The Sun.
London, England, 1855-03-07 00:00:00

CRIMEAN MEDAL.

Mr. STANLEY asked the First Lord of the Treasury,
or Under Secretary for War, if it was intended that the
Crimean medal shall confer two years' additional service,
or any peculiar advantages similar to those conferred by
the Waterloo medal in 1815 ?

Lord PALMERSTON, in answer to the question,
said undoubtedly these actions were actions in which the
brave troops of the country displayed as much valour as
ever was evinced in former actions, but, nevertheless,
although medals had been prepared for these actions, it
was not intended to accompany those medals with the
privilege of counting these actions as ten years' service.
The battle of Waterloo was quite exceptional to these
actions or those in the Peninsular, because it decided,
as it were, the fate of Europe.

ARMY REFORM.
Mr. HUTT Paid, seeing, by official correspondence,
that when the Duke of Newcastle found it necessary to
recall Lord Lucan from the command of the British
cavalry in the Crimea he was compelled to obtain the
interposition of Lord Hardinge for that purpose, he
wished to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether,
among the improvements in the administration of the
army which he promised to the house on his accession to
office, he proposed to empower the Secretary for War to
effect such changes without the intervention of the Horse
Guards h
Lord PALMERSTON said there was not any inten-

tion to make any alteration in the subordination of the
army ; the staff appointments would still remain in the
hands of the Commander-in-Chief.
THE CAPE. . _

Mr. LIDDELL asked the Colonial Secretary if any
report had been received of a fresh outbreak of Kafirs
in the Cape.
Sir G. GREY replied in the negative, but, by the last
dePpatch from the Governor of the Cape, dated the 30th
of December, the Kafirs had assumed a very hostile
position on the eastern frontier of the country.
CORPORATION OF LONDON.

Mr. LA BOUCHE RE reminded the right hon. baronet
the Secretary of State for the Home Department that
the report of the commissioners appointed to inquire
into the state of the Corporation of London had been
some time in the hands of the Government, and he
wished to know if Government contemplated bringing in
a bill to reform the corporation.
Sir G. GREY said a bill was in preparation founded
upon the report of the Commission for the Reform of the
Corporation of the City of London, but it was not de-
sirable that the bill should be laid before Parliament
until the measure of Sir B. Hall, for the better govern-
ment of the metropolis, had been disposed of.
RECORDERSHIP OF BRIGHTON.

Mr. CRAUFIIRD moved the appointment of a select
committee to take into consideration the case of the ap-
pointment of Edwin James, Q.C., to the office of Re-
corder of Brighton, the said Edwin James having been
refused admittance t,) the Bench of the Inner Temple,
on account of his conduct in respect of certain transac-
tions connected with the election for the borough of
Horsham in 1847. The hon. and learned gentleman
entered into au explanation of the circumstances attend-
ing the election in 1847, from which it appeared that
Mr. Jervis, the :,on of the then Attorney-General, was
returned for the borough, but upon petition he was un-
seated, and it was alleged that Mr. James was impli-
cated in the affair in this manner : it was said he nego-
tiated a compromise whereby the bribery charges against
Mr. Jervis were withdrawn i❑ consideration of his un-

•
dertaking to pay over a sum of money to the parties
who made them. The charges were withdrawn,

but the consideration was never paid. Subsequently
two qai tame actions were brought against Mr. James
and Sir John Jervis, the Attorney-General, for bribery,
but they broke down upon a technical point of law.
Immediately afterwards Mr. James was called within
the bar, and Sir John Jervis was promoted to the Bench.
Mr. James then applied to be elected a bencher of his
Inn, but the benchers called upon him to give
some explanation in reference to his conduct
at the Horsham election. That explanation he gave,
but it was not deemed satisfactory, and therefore his
application to be elected as bencher was either rejected
or withdrawn. Now, comparing this case with that of
Mr. Stonor, he could not understlnd upon vast g round
the Government could defend the appointment of Mr.
James, and acting upon the precedent of the Stonor case he
called upon the house to institute an inquiry into the cir-
cumstances attending the recent appointment of the Re-
corder of Brighton. . .

