The Express.
London, England, 1847-07-14 00:00:00

I It practically was, to the local authorities, had rendered it
Impossible for the government, consistently with the due ad.
ministration of justios, to retain that gentleman in office.
, Mr. F. T. BARING considered that the removal a a
judge, whether domestic or colonial, without an opportunity
being given him of exculpating himself from charges that
might be made against him, was a most grave injustice.
Giving Lord Stanley credit for the purest motives of conduct,
he regarded the noble lord as having seed, in this matter,
upon erroneous grounds. He admitted that, in reference to
the imputations against Mr. Langslow in his judicial capa-
city, Mr. Langslow had had opportunities of meeting the.,
but as to the many charges privately got up against Mr.
Langslow in other respects, and upon which Lord Stanley
had mainly proceeded, Mr. Langslow had not had any op-
portunity of meeting them until after his dismissal. As to
the charge of insubordination, he should be glad to under.
stand in what legal terms the indictment of a judge, insub-
ordinate to the civil authorities, would be framed by legal
authorities. Nothing could be more vague than the cue of
the dismiesing parties on this point; while, on the other
hand, nothing could be clearer than the admission of even
the hostile local authorities, as to the firm and competent
conduct of Mr. Langslow on the bench. He wu not then
to defend the conduct of Mr. Langslow from the imputation
of several acts of iediecretion, such as the advertisement re-
ferred to and various disputea with other authorities, but he
would contend that in his indiscretions Mr. Langslow had net
been by any means without provocation. There was this
very curious feature in the charge against Mr. Lengslow,
that, being dismissed for quarrelsomeness and au insub-
ordinate tendency to quarrel with everybody and everything„
he was at the same time accused of having quietly sat Ulm
under his dismissal in a most submissive manner. The chief
point, however, was less the individual case of Mr. Langs.
low than the general case of a judge being dismissed with.
out an opportunity of vindicating himself from the charges
made against him.
Lord G. BENTINCK defended the conduct of Lord
Stanley in dismissing Mr. Langslow. It was impossible to
read the papers before the house without coming to the con-
elusion that Mr. Langslow was wholly unfitted to fill the
office of judge. The council of Ceylon were unanimous—
after the matter had been seventeen days before them and
after having fully investigated the case—in the opinion
that it would be unsafe to have Mr. Langslow continued
as judge. But Lord Stanley did not dismiss Mr. Langslow
upon this. It was a year after this—namely, in 1843—that
Sir Colin Campbell wrote to Lord Stanley, informing him
that, in conformity with the desire of the council, he had
suspended Mr. Langslow, whose conduct in his office was
such, that, were it not for the peaceful disposition of the
people, an outbreak must have taken place. Mr. Temple
was appointed successor to Mr. Langslow, and the come-
quenee was that more busintsa had been disposed of in eight
days by him than had been disposed of in four months by
Mr. Langdow. The right hon. gentleman who had just sat
down said that Lord Stanley had dismissed Mr. Langslow on
grounds that would not justify the dismissal of an C261(111110.
But he thought the house would agree with him that Lord
Stanley and Sir Cohn Campbell had borne with Mr. Lang.
slow too long—till he had, in fact, brought the judicial bou-
nces of his court into utter confusion. It was impossible that
a more unfit person could hold the office of judge ; and Lord
Stanley and Sir Colin Campbell only acted in the interest of
their sovereign and of the people of Ceylon when they dis-
missed bim ; and if he wanted a proof of that, he would find
it in the circumstance that the memorial in favour of Mr.
Lsngslow was only signed by one European—the editor of a
newspaper. He would say "No" to this address to the
crown.

Mr. ESCOTT replied, and said that after the Atatemeut
of the colonial under-secretary, he would not divide the
house. He hoped that on some future occasion justice would
be done to Mr. Lan slow.
THE GREAT CLOCK FOR THE NEW PALACE

AT WESTMINSTER.
Mr. E. DENISON, in moving for all the papers and cor.
respondence relating to the great dock and all other decks
for the new palace at Westminster (omitting drawings and
descriptions of mechanical details), said he understood Mr.
Deat had offered to make the great clock for 1,600!., but the
reason why he offered to undertake it (or that sum was, that
he would be allowed to compete for the small clocks. Now
these clocks had been made by Mr. Vulliamy. who declined
to compete for time great clock. He understood that the cor-
respondence was not complete, and he was anxious that all
the sorresponder.ce which passed on the subject should be
laid on the table of the house.

Viscount MORPETIi said, that with respect to the
smaller clocks in the department to which he belonged, it
was not the custom to make them the subject of competition.
It was desirable that the best clock should be obtained for
the large tower of the palace at -Vestroinster, and the opi•
Dion of the astronomer royal would be taken before it was
decided on.

POOR REMOVAL (No. 2) BILL.
On the order of the day for the adjourned debate on the
second reading of this bill,
Mr. BODKIN opposed the bill, on the ground that it
would throw numbers of paupcn on the country who had
hitherto been located in particular parches.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER objected ta
the bill because it went to settle a point of law now before
the Queen's Bench.

