The Sun.
London, England, 1839-06-28 00:00:00

EVENING ED En ON.

lamounted to 400/. a year. The case of the Attorney-
'• General was equally strong, he had a salary of 8001.
`, end lind three classes of duties to perform ; he assisted
the Governor and Council in drawing up Ordinances,
he advised the Governor as to questions of law, and he
represented the Government in all proceedings in the
Courts where his presence was required on their be-
half. Now the number of Ordinances issued in the
couse of six years amount to twenty four ; he had to
I advise the Governor on matters of law in a Court
where questions connected with English Law never
arose ; and he had to advocate Government causes
which were conducted in a language which be
could not speak. Such were the duties of the Attor-
'. ney-General. The question was not whether these
officers had performed their duties well, but whether
the people of Malta could afford to pay such sums for
such services.—( Hear.) The Chief Judge was now paid
6001. a-year, thereby making a saving of ,!,000/. per
' annum ; and it was quite obvious, when the facts wore
entered' into, that the services rendered were not o
such a nature as to justify such a tax being levied on
the people of Malta. He had reason to justify himself
from the charge of having attacked the Colonial Admi-
ministration of his Noble Friend, and had consequently
been led into these details.
Lord BROUGHAM thought this was a matter not
quite so easily disposed of as his Noble Friend, in his
terse and self-complacent speech, had apprehended it to
he. He was not at all disposed to agree with his Noble
and Learned Friend on the Woolsack on this subject,
and still less could he agrce with his Noble Friend be-
hind him. What was the meaning of his Noble Friend
in asserting that the letter of the Treasury contained
nothing like censure on the individual alluded to ?
Why, that letter said Mr. Cumberland cannot
complain, that he has not more compensa-
tion awarded :to him, because he must be well
aware that the cause of his dismissal was his own
gross inefficiency and his not attending to the dis•
charge of the duties of his office. A more cruel cen-
sure than this he never had heard ; it was, in fact,
stating that for the incompetent discharge of the duties
of his office, he was receiving a salary of 700/. He
would appeal to his Noble Friend the Chancellor of
the Duchy of Lancaster, whom he respected in his
private and his public capacity. Cases were brought
before him in which he had the assistance always of two
Judges, for there was an old-fashioned custom of
giving him Judges for assessors. Now, suppose his
Noble Friend held his office for life, and it was found
necessary to abolish it, and he had applied for compen-
sation, what would his Noble Friend say if he were
told lie bad no right to compensation, on the ground of
his inefficiency and incompetency to the discharge of the
duties of his office? The duties of the office being small
made the charge stronger. His Noble Friend would say
that such a charge was harsh, was cruel, was nonsensi-
cal, was untrue. Oa grounds of public policy he ob-
jected to the abolition of these places without (riving
adequate compensation. He had always contended that
this was not only cruel and unjust, but was the worst
possible economy. The accusation in the Treasury
letter against this deserving officer was utterly untrue,
utterly false, it was a false and a defamatory libel, and if
any one had published such a thing he would have been
liable to an action for damages, of to a criminal prosecu-
tion. It was very hard on this gentleman that after him-
self and his family had been ruined he should be defamed
to boot; he hoped the justice of the Government would
see him righted. Until that evening he had not had an
idea .that the case was half so bad as it had proved to
be. Governments who were called on to award com-
pensation, were placed, he was aware, in a most delicate
predicament ; on the one side, they were guardianS of
the public purse, and on the other it was their duty to
take care that no individual injustice was committed ;
but he found, that instead of executing either of these
duties, they frequently neglected both—and while they
lire harsh to individuals they were unjust to the public.
He had himself, in the year 1832, brought in a measure
for the abolition of various offices, the salaries attached to
which varied from 10,0001. to 1,000/. a year. One of these
offices was that of Clerk of the Crown ; the person who
held the office received 1,500/. for a mere sinecure ; the
person who executed the duties of the office received
700/. The duties were of the highest responsi-
bility, as he might make a double return to
Parliament, and give seats to two persons, neither
of whom could vote, and keep the duly elected Member
out, and no power could reach him, because he might
say it was an error of judgment, and at this time
6,00/. was paid for a seat in Parliament : he merely
