as it would continue 18,379 public-houses, which were all rated under 10/. Nothing could be more unjust, and he would add more untenable, than such a proposition, and he should most decidedly oppose it.—(Cheers.) He should also object to th e principle of twelve mouths' previous residence, inasmuch as it would be a bar to the application of capital, and capital in its most beneficial state, arising from the occupation of houses of an improved construc tion, and built for the purposes of that trade. In the claus% which he intended to substitute, he proposed that where the population of the district was under 5,000, the qualifie. lotion should be 5/. ; where it was above that number the qualification to be 10/., and a house rated at 151. so be the qualification within the bills of morta lity.—Wiear.) That would exclude about 1,800 houses existing ei sder the present system, but he thought it would be pr. eductive of good, inasmuch as in the existing small houses IlleY could not have good police regula tions. On these' grounds he would object to the clause. Mr. WARIIL TR,TON also objected to the clause. The proposition was' a most monstrous and unjust one. Mr. MILES, 100 at the large capital em barked in the beer tract 'e would not do anything calcu lated to overturn it.—(i?iear.) The licensed victuallers, however, had a right to esa ssplain that their interests had not been attended to w'h'en the Beer Bill was intro duced. He would suggest to his Hon. Friend whether it would not be as well to pat the two Houses on an equality, taking care that a Al lificient rate was named to insure the respectability ,of the occupiers. He thought a 71. rate would melt with the aperobation of the House.—(" No, no," from .the Liberal Members.) Captain PECHELL had hope d the Hon. Member for Somersetshire was about to r sommend his Hon. Friend to withdraw the Bill altslt •ether, because it would be painful to the Hon. Mem& sr to have every clause in his Bill negatived one of e. another. He (Captain Pechell) had supported the .licensed victual lers, as the House knew, on many 00e ., slogs, but he could not support them at the expense of any other class. He thought a Si. rate was sufficiests. 4l Y high. Mr. BRISCOE observed that a house 71. value, was not likely to be rated higher than Si. in the ► 'at e-book. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEO , 4OI: II had drawn up these clauses after a full consideration be con flicting interests, and he did not think he shot acting fairly if he agreed to any eompromise. —( Ai Sir E. KNATCHBULL hoped his Hon. Fricod would assent to the clauses proposed by the Chance limn of the Exchequer, as an experiment. If it succeed ea he for one should heartily rejoice ; if it failed th e House could remedy it. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had shown that evening in the statements he had made, and the details he had laid before the House, that he had paid great attention to this subject, and he thought this matter ,ought to be left entirely to the responsibility of the Government.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. SLANEY also recommended the Hon. Member for Droitwich to adopt the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. By so doing he would unite a large body of gentlemen in that House, by which great Un provement might be effected. Mr. PAKINGTON trusted the House would not consider him guilty of any improper pertinacity when he stated, that having taken this subject up from the most disinterested motives, he could not abandon the Bill be had introduced. In the first place he would state that he entirely disapproved of the non-com sumption clause proposed by the Noble Lord the 'Member for Liverpool (Sandon). The tendency of that clause would be in the first place to restore the cx-' elusive power of licensing to the Magistrates, and thus revive all that jealousy which had formerly existed ; and in the next place, although it would no doubt diminish the number of beer-shops, yet it would take away all the respectable houses and leave those that had no capital, and which were the very subject of complaint. If, therefore, the Noble Lord had divided th e House on the no n -consumptive clause, he (Mr. P.) would have felt bound to have voted against it. Now with regard to the scale of rating, he (Mr. Pakington) pro posed 15/. in the large towns, and 101. in the country. The Right Hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed that there should be three ratings : 101. in the large towns, 15/. in the metropolis, and 51. in the country. It was not worth stipulating for 101. in the metropolis, for if there was any part of the country in which the beer-houses were unobjectionable, it was the metropolis._( Hear, hear.) If he wanted to touch the beer-houses there, he should proposehear.") As to 10/. in 25/ (Cries of "Bear, the large towns it was the existing law,—the only dif ference being that it now was the value, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed rating, which was a point of very little consequence.—( Hear, hear.) A roost erroneous notion was entertained by some persons, that the evils of the beer-law were felt only in the coun try, and not in the large towns ; whereas he (Mr. Paking ton) knew of a long list of large towns, including Bury, Liverpool, Manchester, Preston, Stoke-upon-Trent, Ports mouth, Gosport, Stamford, Stroud, Leicester, Nottingham, Doncaster, Lewes, in all of which the evils of the Beer-law prevailed to a frightful extent.—( Hear, hear.') To less than a lot, qualification he could not agree ; and if the Committee decided against him on this point, he should abandon the Bill..—(lleAr, from all sides of the H7..q.if.44. Si_ - it. INC LIS suls_r . l,7,l to the cxtraordLary positic•ii in abich he said the Bill WCs placed by the so modestly called " clauses" of the Right Hon. the Charcellor of the Exchequer, the Bill having only seven clauses. The clauses of the Right 11-m. Gentleman, three times the length of the entire A laugh)—began as Bills usually did, and concluding with the customary final words in Bills, "that this Act may be altered and amended in the present Session." To introduce a " full grown" Bill into another measure, in this way, was rather novel. —(A laugh.) Upon the concurrent testimony of the Magistrates throughout the country, he considered this 101. qualification the most just. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he had taken that course which he considered fairest. He had given full notice of the clauses he meant to propose, and had them printed. —(hear, hear.) The question was as to the 10/. qualification, to which he objected, because upon the best information be had been able to procure, he believed, the effect of that qualification would be to crush the beer-house keepers in many parts of the country.—( Hear, hear.) And he believed, that so long accustomed as the people had now been to these houses, it would be impossible to prevent the beer from being sold.---( Hear.) It would be really monstrous to put down 15,000 beer-houses under 10/. and to allow 15,060 licensed victuallers' houses under 10/.—( Hear.) Sir C. BURRELL believed a great part of the evils of the present system might be traced to the negligence of the Excise officers, who took no trouble except to pre vent beer-houses from selling spirits. Mr. PARROTT said he could safely declare that in many districts the 10/. clause would totally crush the beer-houses, and he was persuaded that in nine cases out of ten, where the beer could not lawfully be sold, it would be sold illegally.—( Hear.) Gentlemen seemed to think only of the disadvantages of the Beer-law, and Gen tlemen disregarded the advantages of the present system, which he believed were considerable. The Committee divided, when the numbers were — For the clause Against it Majority —27 Mr. WARBURTON recommended that the House should now proceed to a vote on the proposition of the Noble Lord the Member for Liverpool, so as to leave the coast clear fcr the Chancellor of the Exchequer.—(Hear, hear, and No, no.) Clause 1 was then agreed to. Lord SANDON said the object of his clause was to re store to the Commissioners of Excise the power to issue licenses to sell beer not to be drunk on the premises, which they had before the passing of the present Bill. The Noble Lord then read his amendment. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER op posed the clause, as tending to lead to fraudulent practices on the part of the beer-sellers, such as sending beer to be drunk on neihboaring premises, and being thus calcu lated to involve the country in trouble and litigation. The clause would be inoperative, unless it were supported by others. But the whole system it would produce, would be in every respect vexatious. Lord DUNGANNON supported the clause of the Noble Lord, the Member fur Liverpool.