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

ted. The matter involved principles of very consider-
able importance. It related to matters which affected
individuals most severely. and which had inflic-
ted on those individuals great hardship, great
injustice, mid great wring. There were also mat-
ters connected with this subject that personally affected
himself. Though, therefore, his Noble Friend the
Noble Marquis opposite was pleased to characterise
this motion, when he gave notice of it, as an injudicious
motion, he nevertheless felt it necessary, in justice to
the individuals to whose case it referred, as well as to
himself, to bring it under consideration. In what re-
spect it was injudicious he was utterly at a lass to con-
ceive. No doubt it was very presumptuous in him to
think of questioning the infallibility of the Maltese
Commission. After the specimen their Lordships had
had of the manner in which those Commissioners had
treated certain subjects, it was no doubt great pre-
sumption in him to attempt to grapple with their acts.
It might also be very presumptuous and very injudi-
cious on his part to attempt to question the in-
fallibility of the Lords of the Treasury or the Cclo-
nial Office. But he thought that before he sat down
he should show that there was great ground of com-
plaint against the conduct of those Commissioners,
the Colonial Office, and the Lords of the Treasury, in
connection with this matter. The subject related to
the removal from office of three individuals. the Chief
Justice, who had held his office for twelve years and a
half—the Attorney-General, who had held his office
for seven years—and the Collector of the Customs,
who had held his office for upwards of five years ;
and his object was to obtain certain information with
respect to the cases of those individuals, in order that
their Lordships might see whether justice had been
dealt out to them. Those three individuals had been
cashiered without having been heard—without any
question having been asked them—without any exami-
nation having been gone into, at which they were pre-
sent, with respect to the nature of their duties, or the
manner in which they had performed those duties—or
with respect to the effects and consequences of so de-
priving them of their situations. All that was done
without affording them any opportunity of' vindicating
their conduct, and showing that the opinion of the
Commissioners was wrong. They never knew, nor did
they know at this moment, who were examined with
respect to their conduct. They had never been told
whether the evidence given against them was given by
some rival, by a personal enemy, or by a subordinate in
office ; and they might be, for aught they knew, the vic-
tims of persons who, stating things behind their backs,
had never appeared to confront them in open day. The
resolution taken by the Commissioners to remove these
gentlemen was transmitted to his Noble Friend oppo-
site without any notice to the parties concerned, so
that they had no opportunity of protesting against it, or
of taking any step to meet the first impression it was
calculated to make on his Noble Friend's mind. This
was a course of proceeding contrary to the first prin-
ciples of justice—a course never adopted towards any
persons with respect to whose offices Commissioners
had been appointed to inquire. He was astonished that
his Noble Friend should have adopted this course of
proceeding ; astonished that he should not have thought
it necessary to have asked those gentlemen if they had
any thing to say in their own defence before he pro-
ceeded to act upon the recommendation. But without
any communication with them he adopted the recom-
mendation of the Commissioners, and without more ado
cashiered the parties. But even the Commissioners
recommended in the most unequivocal manner that
those gentlemen, if removed, should not be re-
moved without a fair compensation or superan-
nuation. Those gentlemen wore removed without the
benefit of this recommendation. The recommendation
was laid down in one of the earlier reports, and em-
bodied a general principle. " That it has been the
usage in the Colonial service, to give compensation to
persons whose offices have been abolished." And then
the Commissioners went on to say—" Unless a pro-
vision of the kind were made for such persons, we our-
selves should be unwilling to recommend reduction,
which would cause so much suffering to individuals,
and her Majesty's Goverment would perhaps be un-
willing to adopt the recommendation?' He could easily
conceive that his Noble Friend was unwilling to adopt
it, but he did adopt it, and transmitted the
case to the Treasury, and no doubt recom-
mended the Treasury to give the required allowance ;
but it never occurred to him that the Treasury would
have acted with the strictness they had done.
What his Noble Friend should have done was to say to
the Treasury, if you cannot save these persons from ruin,
if you cannot give them the allowance the Commis-
sioners recommend, I will not act upon their recommen-
dation. That would have been but fair. He (Lord
Ripon) thought that what had been stated showed that
there had been great harshness practised on the segentle-
men, for they had been deprived of the opportunity of
pleading their own case. Now he wished to state to
their Lordships some of the circumstances connected
with each. The Chief Justice and the Attorney-Gene-
ral were both removed by virtue of two Reports, respec-
tively dated the 18th and 19th of April, 1838, but their
Lordships would no doubt be surprised to find that no
Reports were in existence:of those dates, that they were
not written at the time, but several months afterwards.