mentioned this to show the resposibility attached to the
office. The principal office was abolished, and addi-
tional duties were imposed upon the deputy ; it might
have been supposed that they would have raised his
salary to 8001. perhaps, but instead of this the Trea-
sury actually deprived him of 2001. a-year, and gave
him increased duties with decreased pay. Seeing how
the Treasury had acted in that instance, he had said he
should be slow another time to bring in a Bill abolish-
ing offices, without providing in the same Bill for the
amount of compensation, instead of leaving it to the
discretion of the Treasury. If adequate compensation
were not provided, they would never get individuals to
assist them in the abolition of offices. He had alluded
to this subject because he deemed it a subject
of toe utmost importance. He did not contend
that the holders of offices should be consulted
as to" the propriety of abolishing those offices, that
would be like consulting prisoners as to the sentence
to be passed, on tneaa..w...aaaeeeraitaa - au probability end
in ticrsetitebee being passed at all ; but he did contend
that they should be examined as to the duties of the
1 offices, their kind and amount. He believed his Noble
Friend admitted that this had never been done.
A Lord GLENELG explained.
Lord BROUGHAM said that the officer in ques-
tion, who was remarkable, among his other excellent
qualifications, for the possession of a memory more
accurate than falls to the lot of the e.enera-
lity of persons, had stated, at p. 22, that he did
not recollect being questioned by the Commissioners
' as to the amount of the duties of his offices,
which he must have remembered had he been so ques-
tioned ; and in point of fact, he said that the Commis-
, sioneTers had never once examined him respecting
those duties. Now let them look at the consequences
of this. 1-I.:_a Noble and Learned Friend on the Wool-
! sack said that I'e found the Chief Judge was engaged
only 115 days for three hours a-day ; now if the Com-
missioners had inquired they would have found that this
was the year of the plague of the cholera, when there
was very little doing; but if they had taken any other
year, they would have found that his duties were
much more onerous. This showed that even
astute and learned Thebans were not quite com-
petent to find oat the truth unless they adopted the plan
of ordinary mortals, and made inquiry. An ordinary
mortal, he was going to say, more ignorant, but
that was impossible, but, as ignorant on these subjects
as a Maltese Commissioner would have instituted in-
quiries, and would thus have acquired a knowledge of
the matter, but a Maltese Commissioner disdained to do
so, and therefore still remained in a state of blissful
ignorance. If they had examined Sir John Stoddart,
he would have put to flight I.is (Lord B.'s) Noble
Friend's argument, and his statements would have en-
lightened their minds as to the real facts of the case.
lie had taken the trouble to look into the proceedings
of Mr. Bankes's Committee ; that Committee was ap-
pointed for the express purpose of reporting sinecures,
yet they did not report one, not the most notorious
sinecure that was, without evidence, not only from other
parties, but from the party holding the office. They
called before them Mr. Abbot, the Speaker, Sir Thos.
Grenville, Lord Mahon, Mr. Canning—every one the
holder of the office they were inquiring into—nay, even
when they went so low as offices of 201. they heard the
parties upon the duties they had to perform. How dif-
ferent was this from the conduct of the Maltese Commis-
sioners. Then he came to the number of days ; his Noble
and Learned Friend on the Woolsack, said the Chief
.Justice sat only 113 days of three hours a-day, and
therefore the office ought to be abolished. If that prin-
ciple was good for Malta, surely it would be equally so.
in regard to this. country. Yet who ever heard any
one apply or dream of the abolition of the Court of
Session in Scotland. The Judges there sat five months
and-a-half in the year ; they sat five days a-week, for
they kept Monday holy,: as many men did in this me-
tropolis, who worked harder than they did.—(A
laugh.) They sat four hours a-day generally, but take it so
that did not make up 115 days of three hours, yet
who ever even whispered that that Court ought to be
aboltshed. Again, the Judge of the Admiralty Court
in London ; he did not sit above 28 days in the year;
he knew that from sitting on a COMmittee of the House
of Commons, which was appointed to attempt to raise
the salary of that Judge, and remove him from his most
anomalous situation of being dependent upon an annua
vote' for his salary ; they were met by the fast that
he only sat twenty-eight days in the year
yet who for a moment ever dreamt of abolishing that
office ? His decided opinion was, that if dive were six.
Maltese Judges,there ought to be an English Judge of AL).
peal. There were now 30 or 40 Ordinances introduc-

