The Sun.
London, England, 1863-07-10 00:00:00

HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE.
THIS Deer.—Morning, 9h. 17m.—Afternoon. 9h. 53m.
To-Koßitow.-Morning, 10h. 29m.—Afternoon; 11h. 3m.

1,‘,1
SIM

LONDON, FRIDAY, JULY 10, 1863.

The recent dismissal of the lonian Judges was
the occasion of a spirited debate in the House of
Lords last night. So vehement at one time was
the discussion that prevailed, and so personal and
contradictory were the assertions uttered, that
the demure locality of " another place" be-
came, for the time being, doubtful, and the
solemn precinct of the Throne and the Woolsack
were startled from their customary propriety by
unwonted cries of " Order." The combatants,
in the first place, were the Marquis of BATH and
the Duke of NEWCASTLE ; and, in the second
instance, the Earl of DERBY and Earl RUSSELL.
Lord DERBY, with his more mature experience of
the customs of the House of Peers, admonished the
junior Earl of his flagrant violation of those usages
in giving utterance to ironical cheers. Those who
remember the happy lines in the "New Timon,"
descriptive of Lord STANLEY in the House of Com-
mons, " frank, haughty, rash," and ready to quarrel
with friend and foe, until Sir ROBERT wisely
removes him—.

" in hope the vein to cool,
To the prim benches of the Upper School,"

will be amused to see how effectively the lesson has
been learned, and how correctly the once refractory
debater can call to order a more inexperienced
and ignorant new corner into these solemn precincts.
Lord RUSSELL, in self-defence, assured his irritated
brother earl that he had intended no discourtesy,
and added, with demure gravity, that he (Lord
RUSSELL) always listened to the noble earl's
speeches with as much courtesy and attention as
the noble earl displayed in listening to his. After
this war of words, the matter at issue was for the
time being satisfactorily settled, the Duke of NEW
CASTLE agreeing, although under protest, to pro-
duce the papers, whether " half a box full" or a
" whole box full," relative to the dismissal of the
lonian judges. Such an agreement was the only
obvious alternative. The position of a Judge is re-
garded by our Constitution as being of an almost
sacred character, and anything that in any way calls
that character in question should be subjected to ,
the fullest investigation. A man who holds a high
judicial office, and who has held it for more than
twenty years, is not to be dismissed in consequence
of some legal technicalities in his terms of tenure
without explanation. Lord DERBY very happily
employed in this regard the forcible argument ad
hominem, and inquired of the Duke of NEWCASTLE
how he would himself admire an abrupt and un•
expected dismissal simply on the ground that
such at act was within her MAJESTY'S
prerogative. Aa to the advisability of the dismissal
of Sir GEORGE AIARCGRAN ana Sir ANASTASIO
XIDIAN We shall pronounce no opinion unti
the evidence is before us. They may
have been wisely supplanted I but, if so,
the wise act was most unwisely performed. It is
ridiculous to assert that their discontinuance of
office was a mere matter of course, because their
for a period of five years,
appointment was only
which period had expired. Such may be the letter
of the law in the lonian Isles, but it is obviously
not the practice, one of these Judges having held
office for twelve and the other for twenty-two
years ! To say, therefore, that their appointments
are necessarily void, is simply astird. In the
ordinary practice of lonian precedents, those ap-
pointments would have been extended as* a matter
qeane. They were, on the contrary, declared to