The Sun.
London, England, 1830-05-24 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT'.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
(Concluded from our Paper of Saturday.)
SIR JONAH BARRINGTON.

Sir C. WETHERELL was of opinion that to
acoede to the proposition that the House could only
act on the verdict of a Jury in a case like this,would
be virtually to surrender the powers they lawfully
possessed. There was another question, namely,
whether the proceedings before the Committee
were such that that House could not act judicially
upon them ? On that question he had considerable
doubt, which induced him to wish that the resolu-
tion of the Noble Lord might not be pressed to a
division at that moment. The doubts he enter-
tained were, whether the House ought not to follow
up its usual practice of having Counsel at the bar
before it acted judicially on a question of this sort.
In cases of bribery at elections, and in those affect-
ing the removal of a public Minister—as, for in-
stance, in the case of the Duke of York—the Mem-
bers of the House examined witnesses at their own
bar, not that they dotilited for one moment what the
Committee reported, but as each individual in the
House was to act as a Judge, he thought himself
bound to hear the evidence on which he should af-
terwards give judgment. For this reason he wished
to take time to consider of the resolution now pro-
posed by the Noble Lord.
Mr. H. BATLEY supported the application of
the Learned Counsel.
Mr. C. WYNN doubted the correctness of the
opinion of Sir C. Wetherell, that it was the uni-
form practice of the House to take evidence at the
bar on proceedings of this kind. In the case of
Lord Melville the evidence was taken before the
Commissioners; and then before the Committee, and
the House 'of Commons did not hear witnesses at
their bar. In all cases of privilege, too, the matter
was referred to a Committee, who made their re-
port on evidence furnished to them, and on that re-
port the House acted and awarded the punishment.
Surely that was acting in a judicial capacity on the
report of a Committee. In the present case every
possible; indulgence had been shown to the peti-
tioner—every favour he asked was conceded ; and
since the report had been made, a delay of nearly a
year and a half had occurred before any step had
been taken to enforce its recommendations. He
must say that that delay was disgraceful to the
House. The petitioner now expressed an anxious
wish to be personally examined. He had expressed
the same wish to the Committee, yet he had never
attended them. He wrote a letter to the Noble
Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, urging the pro-
priety of his being personally examined on this ques-
tion, an examination which he said " could only be
made with effect before a Committee of Parlia-
ment." Yet after that he never attended the Com-
mittee. The Committee wished him to attend
them, if he attended at all, of his own accord, in
order that it might not appear they compelled him
to come before them, but he himself requested them
to summon him, in order that by appearing on their
summons he might be protected from any legal pro-
cess. And yet, after all that, he never came before
them. If the evidence taken before the Committee
upon the case of Sir J. Barrington had been of a
conflicting nature, or if he thought that any thing
important could be elicited by cross-examination, he
might, perhaps, be in favour of a further inquiry at
the bar. The ease, however, depended upon undis-
puted documents, and without the oral testimony of
a single witness, it was fully established. He, there-
fore, saw no reason for going through the facts a se-
cond time.

Mr. D. W. HARVEY doubted the judiciousness
of the course adopted by the Learned Counsel in
taking the high ground he had taken, because it was
directly opposed to the provisions of an Act of Par-
liament, which had clothed the House with the
power of proceeding by Address, in conjunction
with the Lords, for the removal of any Judge. The
question vas, whether the Registrar was justified in
the mode in which he had disposed of the money.
One of the principal sources of his emolument was
the use of this money of the suitors, and who was
to say that the Judge of the Court was the only
person who might not borrow it ? It seemed to
him (Mr. Harvey), therefore, that Sir Jonah Bar-
rington might borrow the money of the officer of
the Court, although at the same time, it might be
disgriiceful to the administration of justice in Ire-
land, that the matter had for eleven years been
neglected. An Address from the Howe was one
of the most permanent and indelible stigmas that
could rest upon the character of any individual, and
it was not because Sir J. Barrington, weakened by
age, and withered by infirmities, was anxious to re-
tire from public life, and to sink into obscurity, that
that stigma was of no importance to him. It
seemed to him (Mr. Harvey) . that the House was
called upon, not only by the request of Sir J. Bar-
rington, but by a sense of its own duty, to summon
Sir J. Barrington to the bar, and toexamine him as
to the facts. It appeared distinctly, with regard to
one of the sums m question, that the 2001. borrowed
had been laid out in public securities.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL referred to the
evidence before the Committee, to show that the
200/. had not been invested in public securities;
but that it had been withdrawn from the funds of
the Court, and rulers, by Sir J. Barrington, who
had not been able to prevail upon the Registrar to
join with him in misrepresenting the fact, and ac-
cepting a bond for the money.
Mr. WYNN further adverted to the same trans-
action, and denied altogether the doctrine that a
Judge could be permitted even to borrow money de-
posited in the hands of the Registrar, forlthe benefit
of the suitors. As to the mode in which Sir J.
Barrington had borrowed the sums he had obtained,
it much resembled the mode of borrowing of the
gentlemen, who, in former times, were in the habit
of frequenting Houwlow-heath.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL called the at-
tention of the House to the undefiled fact that Sir
J. Barrington had ordered the money of the suitors
to be paid by the Registrar into his bankers, and
had then drawn it out upon his own account.
Sir R. INGLIS observed that the case, as made
out upon the report of the Select Committee, was
quite clear, and sufficient to warrant the House in
proceeding without further information. As to the
plea to the jurisdiction of the House, it seemed to
him that, even had it been well founded, it was
made in too late a stage of the proceedings.
Sir ROBERT PEEL adverted, first, to the
proposal of his Hon. and Gallant Friend, that all
further proceeding should be abandoned by the
House, in order that a prosecution might be insti-
tuted against Sir J. Barrington, and that Parliament
should be governed by the result of that criminal
inquiry. He (Sir Robert Peel) could not acquiesce
in any such recommendation; he would not leave it
to a Court of Law to decide whether Sir J. Bar-
rington had or had not committed a legal offence.
The advantage of the law giving independence to
the Judges was qualified by many disadvantages.
No doubt, on the whole, it was better that the Judge
should be independent of the Crown ; but if, pre-
suming on that independence, they neglected their
duty, the public, by the operation of the statute,
suffered a material injury. A Judge might commit
many acts of immorality and indecency not
cognizable as crimes in a Court of Law, which
would fully disqualify him for the discharge of his
official functions, and warrant the House in address-