The Sun.
London, England, 1839-08-02 00:00:00

sure had been introduced upon it durinethelGovernment
of the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, and another. by the
present Government. But he understood it was the
opinion of the Prelates of the Church that no measure re-
lative to the Ecclesiastical Courts could be satisfactory,
unless connected with the subject of Church discipline.
Now, the Bill as to Church discipline had met unex-
pectedly with great opposition and difficulty in the House
of Lords. Still it was the intention of the Government to
proceed with the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill. With regard to
the Admiralty Court, let the House consider that the
Judge was at the head of a very important branch of law,
and that the puisne Judges of other Courts received 5,0001.
each; the superior Judges, 8,0001. The Judge of the
Admiralty Court would often have to decide in time of war
questions of international law on which Stat's might be
ready to contend. Ought he not then to be a man of great
talent, learning, and experience ? Nothing could be more
unworthy or pitiable than to relinquish these important
considerations for the miserable saving of 1,0001. or so, or
to measure the salary of a Judge by the days he sat, weighing
out his merit by the pound, as it were, instead of looking
to higher and infinitely more valuable qualifications.
Sir J. GRAHAM fully concurred in this principle,
but he wished to observe that the Judge of the Arches
Court—a Court superior to the Admiralty Court—had
less than 4,0001., and was paid in a most objectionable man-
ner by fees.
Mr. C. WOOD must maintain notwithstanding all that
had been said by the Right Hon. Baronet opposite with
respect to the evidence and opinion of Sir J. Nichol, that
4,0001. a year was not too much to secure the services of
a competent Judge, and he believed he would have been
supported on that by a near relative of that late excellent
Judge had he been in his place.
Sir R. PEEL said, if the Judge of the Admiralty was
to have 4,000/. a year it would be unjust and derogatory to
the Ecclesiastical Judge not to give him a like
salary. He had come down to the House thinking
that 4,0001. a-year was not too much, and the only ques-
tion now with him was the evidence that had been given
by Sir J. Nichol. He thought the mind of that Learned
Judge was so constituted that he would rather under than
overrate the value of his talents. He thought 4,000/. a
year was not too much, and that it was a miserable eco-
nomy that did not enable the country to command the first-
rate talents for its Judges.
Mr. HUME thought the whole scale of judicial salaries
was too high.—( Hear, hear.) He contended that the
first-rate talents in the country could be procured for
3,000 t. a year. Before long, he was convinced, the whole
of the judicial salaries must be reduced, for the people
could not afford the expenses that were entailed upon
them by those officers at present. The present Judge had
taken the office at a salary of 2400/. a year, and he could
not see any reason why it should now be raised to 4,0001.
unless the Government had made a promise to the present
Learned Judge to that effect.
Mr. WA KLE Y thought they were pursuing a reckless
course, from which he did not anticipate they would recede
as long as the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tam-
worth supported the present Government, and acted as
their Protector-General against their unrelenting foes, the
Radicals.—( Cheers.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER de-
fended the increased rate of salary to the Judge of the
Admiralty Court, on the ground that a similar in-
crease had been made to a similar Judge in Ire-
land during the Administration of the Right Ho-
nourable Baronet the Member for Tamworth.—( Hear.)
Sir ROBERT PE EL said that although be had no
confidence in the Government, yet if they adopted prin-
ciples of which he approved, he would rather support
them in those principles that form a factious union with
the Radicals. He had advocated an increase in the sala-
ries of the Judges, when in power, and he would not desert
his principles. The unanimous impression of himself and
his friends was that 4,0001 a-year was not too much.
Mr. AG LIONB Y had understood the Right Hon.
Baronet to state that before he came down to the House
he had been prepared to vote for 4,0001. a year; but that
since he had been in the House he had heard the state-
ments of Sir John Nichol, and had in consequence con-
sidered 3,0001. a year sufficient.—( No, no.) He had cer-
tainly understood the Right Hon. Baronet to say, that
had he been in office, he should have been held to 3,0001.
a year.

Mr. T. ATT WOOD wished to know what were the
salaries of the Judges in the year 1797. As the Right
lion. Baronet had restored the metallic level, why ought
not the salaries to be restored to the same level ?

Mr. C. WOOD said the salary of the Admiralty Judge
to 1797 was 4,5001. a year, and he had a retiring pension
of 2,000/. a year.--( A laugh.)
Mr. WALLACE had expected when he came down to
the House that all the official Members would vote for the
increase, and he did not think he should be disappointed.
Mr. WILLIAMS wished to know the amount of the
fees and emoluments.

