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

EVENING EDITION.

he did not say that unless the Treasury would agree to
the compensation which he proposed, he would postpone
the abolition of the office. If his Noble Friend had never

been in office, he should have been astonished at such

a statement; but when his Noble Friend hadbeenin

office and knew the usual course of proceeding, he

really was surprised to hear him make such a state-
ment.. The question first was, ought the office to be
abolished. Assuming that it ought to be, how could
he say to the Treasury, unless they came to his scale of
compensation he would not abolish it. That was a most
preposterous proposition, which would not hear con-
sideration for a moment. With respect to .Mr.
Cumberland, he felt it painful to enter into
the subject, because he regretted the situa-
tion of that gentleman. But his Noble Friend
bad asserted that he was removed without
any foundation, and without being called on to defend
his own acts. The case of Mr. Cumberland was sim-

ply this. His situation was that of collector of the
land revenue, amounting to about 30,000/. a year.

That was collected from a multitude of small tenements.
It was essential that the officer whose duty it was to
go amongst these tenants and collect the revenue,
should at least be acquainted with the language spoken
by the tenantry, which was the Maltese language.
It was further essential that he should know
something of the manners, habits, and feelings of
the people, and also of the tenures of land —(Hear.)

t Was found that the Customs were collected by a de'-

puty collector, a Maltese and practical man, at 350/. a
year, and therefore the office of collector, at 750/., was
a sinecure, and was abolished. In the Colonial Office
there was a letter which had been addressed to him (the

Noble Lord), though he was not sure whether it was a
public or a private communication, which stated that
Mr. Cumberland had been apprised of the intention to
abolish his office, and that, from the manner in which

