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

pies well, as did most English lawyers, and that went
a great way, because in almost all cases he was
merely a Judge on appeals, Were the principle good,
why were their Lordships allowed to sit in appeals in-
volving the very nicest points of Scotch law ? The
Commissioners would not hear of it for a moment. But
what he wanted was perfect justice—perfect purity on
the Bench, and he thought it was absolutely necessary to
have an English Judge of appeal over the six Maltese
Judges. He considered it ill advised to have adopted
the opinion of these Commissioners. The responsibility
was entirely on the Government, and he considered
all experience was against their recommendation of
abolishing the offices of Chief Justice and Attorney-
General.
Lord NORMANB Y said, at this late hour there
were only one or two points on which he would trouble
their Lordships. The result of the recommendation
had been to give satisfaction to the people of Malta.
With regard to the case of Mr. Cumberland,he had had
the pleasure of knowing that gentleman early in life,
and entertained nothing but feelings of kindness to-
wards him. The remuneration which was to be gives
to him had been made previous to his assuming his
present office. His Noble Friend had referred to his
having written to him (Lord N.) He was sorry that
his Noble Friend had brought the subject before the
house, because he could not hut say that he thought
the original appointment of Mr. Cumberland was inju-
dicious. He had none of the qualifications necessary
to the efficient discharge of the duties of his office. It
bad been said that Mr. Cumberland had not been in-
formed of the intention to remove him from his office.
He certainly was informed that there had been an in-
quiry as to the duties of the office. The report stated
that Mr. Cumberland, the present collector, was per-
fectly inefficient—that it was notorious not only to the
subordinate officers, but even to the public at large,
and that he did not perform the substantial
duties of his office. It appeared that he never
had transacted the duties of his office, but
that they were performed by deputy for a small portion
of the remuneration which he received. When he recol-
lected that there were 23,000/. collected from small tene-
ments, it was obvious that a gentleman of Mr. Cumber-
land's habits was ill-fitted for the situation conferred
upon him. He could not consider Mr. Cumberland an
unfortunate man, but a fortunate man in having had
such an office conferred upon him ; for he had suffered
no detriment, but had enjoyed for six years the income
of an office the duties of which he had not discharged.
A great deal had been said about the removal of Sir
John Stoddart and Mr, Langston, but there had been
some misrepresentation of the fact, or the statements
would not have been made. As to the necessity of an
Eneli,h lawyer presiding, it ought to be an English law-
yer accustomed to such courts ; but Sir John Stoddart
was a civilian, and as to Mr. Langston, he could not con-
sider himself as injured in his (the Marquis of N.'s)
estimation, because he (the Marquis of Normanby)
had since made him several offers, which he should
not have made to a person whose character had been af-
fected by anything which had taken place before. Every
effort should be made to raise the Maltese population,
and for that purpose the object had been to do away
with needless offices. He was sorry that this case had
pressed hardly on Mr. Cumberland, and the letter from
the Treasury was not intended to be offensive or inju-
rious to him. He (the Noble Marquis) had done all
be could for him in his recommendation of him to the
Treasury, but he was not competent for the office he
had held. He agreed with the Noble and Learned
Lord near him, that it required more time to test the
good working of this system. At present, with the
approbation of the Governor in favour of it, he was not
prepared to recommend any alteration. He should al-
ways be happy to employ the Chief Justice and the
Attorney-General in any office that might open for them.
Lord BROUGHAM explained.
Lord MELBOURNE could not but think the
Noble Lord opposite had allowed his feelings to run
away with him on this occasion, and that he had argued
the question as if he had thought these offices were
filled, not for the benefit of the public, but of the par-
ties put into them. His Noble and Learned Friend
had argued it on a much more comprehensive scale, but
it was not his intention to follow either through their
arguments. He had only to make one observation or
two as to that which more particularly related to his
own department, namely, the compensation that had
been allowed. It had been said the Treasury had
been very hard. It was all very well to talk of libe-
rality or parsimony on these cases, but it ought to be
remembered such terms were not applicable, because
the funds were the public funds. It was likewise to be
remembered that the statute of the 4th and .sth William
IV., chap. 24, settled the amounts of compensation,
and the years for which they were to be given. It
settled that for ten years' service four-twelfths of
the salary should be given, and that was the exact
amount that had been awarded to the Chief Justice.
That was the largest compensation that could have
been given to him, if he had even been employed here.
The Attorney-General had not held his office for ten
years ; and the arrangement at the Treasury was, that
he should have one year's salary awarded to him, and
that in the meantime, in all probability, he should be
able to have offered to him some office in which, in
the prime of his life, he could make his talents useful,
and which would, he had no doubt, be more acceptable
to him, than that he should have to pass his time with-
out occupation. As to the case of Mr, Cumber-
land, his case was to be regretted, but still there
were many others of the same sort. He did not wisl
to advert to the letter from the Treasury more parti-
cularly. In his opinion it would have been better had
that letter not been made public at all. But while Mr.
Cumberland's case was held up as a hard case, and
one calculated to call for public sympathy, the Noble
Lord ought not to wish to have it represented (as that
was contrary to the fact) that 100/. was all the com-
pensation that was to be considered as coming to him.
Earl RIPON made a few observations in reply, in
which he contended that Mr. Cumberland had been
perfectly competent for the duties of his office—that he
had discharged them properly, and that in short he had
been an ill-used man.