—(Loud cries of Divide, Divide.) After a few words from Mr. GotTLeraN and Mr. PALMER, Captain WOOD opposed the clause. The object of that clause should be done by a separate Bill, and after due dotice to the parties concerned. The Government should consider the whole law as affecting the licensed victuallers, and the beer sellers, and consolidate it into one measure, instead of making the law more intricate than it was now.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. ATT WOOD hoped the Noble Lord would with draw the smen'lment. There were many millions of labourers and their families who were interested in the question. It would be a direct interference with their rights to prevent them drinking their beer on the premises. He was satisfied that it would be evaded by the labourer and the beer shop keeper. Suppose the Noble Lord was a labourer and had bought a pot of beer and had paid for it—( A laugh)—he would be glad to know what law would authorise any man to snatch the jug from his lips. No man dare do it—no law would sanction it ; and if the landlord attempted it, he would deserve to be, and perhaps would be, knocked down. If that was the case, there was not a jury in England who would con vict an honest labourer for knocking down a man—( Great laughter)—under such circumstances. It was said that beer-shops had increased the general amount of crime, but he denied it—it was the great mass of misery and poverty in the country that occasioned it. The Beer Bill was only ten years in operation, but for the last twenty-two years crime had been increasing. They were oppressing the labourers of England more and more every year— they were imposing heavier tasks, and giving them less food and less wages every day. Let them only do a little justice to the poor, and educate theroselves—( A laugh.) Why, they required education as much, if not more, than the working classes—they were wiser and better men in their situation than Hon. Members of that House.—( Hear, and a laugh.) Let them only keep their hard hands from the shoulders of the poor, and the vice ■nd crime of these people would be considerably diminished. If they abolished all the bear houses and public houses, old and new, they would not put an end to crime unloss they relieved the misery and distresses of the people. If the poor could procure and pay for three times as much beer as they at present consumed, their morals would be benefited.—( A laugh.) Why, the only place the poor man had to enjoy himself in was the beer-house, and their morals were as much improved there as in any other place.—( Hear, bear ) Hon. Members came down to that House to oppose the poor labourer and curtail his enjoyments, who took their notions and opinions from elderly ladies in the country.— ( Cries of " Question.") He hoped the Noble Lord would withdraw his amendment. . Lord SANDON said he could not accede to the propo sition. He should press it to a division. Colonel SIBTHORP was just as deeply inter ested in the welfare of the working classes as the Honourable Member for Birmingham. Ho had himself gone to Greenwich fair, and had no objection to the working man going there.—(Hear, and laughter.) He objected to the beer being " swiped" on the premises, instead of being brought home for the benefit of the poor man's wife and family. Mr. ATTWOOD explained. He thought the worst thing a poor man's family could ho taught was to drink beer.—( Hear, and a laugh.) Tea was what they ought to drink.—(Cries of "'Spoke.") Sir H. VERNEY said what the country wanted was an efficient rural police.—( Oh !) He believed—for he bad it from good authority—that many of the small beer shops were nothing but brothels.--( Cries of " Question.") Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the Corn• mittee divided, when there appeared— For the Clause.. Against it Majority against the Clause On our re-admission to the Gallery' we found The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER mov inff the clauses of which he had given notice. ° After the clauses were read a first and second time, The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUR, in an swer to a question from Lord Dungannon, said, he should proceed with the Bill during the present Session. SUGAR DUTIES. On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX CHEQUER the Report on the Sugar Duties' Bill was allowed to be brought up, on the understanding that the discussion should be taken at a future stage of the Bill. The Bill was then ordered to be engrossed, and read a third to-morrow. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said if the discussion did not take place to-morrow, he mus ask the House to sit on Saturday. ELECTORS REMOVAL BILL. 85 146 -61 Mr. GIBSON moved the third reading of the Electors Removal Bill. Mr. B A GGE objected to the Bill, because he considered it would destroy the 101. Clause in the Reform Bill. The Hon. Member moved as an amendment that it be read a third time that day three months. Colonel SIBTHORP thought the Bill extremely objectionable. It appeared to him to be merely a Bill to bring in parties who had no qualification to rote with those who had a qualification, and he should certainly oppose it. Mr. E WART hoped the House would not be led away by the eloquence of either of the Hon. Members oppo site to reject the Bill.--(Cries of " Oh.") If Hon. Mem bers who did him the honour to interrupt him would o.ily attend to what he had to say, he was satisfied c e ey would, when they collected their sober senses, fi n ( It' that he was right.—(Oh I) If the House would only cors.'der what was taking place every day in Election Conmeittees they would be convinced that some change in the present system was necessary. It was painful to any person ...attending the Carlow Committee now sitting to w i tne ss ti , e interminable disputes as to residence. Lord M A HON rosy to order. Ile thought the Hon. Member had no right to allude to the proceedings of any Election Committee while sitting. The SPEAKER said the Hon. Member certainly had no right to refer to the proceedings of an Election Corn mittee before it bad made its Report to the House.— (Cheers.) Mr. E W ART contended that if they allowed the pre sent system to continue much longer, the public would lose all confidence in the decisions of that House. He should give his cordial support to the Bill. Mr. BLACKSTONE was originally inclined to vote for the measure, but he most decidedly objected to the system of out voters being recognised. The voter might have removed 100 miles, he might be an outlaw c od residing abroad, and yet he would, under that Bill, be emtitled to vote at elections. He should oppose such a principle, and would suggest that a clause should be intro duc,Nl prohibiting any person from voting who was not a rated inhabite.et of the borough. Mr. WARB jIRTON feared that if they adopted the limitation of the 'lon. Member who had just sat down they would open the k -loor to all the litigation and expense which the Bill was calc,'llated to do away with. Lord DUNGANNON and Mr. 0. GORE contended against the Bill, as permitting that a person who had lost all inte rest in a locality, and had even left it, should, during the period of twelve months of his life—( No, no)—be enabled to come and vote for a Member for that place.--( Ques tion, and hear.) Mr. BROTHERTON said that in a constituency of 2,000 there will be 200 removals in the year, but not more than ten will leave the Borough.—( Hear, hear.) Would they disfranchise the 190 remaining in the borough on account of the ten who might leave it? He put this to the justice of the House.—(Hear, hear.) Sir GEORGE CLERK was still of opinion that the Bill of the Hon. Member for Ipswich was completely at variance with the Reform Bill. As the Attorney. General had withdrawn his Bill for Amending the Registration of Electors, he thought the Hon. Member for Ipswich had no excuse for pressing his Bill.—(Hear.) He thought that they had better wait for some general measure of im provement instead of venturing upon petty amendments of the Reform Bill. Lord INGESTRE thought this question, interfering ! as . itoni leo the' 11,!:.rrii Bill, called upon her Majesty's Thni,ter; no- ze.:ne .:apression of opinion. He thought a toea=on'e of ths coning from the Member for Ips wich, would have carne hoier if he had brought it forw...rd from the other side of the House.