Sir J. WALMSLEY seconded the motion.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL believed the hon. and
learned gentleman had brought this motion forward from
the purest and loftiest of motives—(a laugh)—but he
thought the hon. and learned gentleman might have ab-
stained from attacking the Chief Justice of Common Pleas.
He asked the house whether the case made out against
Mr. James was worthy of a moment's notice, because
all that he did in connection with the Horsham election
was not in his professional capacity, but in the charac-
ter of a private gentleman. Nor was his conduct in con-
nection with that election t tinted with abuse,
while with regard to the case laid before the
benchers he believed the benchers of the Inner Temple
determined that it was one in which they could not in-
terfere. The benchers of the Inner Temple were elected
by ballot, and ten black balls defeated a candidate. In that
way Mr. James bad not been elected a bencher; butsurely
that was no reason why he should be excludedfrom office,
seeing that there was no imputation whatever against
either his private or public character and honour. He
knew several other honourable men who had attained
the dignity of Queen's Counsel without being elected a
bencher of their Inn, but all that might be beside the

question. He would state that the Government were
quite ignorant of the fact that Mr. James had been re-
jected ; they had no means of knowing it any more than
they had the means of knowing whether the learned gen-
tleman had been rejected by any particular club or
not, and he therefore hoped the house would not for a
single moment entertain this proposition. (Cheers.)
After a few words from Mr. I. BUTT, who opposed
the motion,
Mr. ATHERTON, as a member and beneber of the la-
. . .

ner Temple, declared that no sufficient reason had been
flown to justify the house in adopting the motion, because
it implied no censure that a gentleman had not been
elected a bencher. The benchers claimed the absolute
discretion of electing or rejecting Queen's Counsel, just
as they thought proper, without being responsible to
any one for their decision, and hence the objection of
the hon. and learned gentleman to this appointment
was illusory. (Hear, hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON repeated what he had stated

on a former occasion—namely, that he used his best
exertions to select the most competent person for the
office out of a largo number of candidates who sought
the appointment. The preponderance of the profes-
sional testimon►als were in favour of Mr. James, while the
majority of the Town Council of Brighton-memorialised
the Government in his behalf. His appointment pro-
ceeded upoia public grounds alone.
After a few words from Sir J. DUKE, who spoke to
the ability and integrity of Mr. James, Mr. CRAUPURD
replied.
Sir J. WALMSLEY said he seconded the motion at

the request of the hon. and learned gentleman who had
moved it, but after the explanation he had heard he
Must decline to vote for it. (Hear, and laughter.)
The motion was negatived without a division, the only
" aye" in its favour being that of the hon, and learned
gentleman who had made it.
Mr. I. BUTT moved that the motion should not be
entered upon the journals of the house.
Mr. CRAUFURD objected to that motion, and de-
clared his intention to divide the house upon it.
The question was then put, and there being only a
solitary "No" against it, namely that of the hon. and
learned gentleman, there could be no tellers appointed
for the " Noes," and thereforeithe motion was declared
to be carried.
MASTERS AND OPERATIVES.

Mr. MACKINNON called the attention of the house
to the inconvenience now felt in the country from the
want of equitable tribunals, by which means any differ-
ences between masters and operatives might be
satisfactorily adjusted, from which also other ad-
vantages might be gained in disputed claims.
He alluded to the fact that there was a growing feeling
in the country in favour of councils of arbitration for the
arljustment of disputes between masters and men, but
that at present the English law did not formally recognise
any such institution. His proposal was thus to legalise
them, and he contended that they would be extremely
beneficial in preventing a recurrence of those teenes
which had so lately taken place at Preston ; whilst at the
same time it would con d uce to the interebts of invention by
protecting patents from piracy. At present the only
appeal in the Cas; of disputed patent was to the Court
of • Chancery which involved great expense, and
was consequently beyond the retch of a poor man.
With this view, therefore, he should move that an hum-
ble address should be presented t ) her Majesty, praying
that the necessary information as to the " Con,eils des
Prud'hommes" in France might be obtained by
a commission, or otherwise, in order to bring before the
house the operation of those institutions in that country,
which were analogous to those be proposed to introduce
into England.
The motion having been seconded,
Sir G. GREY said there could be no doubt as to the
importance of any measure which could be adopted by
which differences between masters and men could be