The motion for the production of the papers was
then agreed to, and the House adjourned at Eleven
o'clock.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.

TATTERSALL'S7—(YESTERDAY.)
GOODWOOD CUP.
6 to 1 agst Mr. Holdsworth na. Deception—offered
; to 1 agst Mr. ,Ferguson's llarkaway—taken
6 to 1 agst Lord Westminster's Richard Roe—taken
10 to 1 agst Mr. St. Paul's Galewood—taken
15 to 1 agst Mr. Ramsay's, The Doctor—taken
THE GOODWOOD STAKES.
10 to 1 agst Lord Mayor
14 to I agst Mr. Radcliffe's Wee Willie—taken
16 to 1 agst Humphrey Clinker—taken
20 to 1 agst Hooghley—taken
20 to I agst Mr. A. Pearson's Romania—taken
to 1 agst f. by Merchant, out of Turquoise—taken
20 to 1 agst Prizeflower—taken
25 to I agst Albemarle
25 to I agst Lord Eglintoun's St. Andrew--taken
25 to 1 agst Confusionee—taken
40 to 1 agst Chit Chat—taken
500 to 15 agst Barnacles—taken
500 to 15 agst Ruby—taken
1000 to 30 agst Mervan—taken
ST. LEGEIt.
3 to I agst Bloomsbury
12 to 1 agst Bolus—offered
15 to I agst The Commodore—offered
15 to 1 agst The Provost—taken
15 to I agst Charles the Twelfth—taken
25 to 1 agst Marquis of Westminster's Lord Mayor—taken
30 to 1 agst Hetman Platoff—offered
JULY STAKES.
3 to 1 agst Hellespont
5 to 1 agst Margaret—taken
5 to 1 agst Crucifix—taken
7 to I agst St. Preux—taken
6 to I agst Stamboul—taken
10 to 1 agst Liffy—offered
The room was crowded, but the betting was not brisk.

LONDON :
FRIDAY, JUNE 28, 1839.

In the Lords last night the Bishop of GLOUCESTER
took the opportunity of presenting some petitions against
the Church Discipline Bill, to deny that he had insti-
gated the clergy of his diocese-to. petition against the
Dill.

The Marquis of WESTMINSTER, on presenting a peti
tion in favour of the Ballot, strongly recommended that
plan.