—( Cheers.) He thought the R, form Act was fraught with danger, yet as it was the law of the 1 inc - 1, he should support it in aa its integrity. The S3LICITOR-GENERAL was of opinion that this was the most practical measure ever brought before the House—it was a practical remedy for a practical evil. With regard to the objection of the Hon. Member for Stamford, the registry in Scotland was not the same as that in England. He was astonished at the Hon. Mem ber's argument about out-voters. May not persons have gore to the extremity of the kingdom, and yet occupy a 101. tenement in the borough ? If a practical clause could be introduced to prevent out-votes he should be glad of it, but he was convinced it was impossible. The questions of rating were the most expensive ones brought before a Committee. The question was, should a few persons during the current year have the power of voting who ought not to have it, or should many who ought to have it be deprived of it. Mr. GOULBURN objected to legislating on the elec tive franchise by points. He did not consider this a party question. This Bill was in opposition to the principle of the Reform Bill, and only removed the disability from borough voters and not county voters, from whom it ought also to be removed if the principle of the Bill were worth anything. Mr. GIBSON was glad the Hon. Gentleman, at the commencement of his remarks, had said this was no party question, and he hoped the Noble Lord would take it as a gentle reproof—. (Cheers) —as it showed that his remarks were dictated snore by party than by public spirit—( Loud cheers)—with regard to the Hon. Member for Shropshire who had expressed a hope that the House would not stultify itself by passing this Bill, lie would recall to his recollection that a Bill of this description had before passed the House when that Hon. Member was a Member of it, and he hoped that he would not so far stultify himself as to come down and record his vote against it.—( Cheers.) Ile could not consent to any amendments in his Bill. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the third reading of the Bill Against it Majority in favour of the Bill The result was received with loud cheers. The Bill seas then passed. REGISTERS OF BIRTHS, ETC., BILL. Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved the further consider ation of the Report on this Bill. Mr. GOULBURN was anxious to take that opportu nity of making a few observations upon the effect that had been produced by the Register of Marriages Bill. He felt convinced that that measure had tended greatly to the in crease of illegal marriages, for in mans instances where marriages had been refused to be solemnized by the Cler gymen, in consequence of the consanguinity of the parties, immediate notice had been given at the Re gister Office, and the marriage bad taken place.—( Hear.) It appeared to him that the public confidence in the system of registration was considerably on the decline, and in proof of it be would refer to the returns which had been made to the House. So far from its having proved a more efficient system of registry than the former one it was found to be directly the reverse. For instance, it appeared that by the returns of last year, from some of the most exten sive parishes in the metropolis, that the number of births was 37,731, and during the same period the number of deaths was 55,572. That showed a most extraordinary increase of mortality in these parishes, and it was found on minute inquiry to be quite contrary to the fact. There was an other point deserving of attention—the baptisms in all cases appeared to have exceeded the births. In the parish of St. George, Hanover-square, the Registrar-General returned 878 births, while the baptisms were I,3o6—that discrepancy appeared to him quite unaccountable. In an other metropolitan parish, which was remarkably healthy, the births were returned as 2,500, and the deaths as 3,700. Now, it was at once admitted by every person who knew anything of the parish in question, that these returns were extremely erroneous. The Right Hon. Gentleman went into the details of a variety of documents to show that the pre sent system of registration gave no correct idea of the re lative increase and diminution of the population of several localities. The law must bo carefully amended. Lord JOHN RUSSELL did not agree with the Right Hon. Gentleman that the Registration Bill had greatly disappointed the public. The disappointment could not have been greater than might naturally have been ex pected, especially when it was recollected how exceedingly defective the old system was. Even though baptism may have been duly registered in their respective localities, the returns were not sent to the diocese, or to any other fit place, to be enrolled. In attempting the new system, it was proposed that the Act should be made compulsory, but Parliament would not agree with the Government, and it was made voluntary to a considerable extent. However, there had been, on the whole, considerable accuracy, making allowances for the difficulties of a beginning and the obstructions of prejudices, as might be seen on referring to the Registrar-General's Report. It was stated that the proportion of deaths was 1 in 45, and the probable num ber of deaths during the year, 340,549. The Right Hon. Gentleman stated the number to be 335,968 ; the accounts of the Registrar-General made it 335,926, making a difference of about 5,000 between the probable numbers and the calculations of Mr. Finlaison. He (Lord J. R.) would admit that in the registration of births there had been a very considerable deficiency, but not more than might have been looked for. He was sorry to say that one fact, which the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gout burn) did not allude to, accounted for this in a great degree. This was the effart that had been made by a great part of the clergy to induce their flocks not to comply with the law—(Heer, hear)—by exhortations and by printed circulars. No wonder, there fore, that a great difference should appear between the number of births and that of baptisms registered.—(Hear.) lie found that the number of births registered for the quarter ending March 31, 1838, was 113,815 ; in June 30, 1838, it was 121,281. The average number of births for the whole year was 480,000. The number of baptisms registered for the whole of the year 1838, was 444,589. The people were now gradually conforming to the law. The deficiencies arising from the religious scru ples of parents, who were averse from baptism altogether, and the feelings of those who put off baptising until the children were 5 or 6 years old, would be remedied by the operation of the present Act. The opposition of the clergy to the measure proved what he had often deplored before, viz. the want of re ligious education amongst the people. No doubt there had been several clandestine marriages under the present system. He had heard of one illegal marriage of which no notice was given within his own personal supervision ; three such marriages had come to his knowledge alto gether, and of course there might have been others. These were matters which, in such a large population, would of course take place, and hai happened in former times, owing to ignorance on the part of the Clergymen of the circumstances of the case. These points had, moreover, been particularly noted by those who were desirous of finding fault with the operation of the Bill. With regard to the persons who had been appointed by the Registrar General, he had no means of satisfying the Right Hon. Gentleman, as the names of those persons had never come before him. He was willing to allow that there were some defects in the Bill whicn it would be very desir able to remedy ; but he thought it would be better to watch the working of the Bill for a little longer, and thus acquire a knowledge of what was really required for per fecting the measure. But on the whole he saw no reason to alter the opinion he had expressed on first introducing the Bill, that it was advisable to establish a civil registra tion with an office in London, to which copies of the re gistry might be transmitted, and where they might be referred to. This was an advantage that no other civilized nation was deprived of, and he thought it was very desir able that we should do all in our power to improve and extend this system. Mr. GOULBURN apprehended that the Noble Lord had construed into an opposition to the law the exhorta tions which the Clergy had felt themselves called upon to issue to their flocks, to urge on them the necessity of bap tism for their children. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL regretted exceed ingly that in many instances the Clergy had set themselves in direct opposition to the law ; he wished the Right Hon. Gentleman would enlighten their minds on the sub ject, and make them understand that the law of the land must be obeyed. A case had come before him the other day, in which a Clergyman had actually refused to marry a couple on the certificate of the superintendent registrar. Now, for such a disobedience to an A c t of Parliament the Clergyman was clearly liable to indictment. Ile had not ad vised that course to be pursued, he hoped it would not become necessary, but if the clergymen continually, openly defy the law, some measures must he taken for its enforce ment. Sir ROBERT INGLIS wished to know if the Learned Gentleman considered an Act of Parliament imperative on every priest to administer the sacrament of marriage on the certificate of a superintendent re gistrar. Did he mean to say a priest of the Church of England was the only person subject to legal infliction for disobeying this law ? He really wished for his opinion on this subject, although on this occasion he should expect it without the usual fee.