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

ARMY REFORM.

Mr. HUTT said, 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 ef 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 ef the Horse
Guards ?

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
de'patch from the Governor of the Cape, dated the 30th
of December, the Kafire had assumed a very hostile
position on the eastern frontier of the country.
CORPORATION OF LONDON.

Mr. LABOUCHERE 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 f, q. the Reform of the
Corporation of the City of London, but it was not de-
sirable that the bill should be laid before Parlia,trient
until the measure of Sir B. Hall, for the better govern.
ment of the metropolis, had been disposed of.
RECORDERSHIP OF BRIGHTON.
_ _

Mr. CRAUFURD 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 to 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 son 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 in 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 qui tam 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 Joha 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 ha gave,
but it was not de smed satisfactory, and therefore his
application to be elected as bencher was either rejected
or withdrawn. Now, comparing this case with that of
Mr. Stoner, he could not understand upon what ground
the Government could defend the appointment of Mr.
James, and acting upon the precedent of the Stoner 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 minted 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 had 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 stete 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 bencher of the In-
ner Temple, declared that no sufficient reason had been
idiown 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, bear.)
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 large number of candidates who sought
the appointment. The preponderance of the profes-
sional testimonials 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 upon public grounds alone.
After a few words from Sir J. DUKE, who spoke to
the ability and integrity of Mr. James, Mr. CRAIIPURD
replied.
Sir J. WALMSLEY said he seconded the motion at
the request of the hon. and learned gentleman who bad
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
adjustment 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 scenes
which had so lately taken place at Preston ; whilst at the
same time it would conduce to the interests of invention by
protecting patents from piracy. At present the only
appeal in the case of disputed patent was to the Court
of Chancery which involved great expense, and
was consequenCy beyond the reach of a poor man.
With this view, therefore, he should move that an hum-
ble address should be presented to her Majesty, praying
that the necessary information as to the "Conseils dos
Prud'homrnes" 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 baying 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 um could bo

MNiiMi

satisfactorily arranged. He did not, however, think 1
that there was any necessity for the appointment of a
committee or commission to inquire into the subject
referred to by the hon. member, as the fullest and most
complete information existed with reference to these in-
stitutions in an official edition of the French laws, which
he should be happy to place at the disposal of the hon.
member, if he had not already seen it. (A laugh.)
with respect to any further information which might be
required, it could easily be obtained through the noble
lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who
would make application to the French Government, if
such a course were considered necessary. Looking to
the jurisdiction exercised by these bodies, he thought
that they would be ill suited to the manufacturing and
trading population of this country. He was willing to
lay before the house all the information the Government
possessed upon the subject, and he trusted that that
would satisfy the hon. member. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. INGHAM stated that there existed at Sunder-
land a voluntary association for the settlement of dis-
putes between the master shipwrights and their men,
and it had been found to be productive of much good.
Mr. WILKINSON thought it exceedingly inexpe-
dient to appoint any such bodies as those which existed
in France in this country. Tho courts of arbitration,
to be worth anything, should have power to enforce
their awards ; and even if that power were given, the
duties of the courts could not be exercised with advan-
tage to the public.
Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR, explained that in
the case of the Conseils des Prud'hointnes they only de-
cided cases which were brought voluntarily before them,
both parties giving their assent, and agreeing to be
boned by the award. He hoped that his right hon.
friend the Secretary of State would turn his attention
to this question, and that his hon. friend the member for
Lymington would not rest till he brought it to a satis-
factory issue, if not in this session, at least in the next.
It was a fact well worthy of particular note that,in these
tribunals in France, in ninety-seven cases out of every
hundred the disputes were arranged amicably.
Mr. MACKINNON said be was willing to withdraw
his motion on the understanding that when he had ob-
tained the information in accordance with the recom-
mendation of his right hon. friend the appointment of
the committee would he assented to. If his right hen.
friend would tell him that when he came again he would
allow him to move for the committee, in that case he
would withdraw his present motion.
Sir G. GREY said the object of this motion was to
obtain information respecting the tribunal of Prud'hom-
mes in France. He could give the hen. member the
law at present from official documents, but with respect
to the state and operation of the law the Foreign Mi-
nister would obtain from the French Government such
information on the subject as could be granted.

The motion was then withdrawn.
THE ATTACK ON ODESSA.

Mr. SCOTT postponed to Thursday next his motion
for copies of any instructions with respect to tho attack
on Odessa, given to the Commander•in-Chief in the Me-
diterranean and Black Sea, and for copies or extracts
from correspondence referring to that attack.