After • few words from Capt. PICHELL, the house divided,
au amendment having been proposed the previous evening
that tie bill be read that day three months.
For the second reading
For the amendment 44-39
POOR REMOVAL ACT AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL
On the order of the day for the thi.d reading of this bill,
Mr. CHRISTOPHER opposed the bill. As her Ma-
jesty's ministers intended to introduce comprehensive mea-
sures next session, be thought that in the present state of
the house and the session, It would be injudicious to press
the bill before the house. He moved that it be read a third
time that day three menthe.
Mr. B. DENIXON and Sir W. JOLLIFFE severally sup-
ported the bill.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER withdrew his amendment, and the
bill was read a third time.
On the question that the bill do pass,
Sir W. JOLLIFFE complained of the power of removing
paupers who had been five years in a union which the bill
contained. He had prepared • cleave to remedy the evil,
but the forma of the house prevented his bringing it forward.
The bill then passed.
FORMS OF THE HOUSE.
Lord J. RUSSELL brought up the report of the commit-
tee appointed to consider the subject of messages between
the two houses of parliament. The committee bad resolved
that the resolutions of the Lords might be adopted with pub-
lic advantage, and that the Commons might receive the mm-
sages from the Lords at the bands of one instead of two
Masters in Chancery. The noble lord moved that the home
agree with these resolutions; 'and the motion was adopted.
RULES OF THE STAMP AND TAX OFFICE.

Mr. HULLER brought under consideration the nab.
jest of a petition presented on the let of July from Jame
Eaton and others. A Mr. Meakings died in 1832,1eaving
property, which was the subject of some dispute. It was
necessary for the legal representative of deccascd, a Mrs.
Humphrey, to obtain some account of his estate. She had
no such account herself—the solicitor Mr. Meakings had em-
ployed was dead, and the only possible means of getting at
the facts was by a copy of the residuary account in the
Legacy Duty Office. Mrs. Humphrey had petitioned the
Board of Stamps to permit her to obtain such account, offer-
ing to pay all the expenses of the search, but she was pf.-
remptorily refused. He thought this a great hardship, and
moved for copies of papers on the subject.
Mr. PARKER, who had no objection to the production
of the papers, defended the Board of Stamps. The beard
was a fiscal board, and not a board of registration. The
principle once admitted, there would be no end to the prac-
tice of applying for copies of documents, and matches for
old papers would be attended with greet waste of time and
inconvenience to the service.—The papers were ordered.
The house adjourned at a quarter to 12.

Wu. Oporto.

}WM.

----
the West India eaells, eneladsost War ler Weak*, Hoorlwas, sag
tb Etersanah, will be sob upon themes's/lag cribs 17th July.
The =Ps for %%go, Nato, Listen, Ilsbelre, Odle, and Gibraltar
will be erne up on the seeming of the Mk hip.
The mils kr British Sera knee" Ihenselke. sad the Wee/ —J
elate% inh be Erie up es the emits ei the Nth lelp
Ile eeerlehil mile ter 011edeer laellmAkeeek the fr.=
ellihAdlikorbol7l4%
maiessederimeeraJuly. Clink ele
pm ea the
=A
The semis/ed dime =elk his likavaliss, be the neellsweeellne
ds%
,f7l
July3N lad* Meg Kw& is.. win b• sbd• op se ft
h .
The hells hr New Smith Waite, Tan Dtersen's Land, a d lien
ZatimitiShe mush wp en theevedeg et the 91st July.
The ma eke w Iseeek,ilwamhe Rivet Piste, Monte Vldek New
=h etas
OAK MN " aid
4th nne. Ayres, will be made up ea tbe

001111111tONDINTS.
411yeetimmovett Wori7llmr Itsprrs. Lake nests( papir...g
at Ur Moe by Two Veleek es tbe day of p.blleetlea.

NIGH WATS/ AT LONDONAIRI DOT.
Tv. D.l-343r3AaA pout 3, Aftarosa. 30 .31. pot 3.
T.-111 —11.4.44 e. 47 WA pea 3. Aftweam. f mi. 3.441 4.

LONDON,WEDNESDAI',JUL Yl4
In the House of Lords yesterday the Seduction sod
Prostitution Suppression Bill, being opposed by Lards
BROUGHAM, DENMAN and CAMPBELL, as calculated
rather to encourage than to suppress the evils it pro-
posed to remedy, was withdrawn by the Bishop of
ORWICH, who, in so doing, expressed his hope that
the time would shortly arrive when an unobjectionable
measure in reference to the subject would receive the
sanction of the legislature.—The Militia Ballot Sas- •
pension Bill was opposed by the Earl of ELLarrno•
ROUGH, who called upon the government not to "
give up a force which, however objectionable in itselfr
was yet one which gave a serious advantage to this
country, unless it was prepared to substitute 1i5t14.4
more efficient protection for the security of the natio&
—Earl GREY, in the course of his observations is
reply, stated that if the bill were rejected, the arias
must be called out, and no arrangements were auk.
for meeting the expense, or for organising an Acid SI
force. Under the new system a force of 10,000
men had been organised in the dockyards, who
were equipped and ready for service at tbs..
shortest notice, while other measures of protsethS
were in propeta to which he could not however
more particularly refer. He concurred in the opißiell •!,
that the best security for peace was being prepsla
for war, and he rejoiced in those measures of fro •;
trade which led to locremed ooraraunicatien