—( A laugh.) The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was of opinion that if an Act of Parliament called upon a priest of the Church of Rome, or of the Church of England, or any other person, to do anything, that person was bound to obey the l a w. In the case alluded to, the clergyman was not only liable to ecclesiastical censure, as he would have been before the passing of this Act, but he had been guilty of an indictable offence. Lord DUNGANNON disapproved of these grave ac cusations being brought against the clergy. Mr. GOULBURN explained. Mr. BAINE'S said the registration was oper a ti ng mos t beneficially in those parts, where it was extremely neces sary to know the age of children. He alluded t o th ose counties. where the children worked in factories. After a few observations from Lord DUNG A NNON the amendments were agreed to, the Bill ordered to be en grossed, and read a third time on Saturday. The Exchequer of Pleas Bill went through Committee. The Highway Railway Bill was read a second time, and ordered to lee committed on Monday. The Heritable Security (Scotland) Bill, the Fictitious Votes (Scotland) Bill, and the Registration of Electors (Scotland) Bill, were on the motion of Mr. F. Maule postponed till next Session. The Writs ( Scotland) Bill was read a second time and ordered to be committed. The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at Half-past One o'Clock. ROUSE OF LORDS, JUNE 27. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool sack at Five o'Clock. A message from the House of Commons brought up a variety of Bills. The Bishop of GLOUCESTER presented petitions from Cirencester, Stapleton, and another place, against the Church Discipline Bill. The Right Rev. Prelate said he had now presented petitions from all the thirteen Deaneries of his diocese against this Bill. A state- TIIE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, JUNE 28, 1839. merit had been got up that those petitions had been procured by the interLrence of the Diocesan, although no statement could be more contrary to the fact. He had carefully abstained from express ing his opinion to his clergy on the nature of this measure. He had even received the thanks of the clergy for hi, abstinence on the point, and he certainly hoped that the Bill would be returned from the Com mittee in a very different shape to that in which it was, when introduced by the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack. Lord Abinger, Lord Glenelg, and Lord Ashburton presented numerous petitions in favour of a uniform rate of penny postage. The Marquis of WESTMINSTER presented a pe tition to the same effect. Also, a petition against the Beer Bill, and contradicting the assertion that viee had increased in proportion to the number of beer-shops. Likewise a petition in favour of Vote by Ballot, and Triennial Parliaments.—( Hear, hear.) In refe rence to the subjects of the last petition, he begged to say that unless the Ballot were adopted bribery and intimidation at elections would never be put down. He was so thoroughly convinced of this that he was favourable to the Ballot. This was an opinion he had long entertained, and it had never been altered from any thing he had observed at any elections with which he had been acquainted. He was likewise (as we un derstood the Noble Marquis, who spoke in an extremely low tone of voice) in favour of triennial Parliaments. He should think that a more constitutional mode of proceeding than the present. BLACK WALL RAILWAY BILL. The Duke of WELLINGTON presented a peti tion against the Blackwell Railway Bill. This Bill stood for a second reading in their Lordships' House. Notwithstanding the objection ho had to interfere with Bills of this nature, there were circumstances attending this Bill which should make it his duty to oppose its second reading. He should oppose its second reading, upon this principle that an Act had passed three years ego upon the subject of this railway, containing certain conditions, which conditions had not been performed by the Com pany which were to carry into execution that Railway Bill, yet they now asked to depart from these conditions, and to have another Act of Parliament, enabling them, in violation of those conditions, to carry their works into Fenchurch•street. By the former Act they were not allowed to come into the City of London westward of the Minories, whereas they now wanted to carryit into the heart of the City, contrary to all the stipulations they had entered into. Under these circumstances he now gave notice that he should oppose the second reading of the Bill, and he trusted he should then be enabled to satisfy their Lordships that the Bill ought_ to be rejected. JAMAICA BILL. The Marquis of NORMANBY said that with re spect to the Jamaica Government Bill he proposed to read it a second time to-morrow, and to hear Counsel at the Bar, taking the discussion on,Monday. The Earl of WINCHILSEA presented petitions against any further grant to the College of Maynooth. Also petitions against the Clause in the Prisons Bill allowing Roman Catholic priests to officiate in prisons, from the Protestant Association. The Noble Earl considered the clause a direct attack against the Pro testant religion of t he country ;he was sure it would never meet the sanction of the House, or the Sove reign of this country as its provisions were in direct violation of the Coronation oath. If, however, the Sovereign did assent to the Bill, he would take upon himself to say she had openly renounced the only title she had to the throne of this country. CANADA CLERGY RESERVES. The Bishop of EXETER wished to know from the Noble Marquis the Secretary for the Colonies, whether the Bill which had been passed relative to clergy reserves in Canada had been received by him, and whether he was enabled to decide upon bringing it before the House. The Marquis of NORMANBY said the Bill had been received, but it was not in such a shape as to enable him to lay it before the House. The Bishop of EXETER wished also to know whether any instructions had been given by the Govern ment to Sir George Arthur, respecting the clergy re serves, and generally in support of religion i n Upper instruction. The and the spread of religious The Marquis of NORMANBY said that instruc tions had been given in the despatch of 1837. The Bishop of EXETER wished to know whether there would be any objection to lay that despatch on the table of the House ? The Marquis of NORMANBY said there would not. BEER SHOPS. Lord BROUGHAM said that he had received a great number of letters from persons keeping beer houses, relative to the imputation which they had supposed had been cast upon them in that House with respect to their having no capital, and only a few chairs and cans in their houses. Now with respect to that, he must be allowed to say that he had never stated that the beer-sellers were per sons without capital ; all that ho had stated was, that the business required little capital to carry it on. USURY LAWS. The Marquis of LANDSDOWNE said that it was his intention to move an amendment in Committee on the - Usury - Min - yr chcr-vatcr-vr-urtn-bn.s - notes when they were due to receive an increased rate of interest. After a few words from Lord Ashburton, Lord BROUGHAM said he objected very strongly to the introduction of the words " or other commercial security" after the words " warrants for goods." It would give rise to contests in courts of law, for there was no such term known in law as " commercial securities." He wished his Noble and Learned Friend could show him where there was any legislative or judicial construc tion affixed to it. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE had no objection to omit these words. Lord ELLENBOROUGH complained of moving amendments which were not printed, and of which very few Noble Lords understood the object. He thought it due to the interest of justice and of the parties concerned, to propose that the amendments be printed and discussed to-morrow. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE had no objection to postpone the amendments till to-morrow. The third reading was then postponed till to-morrow. HIGH SHERIFFS' EXPENSES BILL. Lord COLBORNE moved the second reading of the Sheriffs' Expenses Bill. This Bill had emanated from a Report of the Committee of the House of Com mons in 1830, the greater part of which had been carried into law,'but this part remained for their present consideration. It might be told that many of the ex penses attending the office of High Sheriff were vo luntary, but he could assure their Lordships that many of them were absolutely necessary, and of great im portance ; there were, for instance, the expenses attend ing the introduction of the Judges into Assize towns, which were necessary, and which weighed very heavily. The object of the Bill was to regulate and reduce the expenses of the High Sheriffs, and when so reduced, to place them on the county rates. He believed the principal objection to the Bill would be the fact of its throwing the expenses upon the county rates. He had been all his life unwilling to increase the charges on the county rates, but he did not think that this was a charge which they ought to bear in preference to indi viduals being called upon to defray them ; and he hoped the House would give the Bill a fair consideration, be cause the present Bill certainly imposed a g reat hard ship on country gentlemen. The Duke of RICHMOND rose to move as an amendment, that the Bill be read a second time this day six months. The very fact of the subject not having been taken up since 1830 till the present time showed that it was a useless Bill. The office of High Sheriff was one of great honour, and he that filled it must pay for his honour as every other person had to pay for such a commodity. The proposed plan would be to relieve the pocket of the rich and make even labourers contri bute in defraying the expenses that were now attendant upon the office of High Sheriff. Was his Noble Friend prepared to bring in a Bill to pay out of the county rates the expenses of the Poor-law Guardians, the over seers of the poor, jurors, gentlemen of the grand jury, or to render officers of Militia liable to hold the office of High Sheriff ? He should have no objection to support a Bill for the latter purpose, but he should certainly object to the pockets of the rich being relieved at the expense of the less wealthy. Lord WINCHILSEA agreed in the observations that bad fallen from the Noble Duke. He was sure there could not be a measure that would be more unpo pular than the one now proposed, and therefore he s hould support the amendment. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE thought that the o ffi c e of High Sheriff certainly threw an unequal bur then on the rich, but yet he hardly thought the House ou ght to interfere by passing a Bill of this sort, because it was calculated to relieve the rich by throwing the expe classes of s ociet y . He, for one, how ever , thoug ht that office theueuyghttveoroetetalled this o be upon to pay upon the poorer imposed u pon any one whose pocket was not w ell able to afford to p ay i ts a tt e ndant expenses. He was glad to hear the Noble Duke de clare himself willing to support a measure calculated to do awa y with the exemption of militia officers to serve as High Sheriffs. He had long had that step under his consideration, and he should at no distant period introduce a measure for the purpose. —(Cheets.) Lord COLBORNE said that what he had heard had induced him not to think that this was not a good Bill, but to think that:he had no chance of carrying it. The amendment was then put, and carried without a division, that the Bill be read a second ti me this day six months. The Bill was accordingly LTA. rejected. A The Earl of RIPON said he had at length the op portunity of bringing under their Lordships' considera tion some matter connected with the late mission to Malta, which appeared to him to be of considerable im portance, He regretted that any circumstances should have occurred beyond his controul that prevented him bringing the matter forward at the time he had selec- ted. The matter involved principles of very consider able importance. It related to matters which affected individuals most severely. and which had inflic ted on those individuals great hardship, great injustice, mid great wring. There were also mat ters connected with this subject that personally affected himself. Though, therefore, his Noble Friend the Noble Marquis opposite was pleased to characterise this motion, when he gave notice of it, as an injudicious motion, he nevertheless felt it necessary, in justice to the individuals to whose case it referred, as well as to himself, to bring it under consideration. In what re spect it was injudicious he was utterly at a lass to con ceive. No doubt it was very presumptuous in him to think of questioning the infallibility of the Maltese Commission. After the specimen their Lordships had had of the manner in which those Commissioners had treated certain subjects, it was no doubt great pre sumption in him to attempt to grapple with their acts. It might also be very presumptuous and very injudi cious on his part to attempt to question the in fallibility of the Lords of the Treasury or the Cclo nial Office. But he thought that before he sat down he should show that there was great ground of com plaint against the conduct of those Commissioners, the Colonial Office, and the Lords of the Treasury, in connection with this matter. The subject related to the removal from office of three individuals. the Chief Justice, who had held his office for twelve years and a half—the Attorney-General, who had held his office for seven years—and the Collector of the Customs, who had held his office for upwards of five years ; and his object was to obtain certain information with respect to the cases of those individuals, in order that their Lordships might see whether justice had been dealt out to them. Those three individuals had been cashiered without having been heard—without any question having been asked them—without any exami nation having been gone into, at which they were pre sent, with respect to the nature of their duties, or the manner in which they had performed those duties—or with respect to the effects and consequences of so de priving them of their situations. All that was done without affording them any opportunity of' vindicating their conduct, and showing that the opinion of the Commissioners was wrong. They never knew, nor did they know at this moment, who were examined with respect to their conduct. They had never been told whether the evidence given against them was given by some rival, by a personal enemy, or by a subordinate in office ; and they might be, for aught they knew, the vic tims of persons who, stating things behind their backs, had never appeared to confront them in open day. The resolution taken by the Commissioners to remove these gentlemen was transmitted to his Noble Friend oppo site without any notice to the parties concerned, so that they had no opportunity of protesting against it, or of taking any step to meet the first impression it was calculated to make on his Noble Friend's mind. This was a course of proceeding contrary to the first prin ciples of justice—a course never adopted towards any persons with respect to whose offices Commissioners had been appointed to inquire. He was astonished that his Noble Friend should have adopted this course of proceeding ; astonished that he should not have thought it necessary to have asked those gentlemen if they had any thing to say in their own defence before he pro ceeded to act upon the recommendation. But without any communication with them he adopted the recom mendation of the Commissioners, and without more ado cashiered the parties. But even the Commissioners recommended in the most unequivocal manner that those gentlemen, if removed, should not be re moved without a fair compensation or superan nuation. Those gentlemen wore removed without the benefit of this recommendation. The recommendation was laid down in one of the earlier reports, and em bodied a general principle. " That it has been the usage in the Colonial service, to give compensation to persons whose offices have been abolished." And then the Commissioners went on to say—" Unless a pro vision of the kind were made for such persons, we our selves should be unwilling to recommend reduction, which would cause so much suffering to individuals, and her Majesty's Goverment would perhaps be un willing to adopt the recommendation?' He could easily conceive that his Noble Friend was unwilling to adopt it, but he did adopt it, and transmitted the case to the Treasury, and no doubt recom mended the Treasury to give the required allowance ; but it never occurred to him that the Treasury would have acted with the strictness they had done. What his Noble Friend should have done was to say to the Treasury, if you cannot save these persons from ruin, if you cannot give them the allowance the Commis sioners recommend, I will not act upon their recommen dation. That would have been but fair. He (Lord Ripon) thought that what had been stated showed that there had been great harshness practised on the segentle men, for they had been deprived of the opportunity of pleading their own case. Now he wished to state to their Lordships some of the circumstances connected with each. The Chief Justice and the Attorney-Gene ral were both removed by virtue of two Reports, respec tively dated the 18th and 19th of April, 1838, but their Lordships would no doubt be surprised to find that no Reports were in existence:of those dates, that they were not written at the time, but several months afterwards. The real Reports the Commissioners transmitted to Go vernment reacheA the Colonial-office in the month of May, and immediately engaged his Noble Friend's at tention, because he stated in the document he (Lord Ripon) held in his hand, that after much consideration he was convinced that the recommendation of the Corn missioners, as originally framed, could not be acted upon