ing English law ; how he would ask, was that most dif

ficult of all experiments, the Trial by Jury, to be intro-
duced by Maltese Judges ? He would venture to say
that no foreign lawyer could possibly understand the
system ; indeed, he had often seen their utter asto-
nishment when introduced into one of our Courts,
Where there was a Judge trying a cause with a jury—
illny,could not understand it. To show how difficult
a subject it was, he would only mention that after an
(*Perience of twenty-five years, Trial by Jury had not
"et succeeded in Scotland, although it had had the ex-
Pslenne of English lawyers, and that country had
enjoyed the system in criminal cases long before.
These Maltese Commissioners were utterly ignorant
even of that which almost all the people of England
g,
Somethin
knew These Commisioners knew ail they
knew of the trial by Jury was gleaned from the News-
papers, for they had the folly to say that there was no
material difference between the trial of crime by a Jury
or by a Judge ; such a statement required not a word
of eon/Mont'
1 he law in Malta was half-English, and
the other 11,:'f was founded upon the Justinian Code ;
:,,(Itiart was
and Sir John Newell practised civilian
ralta.
before he went to iv-knew general princi-

NEWCASTLE RACES.—TUESDAY.
Sweepstakes of 10 sows. each, for three-yr-old fillies, Bst.
One mile. (Six sub .)
Mr. F. Walker's b f No. 3, by Jerry (Hesseltine) 1
Duke of Cleveland's b f Eliza, by Physician
Mr. S. King's b f Tivy, by Langar
Lord Eglintoun's b f Lais, by Corinthian 4
Mr. Gascoigne's by f Eborina, by Langar
Mr. Haworth's b f Fair Louisa, by Voltaire
Betting-6 to 4 agst Eliza, 4to 1 agst No. 3, and 4to 1
agst Lais. Won easy.
The Tyro Stakes of 25 sous. each, and 25 added by the Town,
for two-yr-old colts, Bst, 41b. ; fillies, Bst., T. Y.C. Three-
quarters of a mile. (Eight subs.)
Doke of Cleveland's bf by Physician, out of Matilda (Lye) 1
Mr. Blakelock's ch fby Curtius, out of Fancy
Mr. Attwood's b c Avicenna
Mr. Rainsbay's b c Naworth, by Liverpool
................ 4
Lord Eglintoun's br c Dr. Caius, by Physician
Lord Kelburne's ch c by Retainer, out of Emilia 6
Betting-6 to 4 agst Naworth, and 7to 2 against the winner.
The St. Leger Stakes of 25 soy. each, with 100 added by the
Town, for three-yr-old colts Bst 51b, and fillies Bst llb ; the
second to save his stake. St. Leger Course. Once round.
(9 subs.)
Mr. Stephenson's b c Lightfoot, by Velocipede —J. Holmes. 1
Mr. Vansittart's b f by Sandback, out of Darioletta
Lord Eglintoun's ch g Zoroaster, by Priam 3
Mr. Orde's b c Johnny Boy, by Jerry ...
Betting-5 to 3on Lightfoot, who won in a canter.
Her Majesty's Plate of 100 guineas. 3 miles.
Duke of Cleveland's b c by Cetus, out of Pucelle, 3 yrs,
7st 21b
Mr. Bell's b fLa Sage Femme, 3 yrs, 7st 21b
Mr. Stephenson's b c by Physician, out of Fisher Lass,
yrs, 7st 2lb
Mr. S. King's br f Juvenile, by Jerry, 3 yrs, 7st 21b 4
Mr. Haworth's b f Fair Louisa, 3 yrs, 7st 21b 5
Mr. J. Walker's br f Sweet Jessie, 3 yrs, 7st 21b
Even on the Cetus colt. Won very easily.

GENERAL THEATRICAL FUND. -- Shak-
speare's delightful comedy, As you Like It, and the suc-
cessful opera of Amehe : or the Love Test, will be per-
formed at Covent Garden this evening, for the benefit of
this excellent institution. Need we say that we anticipate,
on Itgenerous public, an overflowing attend-
arlctehe onpaanrt of
occasion so truly praiseworthy ? The claims
of the veteran actor upon the sympathies of a pleasure-lov-
ing people are as sacred as the rights of humanity ; and we
bdlieve that there are in this country few so hard of heart
as not to rejoice in opportunities of reciprocating, by well-
timed acts of benevolence, the pathos which imparted
reality to human suffering in Tragedy, and the humour
hich clothed Comedy in smiles, and Farce in laughter.