The Sun.
London, England, 1830-05-24 00:00:00

LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, MAY 24, 1830.

ing the Crown for his removal. He might depart
the realm, arid leave his place vacant, or, from ex-
treme age, he might be notoriously unfit to retain
his appointment; and was it tb be permitted thit.:
'ounding himself upon the independence of the
Judges, he should continue to receive Iris salary.?
Neither was Parliament to be bound by the techni-
calities of Courts of Justice with regard to matters
of evidence. The next question was, whether the
House could proceed upon the report of its
Select Committee, without hearing further evi-
dence at the bar? He thought it could, and
if the testimony taken before these delegated
bodies were of no value, it would be far better
never to appoint a Select Committee. The evi-
dence, on which he felt competent to decide upon
the guilt of Sir J. Barrington, was documentary,
and as 'no explanation had been attempted to be
given of any of the documents, his mind was im-
pressed with a moral conviction that Sir J. Barring-
ton had been guilty of acts whiCh disqualified him
for continuing in the situation of a Judge. He did
net see the necessity for further investigation, arid
he should receive with reluctance and weariness any
suggestion that would have the effect of deferring a
decision until a future Session of Parliament. At
the same time he deeply regretted the necessity of
inflicting so severe a sentence upon a gentleman
holding a high oflice belonging to an honourable pro-
fession, arid who had now reached a very advanced
age. It seemed to him impossible for the House
to avoid a proceeding which, while it showed that it
was the sole authority to effect the removal of a
Judge, would mark with severe reprobation the acts
imputed, and of which he was sorry to say there
existed sufficient proof.

Sir 11. WILSON should move that Sir J. Bar-
rington be called to the bar, and asked the nature
of the evidence he was desirous to produce.
Lord F. L. GOWER was opposed to any fur-
ther delay.

Mr. X. DAWSON thought that delay ought to
be allowed.

Mr. HARVEY—It was necessary that the
affair should be settled this Session, why was not
the Report brought in in the first wctk of the Ses-
sion ? It would appear from the letter of Mr. Lamb,
that he did not entertainn the same view as the
Noble Lord who now held his office. The evidence,
if correct, no doubt, would justify the proceedings
that were taking, but all that he wished for was that
they might come to a unanimous conclusion, sitting,
as they were, judicially on this case.
Sir R. PEEL—Mr. Lamb's letter was written in
1828, and the Report of the Commissioners was
not till 1829, therefore Mr. Lamb was ignorant of
the charge against Sir Jonah Barrington, at the time
that he wrote; besides which, the letter only said
that as he was not then in office, the case must be re-
ferred to his successor, which did not seem to be
any very strong expression of opinion.
Mr. HARVEY explained.

Sir J. NEWPORT could state that Mr. Lamb's
letter was written not with any idea of corrupt prac-
tices having taken place, but in allusion to absence
and neglect of duty.
Mr. Alderman WOOD did not see how the in-
convenience of the House could be urged as a riacon
for not hearing Sir J. 13arrington's evidendk The
Officer of a Court always asked a prisoner iPlie had
anything to say why sentence should not be passed,
and he therefore did not see why the House should
not indulge-Sir J. Barrington with a similar-oppor-
tunity.

Lord F. L. GOWER said that he had never said
a word about inconvenience to the House.

Mr. WYNN—Sir Jonah Barrington had had the
choice of being heard by himself, or Counsel; and
having chosen the latter, he had no right to ask for
the former.

The House then divided—
For the amendment
Against it 56
—52
Majority

On our re-admission we found the Clerk reading
the resolutions.

On that which stated the report to be warranted
by the evidence, &c.
Sir C. WETHERELL thought that it would
be judicious to add a resolution that it was not
deemed material to call evidence at the bar on this
case. By so doing they would be proceeding on the
specific circumstances of the case, and not be setting
a precedent for all other cases.
The resolution was then agreed to. '
On the resolution expressing that Sir J. Bar-
rington had been guilty of serious malversation, and
was therefore unfit to hold his office,

Mr. WYNN thought that malversation was not
exactly the right term.
Sir R. PEEL said that " serious malversation "
was the expression which Sir J. Barrington had
been given to understand would be used in the re-
solution, and he, therefore, thought it better to re-
tain that phrase.

Mr. C. W. WYNN explained. In general, he
thought it better to have witnesses examined at the
bar, rather than by a Select Committee, but he
thought the present case was an excep►ion to the rule.
The resolution was then agreed to.

Lord F. L. GOWER moved that an humble
Address be presented to his Majesty, praying that
he would he graciously pleased to remove Sir Jonah
Barrington from his office of Judge of the High
Court of Admiralty in Ireland.
Mr. RICE opposed the motion for the present,
on the ground that no sufficient notice had been
given of it.
Sir R. PEEL (who spoke in a low tone) was
understood to say, that after the resolutions which
they had agreed to, it was impossible that they could
avoid arriving at the conclusion which his Noble
Friend proposed. However, as the present was an
unusual case, and as it wits one of a very grave na-
ture, he saw no objection to a Committee being ap-
pointed to prepare the Address.
Mr. RICE objected to the time and manner, not
to the Resolution itself.
Mr. C. W. WYNN would not allow an hour
longer than the proceedings actually required. Sir
Jonah Barrington was already so stigmatised by the
proceedings of the House of Commons, that he
could not hold his situation longer without disad-
vantage to the public service---the only question
which could require time was, whether they should
proceed by Address or by impeachment. Now, as
there seemed no difference of opinion as to the nature
of their proceeding, he saw no motive for postpone-
ment.

The resolution for an Address, as given above,
was then put and agreed to.

to commit the breach of privilege of which you have
just been guilty ?
The prisoner said that he had long observed the
proceedings of that House, and had seen so much in-
consistency between :its professions and its ac's,
that, considering its exercising the great power in
the State which it did, he had little hope of its i -
terposing to procure justice for him; he felt dis-
posed, however, to put his case bet re them. II
had struggled with the world for six-and-twenty
years, and such was the state of society in this
country, that he found it impossible to live as an
honest man.

He was then ordered to withdraw.
Sir R. PEEL moved, that he be committed to
the custody of the Seijennt at Arms.
Sir R. WILSON observed, that possibly he had
not meant to offend the House.
Sir R. PEEL said, that for the sake of the ex-
ample he-ought to be committed.
After a few words from Mr. DUNDAS,
Mr. SADLER was understood to doubt the
satiity of the prisoner.
S.r it. PEEL suggested that:nothing respecting
his sanity could be ascertained without time being
allowed for inquiry. By Monday they would havt.
an opportunity of seeing if anything further need In
done.

After a few words from Mr. J. WOOD, and au ex-
planation from Mr. SADLER, he was ordered to be
committed to the_custody.of the Serjeant at Arms.
The Committee to prepare the Address to the
Crown, in Sir Jonah Barrington's case, was ap-
pointed, and the House adjourned at Half-past Four
o'clock.