without some serious inconvenience. That para graph, therefore, would lead persons to question the soundness of the views of the Commissioners. The document then went on to . say, that in consequence of its being impossible to act upon those Reports, it was thought advisable to call upon the Commissioners to return to England. When the Report was concocted by his Noble Friend opposite, the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack, and the two Commissioners, it entirely differed from the one originally drawn up. Now this was to him a most singular proceeding, and if allowed would render the appointment of Commissioners use less. What were Commissioners for, but to give their free and unbiassed opinion to the Crown'? If Commis sioners were to act as had been done in the present instance, according to the views of the Executive Government, the greatest injury would be inflicted upon individuals. He thought all connected with this case appeared to have forgotten what their relative duties were. The Executive Government, together with his Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack, had made themselves responsible for that part of the Report which stated that it was not till late years that the Island of Malta had been governed with a regard to the wishes of the people of the island. Now, what he would ask justified such a censure? He was not there to defend other Secretaries of State, but he should like to know what he had ever done, while Secretary of State, that would entitle him to the appellation of being (indifferent to the wishes of the people of Malta ? Hear, hear.) lie protested against such censures coming from his Noble Friend on the Woolsack, be cause he could have no knowledge in any Government capacity of the manner in which Malta had been go verned.—(Hear, hear.) After this censure the Report went on to laud the Commissioners themselves, con trasting what they had done with the results produced by former Governments, and among some of the things on which they glorified themselves was the celebrated law of libel which the Noble and Learned Lord opposite had brought under the notice of their Lordships. He (Lord Ripon) firmly believed if the Noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack, and the two Commissioners had only said half as much of a petty fogging Maltese attorney he would have convicted them of libel, and subjected them to six months' imprison ment.—(Laughter.) Lord BROUGHAM—TweIve months: Where there is no defamation six months, but where there is, twelve months.—( Laughter.) The Earl of RIPON—The Report recommended the removal of the Chief Justice, upon the ground that the office was useless, and that it was exorbitantly paid ; that there was little or nothing to do, and they laid down the principle that it was little better than a species of robbery of the rights of the Maltese that an English Judge should sit on the Bench. That was one of the most surprising doctrines he had ever heard.—(Hear, hear.) From the very moment that Malta was assigned to this country after the peace at Paris, from that moment the whole attention of the Government was directed to prove the barbarous code of that country, and to infuse the generous principles of the British law into Malta. Could it therefore be expected that the law now esta blished there could be satisfactorily administered with out an English Judge ? Such a system, he would ven ture to say, however much it might be approved of at the present day, would become odious and impractica ble. But it seemed from the Report that the Chief Justice ought to be removed. Now he (Lord Ripon) would like to know who seas the wise man in Malta that gave evidence before the Commissioners to enable them to ar rive at such a conclusion. Why did they not examine Sir John Stoddart himself on the subject ? Nobody doubted the impartial manner in which he had performed his duties, and it would have been but an act of justice to that Learned Judge to have asked him his opinion of the principle on which the Commissioners considered ho ought to be removed. The greatest compliment had been paid by the Secretary for the Colonies to Sir J. Stoddart for the manner in which he had discharged his judicial functions ; and he (Lord Ripon) was sure that there was not a single Noble Lord in that House, who would say that that compliment was not deserved. —(Hear, hear.) His great talents fitted him to give advice to the Commissioners ; and their not having asked it, he (Lord Ripon) considered was acting most unjustly, especially when it was recollected that the ground on which they recommended the abolition of the office was, that it was an usurpation of the rights of the Maltese bar. Public servants ought not to be treated in such a manner, when it was desirable the public service should be properly performed. He thought, to say the least of it, the course that had been adopted towards Sir J. Stoddart was sharp practice. The intimation was conveyed to him in a harsh and un- feeling manner. He would not say that Sir John Stod dart had been undone, but he thought that Secretaries of State and Commissioners ouidit to be very careful before they made charges against any person. Tile Attorney-General also was removed, by virtue of the recommendation of the Commissioners. His office was described as a sinecure—it was not wanted at all, and ought never to have been created. Thus, by implica tion, he (Lord Ripon) was blamed for having created the office. He denied that the office was a sinecure, and he did that upon the authority of the Attorney- General himself, who had never Leen examined on the point. In August 18;37, his health having given way to the climate, he asked for and obtained leave of ab- sence, and came to England. In January 1838, he re ported himself as being able to return to his duties, but his Noble Friend, then Secretary for the Colonies, de sired him to remain in England, because it was probable that his office might be recommended to be abolished by the Commissioners. He was thus detained against his will ; which was too bad, because he was receiving only half salary while he was absent from his duty. At last permission was given him to return, and in April he sailed from Portsmouth. It was a strange coincidence, on the very same day the vessel sailed from Malta which contained the recommendation for the abolition of his office. Now, it was a gross injury to a man to be held up to the world as one who, for a series of years, had continued to hold a sinecure office, while at the same time he could prove, not only by himself, but by every respectable man in Malta, that it was not. He wished to be allowed to explain under what circumstances he made the appointment. He did so upon the earnest solicitation of Sir Frederick Ponsonby, who said he was constantly placed in most difficult and pain ful situations, from the want of an English law adviser. Sir Frederick was a clear-minded, upright, honest man, and would have made no such recommen dation had it not been ❑ecessary ; he said that without such assistance he could not continue the administration of the Government, as he had almost arbitrary power, both civil and military, and bad been often obliged to consult the Chief Justice. Now what an anomaly was this—the Chief Justice advising upon matters that might afterwards come before himself in Court. He de nied that the office of Attorney-General was a sinecure. Had he wished to create an office for a friend, or one whom he wished to serve, he might have made it a better one—instead of appointing any friend or relation he ap plied to the Noble and Learned Lord opposite (Lord Brougham) the Lord Chancellor, and after telling him the whole case, said to him, " Select for me, and for God's sake give me a good man." That was proof he never conceived that the office was to be a sinecure—he never saw the gentleman who received the appointment— never knew him except from the high manner in which he was spoken of as having performed his duties. Well, upon arriving in Malta, the first thing he heard was an intimation that his office was to be abolished ; he was left there in a state of suspended animation for some months, but in August be came home to learn his fate ; it was not until the 17th October that he received a note from his Learned Friend enclosing the warrant for his execution—it was to take place on the 31st October, and on that day he officially died. Now that was very hard ; he had given up and lost all his legal connexions, in this country—he had gone to great expense in the re moval of his family. Well, but he was to be liberally dealt with according to the recommendation of the Commissioners. He applied to the Treasury—his case was considered, and " in consideration of the nature of his office, and the sort of duties he had to perform," they awarded him 300/. Lord MEL BOURNE.