Mr. HAWE S thought the Judge of the Court of Ad-
miralty should be placed upon the same footing as to
Salary as the Puisne Judges, and that would make it about
4,0001. a year.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared--
For the clause
Against it 35
Majority in favour of the clause —45
Mr. HUME moved the following addition to the clause,
" Acid be it further enacted, that any such Judge, here-
after to be appointed, shall, during his continuance
office as Judge, be incapable of being elected or sitting
as a Member of the House of Commons. He had
originally intended to apply it to the present occu-
pant of the office, but as he had been elected since his
appointment Ito kthat office , he did not think it would be
quite fair, and therefore ho should only propose it to have
a prospective operation.
Mr. HOWARD—As the proposition was now divested
of its personal character, would second the motion.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL objected to the proposition,
on the ground that in principle these exclusions were
generally bad, as tending to deprive the House of Com-
mons of the services of men of talent. He had, after con-
siderable deliberation, consented to vote for the exclusion
f the Commissioner of Police, because his peculiar duties
might interfere with his legislatorial functions. He
thought there was no reason why the House should be
deprived of the benefit of the opinion either of the Master
of the Rolls, or of the Judge of the Admiralty Court.
Some of the most accomplished men who had ever sat in
that House had held these offices. Would it have been ad-
vantageous that the House should have been deprived of
the services either of Sir William Grant or of Sir J. Scott,
two of the most eminent men who had ever sat in that House ?
If the people of the Tower Hamlets were deprived of the
benefit of having their present distinguished representative
in the House, it would be a great hardship and loss to that
particular constituency and the public in general. There
was no reason► to suspect that the judicial position held by
Sir J. Scott and Sir W. Grant, ever tended to corrupt
their votes. Again, stating that the House and the public
would lose much by the exclusion of such judicial officers
from the House, he should oppose the proposition.
Sir R. PE EL did not think that the wishes of a con-
stituency to have a Judge in Parliament should be deci-
sive. He thought it better that Judges should be removed
from the excitement of political contests. He did not
think that a seat in Parliament would corrupt the deci-
sions of a Judge on the bench ; he might doubtlessly be
as unbiassed as before, but his decisions would not receive
the public confidence to the fullest extent. Another dis-
advantage from having international judges in the House
was the probability that in the ardour of debate their
speeches in the House would, in a great degree anticipate
their decisions in the Court. If it did not, then their speeches
must be made with reserve, and their opinions would not
be of much value to the House. He recollected with
what reserve Sir W. Grant and Sir J. Scott used to give
their opinions.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL thought the same
argument would apply to his Hon. and Learned Friend,
the Recorder of the City of London—( Hear, hear,
hear)—the Member for the University of Dublin—
and Chairmen of Quarter Sessions.--( Hear, hear, and
laughter.) Where would this question of the incompa-
tibility of judicial and legislative duties stop ? It would
extend to Masters in Chancery, the Master of the Rolls,
and many other officers. He thought it was of the
greatest importance that they should have an eminent
civilian in the House. He opposed the preposition.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM supported the proposition.
How equivocal would be the position which his Right Hon.
Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets would occupy
when he had, as no doubt he frequently should have, to
adjudicate, especially in war, in cases in which his consti-
tuents, amongst whom he had often boasted were the first
shipowners of England, should be concerned? He thought
also it might frequently happen that a Judge of the Ad-
miralty might give an opinion in a ease formed upon
imperfect evidence, which, after mature consideration,
he should have to rescind, or in the imperfection
of human nature, to defend sooner than let it be seen that
he had formed a wrong judgment. The evidence of Sir
J. Nichol, who had been 30 years in Parliament, said
his experience was against permitting a Judge to have a
seat in that House. He did not mean to question the seat
of the Right Hon. Gentleman in this Parliament, but be
would exclude him from future Parliaments while he
should hold his present office.
Sir S. LUSH INGT ON had never entertained any doubt
upon this question, because the judgment be had formed
from his earliest days was, that all disqualifications were to
be avoided where there was free representation.—( Hear.)
The only ground of disqualification where a constituency
could be depended upon was,where the party stated eitherfrom
distance or some other circumstances, could not efficiently
perform his duty. The ground upon which the Common
Law Judges were excluded from that House was, that
they were liable to be called upon to assist the House of
Lords, which would be incompatible with a seat in the
House of Commons. There was equal objection to the
Master of the Rolls sitting in that House ; as to
the Judge of the Admiralty, he assisted the Privy
Council, as well as the latter Judge ; , and as
to the statement that the Judge of the Ecclesiastical Court
should be also excluded, Hon. Members who made that
statement, should recollect that Mr. Vernon, who was at
the head of the Perogative Court in York, had a seat in
that House.—( Hear, hear.) He cared not for himself,
but if the principle of exclusion was to be applied to
one Judge, let it be carried out to its full extent, and let
every Gentleman who held a judicial situation be ex-
cluded.—( Hear, bear.) Let nothing be done by peace-
meal, but let a general Bill be brought in, and let it
apply to the Master of the Rolls, and all other
Judges. But could such a measure be justifi-
able or constitutional ?—( Hear, hear, hear. )' What
injury, he would ask, had resulted in past days from admit-
ting Judges to sit in Parliament ? Now he prayed there-
fore the House to pause before it adopted the proposition
contained in the clause. He cared not for himself, the
case was not his own, but those who might follow him ;
and therefore it was that he could not allow the present
opportunity to pass without making a few observations.
Mr. VILL IE R S was against the exclusion of the Judge
of the Admiralty Court from a seat in that House. If
the principle of exclusion was carried out to the full it
would apply to the whole House of Lords.—( Hear.)
Every Peer was a Judge in the highest Court
of Judicature in the country.— ( Hear, hear, hear.)
They bad as yet experienced no inconvenience from