he had conducted himself, it was meant to recommend
that he should have a liberal compensation, but that
was a consideration for the Lords of the Treasury. So
also as to the compensation to the Chief Justice ; that
had been considered after he (the Noble Lord) had left
office, and he believed it was in contemplation to offer
him another, probably as lucrative an office. The ar-
rangement adopted under the recommendation of the
Commissioners had now been in operation for six months.
The argument of the Commissioners in favour of the
abolition of the offices was that they would undertake
to prove that the duties would be equally well and
efficiently performed by the six Judges at very mode-
rate salaries, without the seventh, the Chief Judge,
whose salary was 1,6001. a year, as they had been per-
formed by the seven. The result had proved this to
be true in every respect. In a letter from the Go-
vernor of Malta, dated the 7th of May, he stated that
the present system worked remarkably well, and that
the business had never been proceeded with in so efficient
a manner. There were, therefore, no complaints from
the Governor, none from the inhabitants of Malta,
none from any quarter except from those who had lost
their offices, and it was very natural for them to com-
plain and to make as strong a case for com-
pensation as possible. He (the Noble Lord)
had communicated with the Commissioners personally-
on the subject of their Report. That communication
related only to minor points, and subsequently their Re-
port, now on the table, was made. But,;because of that
communication, his Noble Friend opposite said he had
made himself responsible for every word in the Report.
Now, he protested against that conclusion, because he
had had nothing to do with the snaking of that Report ,
whatever. On another occasion he had been accused
of making use of the word " misgovernment." lie
might have used that word, but it was not in refer-
ence to the Home Government—it was in refer-
ence to the Maltese Government ; and although he
had the highest respect for some of the members of
that Government, :yet he did not think that he
detracted from that respect at all in avowing that there
were certain things which the Government of Malta
ought to have redressed long before it did. The faults
of the Government were not known to this Government
till 1836, and it was by no means creditable to them
to have allowed certain things to have existed
so long unredressed as they did. Reverting affairs
to the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General,
the latter gentleman had not been in Malta
for two years, therefore that of itself was a pretty good 0
proof that there was no absolute necessity for the office
of Attorney-General there, nor had any inconvenience
occurred from its abolition. The Attorney-General
left Malta in August, 1837. After having been on
the Continent for some time, he came to this
country. When he (the Noble Lord) saw him here
in the end of 1837, or beginning of 1838, he himself
informed him that it was intended to recommend the
abolition of his office. It was then competent for him
to have offered any remonstrance, or to have desired to
have been heard against the abolition ; but so far from
his taking that step, those who consulted with him in-
ferred from his statements that he thought the office of
Attorney-General in Malta was not necessary, unless
the English laws were to be introduced there. The
Attorney-General then returned to Malta on account
of his own private affairs ; and when he went there he
received from the Governor his full salary, a thing by no
means usual. Afterwards he came here again, and
asked for compensation ; and he (the Noble Lord) used
every exertion in that respect that he possibly could 't
for bins. But was it to be laid down as a principle
that no office was to be abolished without first consult-
ing the person who might be in that office before the
abolition took place ? Ha apprehended no Noble Lord
would contend for that. It was to be recollected that
the Commission which issued to Ireland when his Noble
Friend opposite was in office put an end to a great
many offices. On that occasion, a great number of per..
sons were, as a matter of course, examined, but it was
never thought necessary to ask any of the par-
ties who were in the offices that were recom-
mended to be abolished, if they agreed to the abolition.
With respect to the Chief Justice he could easily con-
ceive, although he was not told, the office was to be
abolished, yet that they should have heard from hint
what his duties were. Now that was just precisely what
the Commissioners had done. They examined the Chief
Justice as to what his views were of what his functions
ought to be, and he had given them a most luminous
opinion upon them, therefore they had obtained all the
information which the Chief Justice could give
them as to the propriety of continuing or discon-
tinuing the office. His Noble Friend had condemned
the abolition of offices without previous inquiry. Now,
with respect to that, he would ask him to refresh his
memory as to what had taken place while he was in
office. During that time Judge Burton was removed
on the ground that three judges would do as well as
four. It was true that his Noble Friend had offered
Mr. Burton a judgeship in Australia, but no questions
were put to him as to his opinion whether three judges
would do as well as four, and Mr. Burton remonstrated
against the course pursued, because he said it would
compel him to leave a climate to which he had become
inured, and remove to another less salubrious.
Notwithstanding this remonstrance, his Noble Friend
persevered, and Mr. Burton was removed. His Noble
Friend in the next place had dwelt at some length on
the utility of English lawyers in Malta, and the intro- I
duction of English laws there. Sir Thomas Maitland,
when he went to Malta made a new arrangement of
the Superior Courts there, he introduced many of the
maxims of the English law, he withdrew the law of
torture, the exemption of priests from immunities, he
instituted viva voca evidence, and Saving Banks, but it
did not appear to bins (Lord Glenelg), that because
those improvements had been introduced that therefore I
it was clear that the English lawyers were necessary in
Malta. The great question that had had been raised
with respect to Malta was, by what law it should be go-
verned. Sir John Stoddart had recommended that the
English law should be adopted, but the Noble Lord
opposite (Ripon)thought otherwise,he suggested that the
French Code should be adopted, though he now said
the English law should be preferred. Now, for his own
part, he (Lord Glenelg) thought the result had proved
that in Malta, so far as the maxims and principles of
English constitutional law was concerned, it did not re-
quire the instrumentality of English lawyers to intro-
duce it in Malta, provided only there were persons
there who understood the principles, which he believed
the Maltese lawyers did. On these grounds, he felt
bound to state to their Lordships that he thought the
measures taken, with respect to the legal appointments,
were perfectly justified ; and with respect to the com-
pensation, be had done all in his power to give it.
The LORD CHANCELLOR was anxious, in
consequence of the attack that had been made against
him by the Noble Earl, to trouble their Lordfhips with
a few words. The Noble Earl seemed to think that he
had been a party to casting a censure upon the Noble
Earl's administration ; he had done no such thing, and
as to the original Report, to which he had referred, he
could assure the Noble Earl that he had never seen it ;
and with respect to the second Report, which had been
made in consequence of the conference that had taken
place, the Noble Earl had bad as much to do
with it as he (the Lord Chancellor) had. He
should never regret having said that he was of opi-
nion that these two offices ought not to be continued.
He did not question the value of the services rendered
by these functionaries, but the question was, whether the
people did not pay too dear for those services. The
duties
?
Chief Justice held five judicial appointments ; he was
P:esident of the Court of Appeal, Superior
the Supreme Court, First Commissioner of the Court
11illeesmebevireoref
oaClflo Court, and cfiianl Judge.Csoomunndi oii
fine-sounding
toh
titles,CJudge
but f:, Piracy.htite were Vice-Admiralty
Tt e d
per annum. As
As First Commissioner of the Court of Special Corn.
mission, the Chief Justice had brought before him en
average of four indictments Judge of
the Vice-Admiralty Court he had no case brought
before him for six years ; and in the
Court of
Piracy there had been no case for five years.
Thus three out of the five wet e complete sinecures. As
President of the Court of Appeal and. Superior Commis-
sioner of the Supreme Court, his duties amount to this.
The two Courts together had certainly sat for 115 days
during the year, but the Judge had only
sat for throe
hours in each day, and for this he was paid 1,6001. a
year, while the highest pay given to a native Judge