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

understand the Conduct of the Board of Directors

who said they would carry out the the dispatch of 1t:333,
but who accepted the resignation of Sir Peregrine Mait-
land only because they refused tocarry out that dispatch.
—(Hear, hear.) He thought their Lordships ought
fully to know the grounds on which that Gallant
Officer's resignation was accepted.
He felt grateful to the Most Rev. Prelate for the man-
ner in which he had brought forward the subject.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said that when
he was in India, the army, with the exception of about
50,000 British troops, consisted of idolaters. They were
as good soldiers as could be found anywhere. They per-
formed the best services that could be required from
them, and at that time the object of the Government,
and of every man concerned in serving the Govern-
ment was, to avoid not only to interfere, but to appear
to interfere, in any manner whatever in the idolatrous
religion of the natives of that country. He had not
seen any of these dispatches, and knew nothing of
them, except from the discussion which he had heard,
Lordships never to lose sight of these
He begged their Lordshi
facts. He had seen Missionaries at work, and the no
progress which they hajealousy. He warned the
had made, and that they created
a
was of great importance
Government
considerable
th
adegthat
orleaet of
empire
to this country, and we must not expect to convert
these hundred millions of idolaters to our holy reli-
gion by the small means in our power. With respect
to what had been said of the Gallant Officer who re-
cently commanded there, he no doubt resigned his
command, as any other honourable man would have
done, because he could not perform that which was
required of him. Under these circumstances he thought
the Noble Viscount was quite right in refusing to . pro-
duce the dispatch.
The Bishop of LONDON replied,stattn,g that after
what had been said by the Noble Duke be should not
press for the dispatch which was objected to.
After a few remarks Lord
from LISMORE in
of Sirde-
fence Pezegrinc Maitland, the other-dispatches
were ordered.
ADMIRALTY COURT BILL. •
On the Order of the Day beinir relictfor the Meuse
going-into Committee on the Admiralty Court Bill,

R‘rENTING RRITION.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the Bill
vvzs so simple in its nature that he should. be able to
state very shortly its object. This Court was not only
important in time of war, but it had most important
duties to perform in time of peace, although those duties
were tien comparatively light. It was of importance
there should be a Judge in the Admiralty Court ready
to undertake the duties of that Court in thcs event of
war breaking out, and the authority which that Court
justly possessed hal been obtained by having at
the head of it men of the greatest learning
and ability, who had devoted themselves to the
law of this and of other countries. To maintain
the high character of the Court was a paramount duly
with the Legislature of this country, and he wished to
impress their Lordships with the importance of adopting
such regulations to maintain the Court in the time of
peace as would secure its efficacy in the event of war
breaking out. The duties of the Admiralty Court
were the most important that could be performed by a
civilian. He would call their Lordships' attention to the
opinions of Sir John Nicholl and Sir Herbert Jenner,
who said that there were matters of great importance
before the Admiralty Court for adjudication in a national
point of view, because the questions there decided might
have a tendency to involve this country in war with
other nations. Now, that being so, he would state how '
that Court was constituted as to the remuneration
of the important officers that conducted the busi-
ness of the Court. The office of Judge was
certainly that of the most importance. But there
were two other officers, the Register and the
Marshal. In former times the income of the
Judge was paid almost entirely by fees. The income,
as it now stood, was 2,500/. a-year ; but if a war were
to break out the Judge would have, in addition to the
salary, certain fees, which would arise from the business
transacted ; aad it appeared from the evidence of Sir
John Nicholl, that at one period the income amounted
to 5,700/, and in another series of years to 5,8001. He
did not believe that any Judge would involve the
country in a war in order to increase his fees. His
object now was not to guard against that, but to show
the importance of the question before their Lordships.
There was a great difference between the income in the
time of war and in the time of peace. In the time of
war he did not think it too large. It was quite obvious
that the nature of the duties required a permanent esta-
blishment during peace as well as war, and the salary
should be so fixed as to enable the country
to command the services of the most experienced
and able men. The present 8,11 proposed to abolish
all fees, and to give a permanent salary of
4,000/. a-year, being considerably less than that re-
ceived by the puisne judges of the country. The dis-
p irity between the income and fees of the Register was
still more striking. In time of war the income amounted
to 12,000/., and in time of peace to 100/. But it was
-essectiAl to have an officer of that character. The Bill
proposed that he should have 1,400/. a year in time of
peace, and there would be a power to raise that in case
of war, by the Government, on the application of the
Judge, to an amount not exceeding 2,000/. a year. But
the Bill had still more important objects ; it proposed to
add in some respects to the Court's jurisdiction, and im-
prove the machinery for the' performance of its duties.
There were many matters over which the Court
had now only a limited jurisdiction, and with respect to
which great inconvenience was consequently felt ; for
instance, the Court could decide, with regard to a ves-
sel, points between owner and captain, but could
not adjudicate on questions of title. So as to seamen's
wages—when there was any contract, particularly if
sealed, the Court had no jurisdiction. In such cases
the Bill would extend the power of the Court. It was
proposed also to give the Court power to adjudicate on
cases of booty, when referred to it. With respect to
evidence, facilities were given for the examination of
witnesses viva voce.