—A-year. Earl RIPON—No ; 300/., as a whole ; if it was 800/. a-year it would be well that the Lords of the Treasu y should write English. The man who had abandon d his profession here—who had lost his prospects—who had served seven years without a notion that his office would ever cease, was awarded the munificent sum of 300/. He then came to the third clause—that also was his appointment. He knew that the Collectorship of the Revenue was not an office of much labour, but it required a man of good sound sense—a man of honesty and principle, for there was a considerable revenue to be collected, and therefore he made the appointment. His office was abolished— but he also was to have an ample superannuation, and the Governor told him that he would use his influence with the Government for that purpose. After his case had been considered, he was awarded the sum of 230/. as a whole for his " ample superannuation"—all of which was expended in bringing him home. He made application to his Noble Friend, but the month of De cember passed over—January the same—then came the month of February, when his Noble Friend was himself cashiered, and that also he believed without being examined. No one having been appointed, he (Earl R.) advised him (for he was a relation of his own —he did not wish to conceal that) to write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer imploring him to consider his case, which was one of great hardship, if not cruelty. He did not think a suitor could have expressed himself in terms more simple and respectful. He was a gentle man by birth and education, the grandson of a person distinguished in the literature of the country. He was at an early age in the army, and had the honour cf being aide-de-camp to the Illustrious Duke near him (Wel lington). Although his health compelled him to retire for a time he returned to his duties at an early period, and had an opportunity of distinguishing himself at the siege of Bayonne. He fell into an error which was very common—he married poor, and- soon had a family of six children. In the course of these proceedings he sought an interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but could not obtain it, and something occurred which pre vented an answer to his letter, But the Treasury thought his case so hard that they gave him 100/. they admitted that the 250/. had been almost useless to him, and they gave him as a superannuation 100/. ; so that after five years' services he had the comfort of en deavouring to live, or rather to starve, upon the in terest of 100/. It would have been before the removal of this gentleman that the Secretary of State should have secured something from the Treasury to relieve him from the painful situation in which he was placed, He (the Noble Earl) thought this case so hard that he took the liberty of writing a letter to the Noble Marquis, recapitulating the circumstances of the case, inviting his attention to them, and requesting him, on public grounds, to see whether something more could not be done. He found no fault with the Noble Marquis, and had no doubt that he made a proper representation at the Treasury ; but it was not successful. On the 9th April, the Treasury wrote a letter as an answer, de clining to do any thing more, but adding that Mr. Cumberland's removal from the office had been recom mended by the Commissioners of Inquiry, on the ex press ground of notorious and admitted inefficiency and incompetency for the performance of the du ties of it ; and that the adoption of that recommendation by Lord Glenelg, evinced his Lordship's assent to the grounds on which it was submitted. The Trea sury founded their refusal to d o justice to Mr. Cumberland on that statement, which was not the ground on which the Commissioners recommended his removal, which was not the ground on which his Noble Friend acquiesced in it, and which there was no foundation for in fact. The terms on which the abolition. of the office were recommended were that the office of collector should be efficiently dis charged, and it appeared from his ignorance of the lan guage of the c ountry that scarcely any European could be competent to discharge it. That was no personal charge, but it was a most absurd proposition. The Com missioners recommended that Mr. Cumberland should be immedately superannuated ? How could they have recommended that, if he had been removed because he was:entirely incompetent? The very recommenda tion proved that they never intended to convey that he was inefficient and incompetent.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to the charge brought against him, h e had never been examined upon it. Neither had the Governor, the Chief Secretary, nor the Auditor-Gene ral been examined, for if they had been they would have said that he was a most efficient officer. There was not the slightest ground for imputing to this gentleman any thing connected with the discharge of his duties which could at all justify his removal. But the worst of all was, that he was condemned without being heard, calumniated without reproof, and ruined without re dress.—( Hear, hear.) He hoped that in future the Commissioners would take care to hear a charge before they came to a determination, and that the Executive Government of the country would not do injustice by the adoption of such a Report. The Noble Earl con cluded by moving for certain papers connected with the transaction to which he had referred. Lord GLENELG said his Noble Friend had ani madverted on the conduct of the Colonial-office, the Commissioners, and the Treasury. Entering as he did into the feelings of his Noble Friend on some parts of the subject, he was not surprised that he had expressed himself with some degree of warmth. But be must enter his protest against one part of the language of his Noble Friend—he meant the assumption that, when an office was abolished it was, ipso facto, a cashiering of the officer, that was, fixing upon him a stigma and a reproach. His Noble Friend had spoken of these officers as being cashiered, and had taken it for granted that because they no longer held office, they were condemned in the eyes of the country. That w as a principle totally un sound and untenable.—( Hear, hear.) 'There were two questions which ought to beseparated in the considera ation of that subject ; on e was the abolition of the office, the other the compensation to be made to the person who held the office. With respect to the compensation he agreed with his Noble Friend, that where for public purposes a person was deprived of an office, or where his office was reduced,Sthe Government were bound upon every principle of justice to be liberal in the recompence to be made to him.—( Hear, hear.) NVith respect to Mr. Cumberland, he (Lord G.) truly felt for his situation. He had induced the Treasury to re-consider his claim, and the last conclusion to which they had come had been since he left office ; but he had no hesitation in ex pressing his regret that they had not been more liberal in regard to Mr. Cumberland, and this was the senti ment which he had avowed when in o ffice. But his Noble Friend had proceeded to reproach him, because EVENING EDITION. he did not say that unless the Treasury would agree to the compensation which he proposed, he would postpone the abolition of the office. If his Noble Friend had never been in office, he should have been astonished at such a statement; but when his Noble Friend hadbeenin office and knew the usual course of proceeding, he really was surprised to hear him make such a state ment.. The question first was, ought the office to be abolished. Assuming that it ought to be, how could he say to the Treasury, unless they came to his scale of compensation he would not abolish it. That was a most preposterous proposition, which would not hear con sideration for a moment. With respect to .Mr. Cumberland, he felt it painful to enter into the subject, because he regretted the situa tion of that gentleman. But his Noble Friend bad asserted that he was removed without any foundation, and without being called on to defend his own acts. The case of Mr. Cumberland was sim- ply this. His situation was that of collector of the land revenue, amounting to about 30,000/. a year. That was collected from a multitude of small tenements. It was essential that the officer whose duty it was to go amongst these tenants and collect the revenue, should at least be acquainted with the language spoken by the tenantry, which was the Maltese language. It was further essential that he should know something of the manners, habits, and feelings of the people, and also of the tenures of land —(Hear.) t Was found that the Customs were collected by a de'- puty collector, a Maltese and practical man, at 350/. a year, and therefore the office of collector, at 750/., was a sinecure, and was abolished. In the Colonial Office there was a letter which had been addressed to him (the Noble Lord), though he was not sure whether it was a public or a private communication, which stated that Mr. Cumberland had been apprised of the intention to abolish his office, and that, from the manner in which he had conducted himself, it was meant to recommend that he should have a liberal