The Sun.
London, England, 1839-08-14 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION,

ine to him, would not be so bad, but it was •
improper that he should be the representative
of a large constituency. This was by no means a
compliment to the people ; it went to establish the
principle, that because a man was called on to listen to
the popular voice, or to be actuated by popular feel-
ings, that therefore he was unfitted for the due ;lie.
charge of judicial functions. In fact, it was a bad
compliment to the representative system itself, and was
calculated to fix discredit on it, because it assumed that
although integrity, honesty, and impartiality were re-
' quired in a Judge, such qualities were not likely to be
met with in the representative of a popular constitu-
ency, inasmuch as it assumed that a representative of
the people was unfit to exercise the judicial office.
This was a great blow at representative government
generally ; it was an acknowledgment of the failure of
the principle, and was one of the most dangerous ad-
missions that could be made.—(Hear, hear.) It as-
serted, in fact, that those who were elected to repre-
sent the people were thereby rendered unfit to serve
the Crown--a principle most dangerous, and infringing
directly on the principles of representative government.
Their Lordships did not object to the Judge being paid
a fixed salary ; they did not object to the amount of
the salary ; and therefore he could not see why this Bill
ought not to be adopted by their Lordships.
Lord BROUGHAM explained. He had asked for
a ernititutioual Bill and had received an unconstitu-
tional one ; he had asked for bread and they had given
him a stone, which he was by no means inclined to
detour instead of bread.—( A laugh.) His Noble
Friend had seemed to think that the argument he
( Lord Brougham) bad made use of was a heavy blow
aed a great discouragement to the representative prin-
e.ple ; he could not help it if it were so, but h e did not
teink such to be the case. The Representatives of the
p,:opte were of all others the best fitted to hold political
office, and to become distributors of the money of the
people, but they were not therefore the best distributors
of justice to the people. Judges stood as arbiters be-
ta een the people and the Crown, and therefore it was
rht, although they were appointed by the Crown, that
they should be irremovable. He wondered his Noble
r Friend had used the argumentunz ad Itonzinem, and
said that the Master of the Rolls might sit in the House
.f Commons, because his Noble and Learned Friend
Lad once so sat. He, however, thought that the
Master of the Rolls, and every other Judge,
ould be excluded from the House of Commons,
With respect to the Lord Chancellor, the case was dif-
f,,rent. He was not irremovable—he had a seat in the
Cabinet and was not irremovable—neither could he be
called on to preside at criminal trials. But the Judge
of the Admiralty possessed criminal jurisdiction, was
ajudge of the Central Criminal Court, and presided in
cases affecting life and death, and a judge of this sort
ought not to be possessed of patronage. With regard
to himself, during the time he was Lord Chancellor he
had not liked the patronage of the office, as he had found
it exceedingly troublesome to him, and he bad done all
in his power to get rid of it, for which by some parties
he had been much blamed.

Their Lordships then divided on the amendment,
when there appeared,

Contents .....
Not Contents

34
23

Majority in favour of the amendment... —ll
The Bill was consequently lost.
POOR-LAW CONTINUANCE.

The Poor-law Continuance was read a second time
on the motion of the Marquis of LANSDOWNE,
upon the understanding that the discussion should take
place on going into Convnittee on Thursday.