The Duke of WELLINGTON, on presentLig a peti-
tion against the Blackwell Railway Bill, announced that
he should oppose the second reading of that Bill.
The Marquis of NORMANBY fixed this day for the
second reading of the Jamaica Bill.
The Earl of WINCHILSEA, on presenting a pe-
tition against appointing Catholic chaplains to gaols,
opened his Protestant battery against that measure,
which he declared would never pass through the Peers.
The third reading of the Usury Laws Bill wag post-
poned till this day, in order to enable the House to
consider some amendments to be proposed in it by the
Marquis of LANSDOWNE.
The High Sheriffs' Expenses Bill, intended to regu-
late those expenses, and throw them on the county
rate, instead of making the High Sheriff defray them
out of his own pocket, was thrown out. The Duke of
RICHMOND contended that gentlemen should pay for
the honour of being High Sheriff, and to throw the
expense of the office on the county-rates, would be
making the poor pay for the rich. The Earl of WIN-
CHILSEA and the Marquis of LANSDOWNE were of the
same opinion. Lord CoLnonNu consented to the amend-
ment, as he had no chance of carrying the Bill. If the
office of High Sheriff be necessary for the public service
the public ought to pay the officer, if it be not, the office
ought to be abolished.
The Earl of Rios brought under the notice of
their Lordships the cases of the Chief Justice,
the Attorney-General, and the Collector of the Land
Revenue at Malta, each of whom had held his office for
a considerable number of years, and all of whom had
been cashiered unjustly, and without compensation. The
Noble Earl complained of this as inflicting a great hard-
ship on those individuals. He also said that the Report
of the Commissioners had been concocted by the
Goverment at home,and differed from the original Report.
The facts, on the Noble Earl's showing, seem to be,
that three gentlemen who held useless offices had been
dismissed without receiving, as they expected, large
annual pensions from the country to enable them to
live in affluence on the labour of others.
Lord GLENELG disposed of the whole case in the
first sentence, when he said that the abolition of an
office was not cashiering or affronting the hol-
der of it. The Collectorship of the Land Re-
venue was a complete sinecure, the duties being
done by a deputy. The situation of Chief Justice
was not wanted, for since the office was abolished jus-
tice had been administered more promptly and satisfac-
torily than before. He denied that he had concocted
the Report, though he admitted that he conferred with
the Commissioners on minor points. The Noble Lord
made out a good case for himself, by proving that he
had studied the public interest by removing the three
individuals in question.
The LORD CHANCELLOR showed that Lord RIPON
was wrong. Lord BROUGHAM supported Lord
RIPON'S views. The Marquis of NORMANDY defended
his part of the transaction ; the papers moved for were
ordered, and their Lordships adjourned.
In the Commons a brief conversation took place as
to the public business, which looks as if the end of the
Session were not far off.

Mr. LABOUCHERE stated, in answer to Dr. LUSHING-
TON, that the Legislatures of Barbadoes and St. Vin-
cent had passed vagrant and contract laws, conformably
to the Orders in Council.
The Report on the vote for education was agreed to
without any further division, the Tories being satisfied
that they could not lessen the majority of two. A
few observations were made on the misappropriation of
charitable bequests, which is a scandal to the guar-
dians of the commonwealth.
The House was occupied the greater part of the
evening with the Beer Bill (Mr. PACKINGTON'S), in
Committee. It was a far more interesting subject than
peopling the Colonies, and the House was crowded with
'Squires. A good deal of discussion, and two divisions
took place ; by the first the first clause was rejected,
and by the second, an amendment proposed by Lord
SANDON was got rid of. The CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER moved a whole series of new clauses,
which makes the Bill a different measure. The House
then resumed, in order to take these clauses into con-
sideration on a future day.
The Sugar Duties' Bill was afterwards forwarded a
stage.
The Removal of Electors Bill was read a third time
and passed, after a division, in which the numbers were
137 to 122.

A Short Debate took place on the Register of
Births, etc., Bill, which was ordered to be read a third
time on Saturday. The other Orders of the Day were