Lord LYNDHURST said be agreed entirely that
the Bill was one of great importance, and'connected
with a subject of great intricacy and difficulty ; and he
thought he could satisfy their Lordships that a Bill in-
volving so many considerations was not a fit measure to
be discussed at this period of the Session. The
parties themselves who had introduced the Bill were
of that opinion evidently, for it was founded
on the Report of a Committee of the House of Com-
mons, made so far back as 1833—six years ago—
(Hear, hear)—it had not been committed till July 1.5,
and came before their Lordships on the 6th August.—
(Hear, hear.) Could such a Bill be discussed, either, in
the absence of the Noble Lords who presided over the
Courts of Law ?—(Hear, hear.) There were some
points, in the Bill to which (though he• assented to the
amount of the Judges' salary) he entirely objected—
particularly to giving the Court of Admiralty power to
decide questions on contracts for seamen's wages. 'No-
thing could be more summary and effective than the
Common Law proceedings in those cases, which were
promptly decided by a jury, whereas, in the Ad-
miralty Court, the expense was enormous. In one
case lately occurring, a mate, who had grossly
misconducted himself, sued the Captain for
70/. wages, refused on
.• account of that misconduct.
The captain succeeded. He had, however, to pay 180/.
costs.—( Hear, hear.) The mate, nevertheless, ap-
pealed, the original judgment *as afHrmed, but the
unfortunate Captain had to pay, in the whole, 3901.
costs.—(Hear, hear.) Believing that the extensive
and momentous points connected with this' Bill could
not at this late period of the Session be justly and
properly discussed, he moved that it be committed
that day three months.

Lord .I3ROUG HAM said he had repeatedly urged
the Government to bring forward a measure-remming
the Court of Admiralty from that odious position
which it at present occupied, of being paid by a
casual vote in the Navy Estimates. But he considered
that the Judge, as he was independent of
.the Crown,
should be equally independent of party contests
in the House of Commons.—( Hear, hear.) He would
just observe as to the salary, that 4,0001. for twenty-
eight days' work was the best office in the country ;
considering too that the other ten or eleven months in
the year the Judge might devote himself to the work of
a political partisan ; and this he would say, that there
was not a more regular—a more constant—a more
zealous—a more useful—and, to the Treasury, a more
available member of his party than his Right Hon.,
excellent, and Learned Friend, the Judge of this Court
—(Hear, hear)—Member for the Tower Hamlets,
from which most of the cases he would have to try
would issue—Member of the House of Commons, en-
gaged in political debates,
often connected with the
subject matter on which he would have to decide—one
of the authors, for instance, of the Portuguese Slave
Bill, the questions under which must come before
him for judgment, and how would the Portuguese
believe that they had a fair trial ? The Bill also gave
the Judge a great extent of patronage, which was most
objectionable. Under all these circumstances he thought
the Bill far too important to be discussed in the last
week of the Session.—(A Peer—" Is it the last ?")
He trusted that it was—(Laughter)—and be therefore
supported the proposition of his Noble and Learned
Friend.
Lord LYNDHURST observed that the Learned
Judge of this Court had himself described the office as
that of a political Judge. To make it that of a party
Judge was monstrous.—(Hear.)
Lord WYN FORD was very inaudible. He made
the same objection to this Bill that he had done to a
Bill the other day, that it would send causes for trial to
the Admiralty Court before there was any machinery
provided for trying them. He thought the Bill ought
to be referred to a Committee up stairs, as these altera-
tions ought not to be decided on without deliberation ;
he would, therefore, support the amendment of his
Noble and Learned Friend.

Viscount MELBOURNE was not surprised at the
Noble and Learned Lords on the other side the House
objecting to this Bill, but he was surprised at his Noble
and Learned Friend—indeed his Noble and Learned
Friend seemed almost surprised at himself; and urged
his opposition as if he was almost ashamed of .
(Hear, hear.) The Noble and Learned Lord had, dur-
ing nearly half the Session, urged the want of this Bill,
and bad repeatedly said that it was scandalous that the
Judge of the Admiralty Court should be paid by a vote
of the House of Commons ; and when a meas'ire was
proposed to remedy. these evils the Noble and Learned
Lord objected to It: The Noble Lord had urged in de-
fence of his opposition the lateness of the Session, and
he also objected to the Bill that it conferred patronage
on the Judge. It might be said that a Judge ought not
to possess any patronage ; but if the possession of it was
so •ei
tr
uy
aobjectionable,tnof the Noblel and Learnedod when
l eeouldnotbutpitierxeeedingly
the she
sat upon the Woolsack, as he then certainly possessed
the largest share of patronage of any man in the country.
----(Cheers and laughter.) It was also urged as an ob-
jection that the Judge was to make rules for the regula-
tion of his Court. Did not all Judges make rules for the
regulation of their Court's ? But the great objection of all
seemed to be the omission of a clause preventing the Judge
from sitting in the House of Commons. Indeed he had
said he never would consent to the Bill,unless the Judge
were excluded from the House of Commons. He was
greatly surprised to hear the Noble and Learned Lord
opposite adopting this objection. The Judge. of the
Admiralty Court had hitherto always been eligib.le to a
seat in the House of Commons, and he thought was
advantageous to have him in that situation, as his pre-
sence might be calculated to impart a gravity to the
deliberations of that House, which the Noble and
Learned Lord might perhaps be of opinion had been
wanting on some occasions.—( Hear, from Lord Lynd-
hurst.) Tiiis Judge was conversant with the law of
nations, and with the laws of other countries ; and the
information he was enabled to afford might frequently
be of great assistance to the deliberations of the House
of Commons. The principle of the Constitution was
not that of the exclusion of the Judges from.the House
of Commons. The Judges of Westminster Hall were
excluded because they were considered as servants to
their Lordships, but not on any other principle ; and
although be certainly would not make there eligible now,
he would not wish to extend the principle" of exclusion
any further. The Noble.and Learned -Lord seemed to
I think it improper that a Judge should represent a
I large constituency. A small constituency, accord.

EWSP)

"••

_.
~~~