The real Reports the Commissioners transmitted to Go-
vernment reacheA the Colonial-office in the month of
May, and immediately engaged his Noble Friend's at-
tention, because he stated in the document he (Lord
Ripon) held in his hand, that after much consideration
he was convinced that the recommendation of the Corn-
missioners, as originally framed, could not be acted
upon without some serious inconvenience. That para-
graph, therefore, would lead persons to question the
soundness of the views of the Commissioners. The
document then went on to.say, that in consequence of
its being impossible to act upon those Reports, it was
thought advisable to call upon the Commissioners to
return to England. When the Report was concocted by
his Noble Friend opposite, the Noble and Learned Lord
on the Woolsack, and the two Commissioners, it entirely
differed from the one originally drawn up. Now this
was to him a most singular proceeding, and if allowed
would render the appointment of Commissioners use-
less. What were Commissioners for, but to give their free
and unbiassed opinion to the Crown'? If Commis-
sioners were to act as had been done in the present
instance, according to the views of the Executive
Government, the greatest injury would be inflicted
upon individuals. He thought all connected with
this case appeared to have forgotten what their relative
duties were. The Executive Government, together
with his Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack,
had made themselves responsible for that part of the
Report which stated that it was not till late years that
the Island of Malta had been governed with a regard
to the wishes of the people of the island. Now, what
he would ask justified such a censure? He was not
there to defend other Secretaries of State, but he should
like to know what he had ever done, while Secretary of
State, that would entitle him to the appellation of being
(indifferent to the wishes of the people of Malta ?
Hear, hear.) lie protested against such censures
coming from his Noble Friend on the Woolsack, be-
cause he could have no knowledge in any Government
capacity of the manner in which Malta had been go-
verned.—(Hear, hear.) After this censure the Report
went on to laud the Commissioners themselves, con-
trasting what they had done with the results
produced by former Governments, and among some of
the things on which they glorified themselves was the
celebrated law of libel which the Noble and Learned
Lord opposite had brought under the notice of their
Lordships. He (Lord Ripon) firmly believed if the
Noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, the
Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack, and the
two Commissioners had only said half as much of a petty-
fogging Maltese attorney he would have convicted them
of libel, and subjected them to six months' imprison-
ment.—(Laughter.)
Lord BROUGHAM—TweIve months: Where
there is no defamation six months, but where there is,
twelve months.—( Laughter.)
The Earl of RIPON—The Report recommended the
removal of the Chief Justice, upon the ground that the
office was useless, and that it was exorbitantly paid ;
that there was little or nothing to do, and they laid
down the principle that it was little better than a species
of robbery of the rights of the Maltese that an English
Judge should sit on the Bench. That was one of the most
surprising doctrines he had ever heard.—(Hear, hear.)
From the very moment that Malta was assigned to this
country after the peace at Paris, from that moment the
whole attention of the Government was directed to
prove the barbarous code of that country, and to infuse
the generous principles of the British law into Malta.
Could it therefore be expected that the law now esta-
blished there could be satisfactorily administered with-
out an English Judge ? Such a system, he would ven-
ture to say, however much it might be approved of at
the present day, would become odious and impractica-
ble. But it seemed from the Report that the Chief Justice
ought to be removed. Now he (Lord Ripon) would
like to know who seas the wise man in Malta that gave
evidence before the Commissioners to enable them to ar-
rive at such a conclusion. Why did they not examine Sir
John Stoddart himself on the subject ? Nobody doubted
the impartial manner in which he had performed his
duties, and it would have been but an act of justice to
that Learned Judge to have asked him his opinion of
the principle on which the Commissioners considered ho
ought to be removed. The greatest compliment had
been paid by the Secretary for the Colonies to Sir J.
Stoddart for the manner in which he had discharged
his judicial functions ; and he (Lord Ripon) was sure
that there was not a single Noble Lord in that House,
who would say that that compliment was not deserved.
—(Hear, hear.) His great talents fitted him to give
advice to the Commissioners ; and their not having
asked it, he (Lord Ripon) considered was acting most
unjustly, especially when it was recollected that the
ground on which they recommended the abolition of the
office was, that it was an usurpation of the rights of
the Maltese bar. Public servants ought not to be
treated in such a manner, when it was desirable the
public service should be properly performed. He
thought, to say the least of it, the course that had been
adopted towards Sir J. Stoddart was sharp practice.
The intimation was conveyed to him in a harsh and un-