compensation, but that was a consideration for the Lords of the Treasury. So also as to the compensation to the Chief Justice ; that had been considered after he (the Noble Lord) had left office, and he believed it was in contemplation to offer him another, probably as lucrative an office. The ar rangement adopted under the recommendation of the Commissioners had now been in operation for six months. The argument of the Commissioners in favour of the abolition of the offices was that they would undertake to prove that the duties would be equally well and efficiently performed by the six Judges at very mode rate salaries, without the seventh, the Chief Judge, whose salary was 1,6001. a year, as they had been per formed by the seven. The result had proved this to be true in every respect. In a letter from the Go vernor of Malta, dated the 7th of May, he stated that the present system worked remarkably well, and that the business had never been proceeded with in so efficient a manner. There were, therefore, no complaints from the Governor, none from the inhabitants of Malta, none from any quarter except from those who had lost their offices, and it was very natural for them to com plain and to make as strong a case for com pensation as possible. He (the Noble Lord) had communicated with the Commissioners personally on the subject of their Report. That communication related only to minor points, and subsequently their Re port, now on the table, was made. But,;because of that communication, his Noble Friend opposite said he had made himself responsible for every word in the Report. Now, he protested against that conclusion, because he had had nothing to do with the snaking of that Report , whatever. On another occasion he had been accused of making use of the word " misgovernment." lie might have used that word, but it was not in refer ence to the Home Government—it was in refer ence to the Maltese Government ; and although he had the highest respect for some of the members of that Government, :yet he did not think that he detracted from that respect at all in avowing that there were certain things which the Government of Malta ought to have redressed long before it did. The faults of the Government were not known to this Government till 1836, and it was by no means creditable to them to have allowed certain things to have existed so long unredressed as they did. Reverting a ffa i rs to the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General, the latter gentleman had not been in Malta for two years, therefore that of itself was a pretty good 0 proof that there was no absolute necessity for the office of Attorney-General there, nor had any inconvenience occurred from its abolition. The Attorney-General left Malta in August, 1837. After having been on the Continent for some time, he came to this country. When he (the Noble Lord) saw him here in the end of 1837, or beginning of 1838, he himself informed him that it was intended to recommend the abolition of his office. It was then competent for him to have offered any remonstrance, or to have desired to have been heard against the abolition ; but so far from his taking that step, those who consulted with him in ferred from his statements that he thought the office of Attorney-General in Malta was not necessary, unless the English laws were to be introduced there. The Attorney-General then returned to Malta on account of his own private affairs ; and when he went there he received from the Governor his full salary, a thing by no means usual. Afterwards he came here again, and asked for compensation ; and he (the Noble Lord) used every exertion in that respect that he possibly could ' t for bins. But was it to be laid down as a principle that no office was to be abolished without first consult ing the person who might be in that office before the abolition took place ? Ha apprehended no Noble Lord would contend for that. It was to be recollected that the Commission which issued to Ireland when his Noble Friend opposite was in office put an end to a great many offices. On that occasion, a great number of per.. sons were, as a matter of course, examined, but it was never thought necessary to ask any of the par ties who were in the offices that were recom mended to be abolished, if they agreed to the abolition. With respect to the Chief Justice he could easily con ceive, although he was not told, the office was to be abolished, yet that they should have heard from hint what his duties were. Now that was just precisely what the Commissioners had done. They examined the Chief Justice as to what his views were of what his functions ought to be, and he had given them a most luminous opinion upon them, therefore they had obtained all the information which the Chief Justice could give them as to the propriety of continuing or discon tinuing the office. His Noble Friend had condemned the abolition of offices without previous inquiry. Now, with respect to that, he would ask him to refresh his memory as to what had taken place while he was in office. During that time Judge Burton was removed on the ground that three judges would do as well as four. It was true that his Noble Friend had offered Mr. Burton a judgeship in Australia, but no questio ns were put to him as to his opinion whether three judges would do as well as four, and Mr. Burton remonstrated against the course pursued, because he said it would compel him to leave a climate to which he had become inured, and remove to another less salubrious. Notwithstanding this remonstrance, his Noble Friend persevered, and Mr. Burton was removed. His Noble Friend in the next place had dwelt at some length on the utility of English lawyers in Malta, and th e i n t ro - I duction of English laws there. Sir Thomas Maitland, when he went to Malta made a new arrangement of the Superior Courts there, he introduced many of the maxims of the English law, he withdrew the law of torture, the exemption of priests from immunities, he instituted viva voca evidence, and Saving Banks, but it did not appear to bins (Lord Glenelg), that because those improvements had been introduced that therefore I it was clear that the English lawyers were necessary in Malta. The great question that had had been raised with respect to Malta was, by what law it should be go verned. Sir John Stoddart had recommended that the English law should be adopted, but the Noble Lord opposite (Ripon)thought otherwise,he suggested that the French Code should be adopted, though he now said the English law should be preferred. Now, for his own part, he (Lord Glenelg) thought the result had proved that in Malta, so far as the maxims and principles of English constitutional law was concerned, it did not re quire the instrumentality of English lawyers to intro duce it in Malta, provided only there were persons there who understood the principles, which he believed the Maltese lawyers did. On these grounds, he felt bound to state to their Lordships that he thought the measures taken, with respect to the legal appointments, were perfectly justified ; and with respect to the com pensation, be had done all in his power to give it. The LORD CHANCELLOR was anxious, in consequence of the attack that had been made against him by the Noble Earl, to trouble their Lordfhips with a few words. The Noble Earl seemed to think that he had been a party to casting a censure upon the Noble Earl's administration ; he had done no such thing, and as to the original Report, to which he had referred, he could assure the Noble Earl that he had never seen it ; and with respect to the second Report, which had been made in consequence of the conference that had taken place, the Noble Earl had bad as much to do with it as he (the Lord Chancellor) had. He should never regret having said that he was of opi nion that these two offices ought not to be continued. He did not question the value of the services rendered by these functionaries, but the question was, whether the people did not pay too dear for those services. The duties ? Chief Justice held five judicial appointments ; he was P:esident of the Court of Appeal , Sup erior the Supreme Court, First Commissioner of the Court 11 i l le e s m e be vi r e o re f o a C l f l o Court, and c fi ia n l Judge . C so om un n d i oii fine -sounding toh titles,CJudge but f: , Piracy.htite were Vice-Admiralty T t e d per annum. As As First Commissioner of the Court of S p ecial C orn. mission, the Chief Jus tice had brou g ht before him en average of four indictme nts Judge of the Vice -Admiralty Court he had no case b roug h t before him for six y ears ; and in the Court of Piracy there had been no case for five y e ars. Thus three out of the five wet e complete sinecures. As President of the Court of Appeal and. Superior Commis sioner of the Supreme Court, his duties amount to this. The two Courts together had certainly sat for 115 days during the year, but the Judge had only s at for throe hours in each day, and for thi s h e w as paid 1 , 6001 . a year, while the highest pay g i ven to a native Judge