The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-02 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, J UNE? 2, 1853..

I:M 'ERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-( Y ESTERDAY. )

NEW TRIAL (CRIMINAL CASES) BILL.

On the order of the day for the second reading of this
bill,

Mr. EWART presentod a petition in its favour.

Mr. I. BUTT then proceeded to move that the bill
be read a second time, and in doing so the hon. and
learned gentleman entered into a detailed explanation
of the provisions of the measure. It was not easy, he
said, to exaggerate the importance of the bill. There
could be no doubt that the present state of the law was
productive of great inconvenience ; but before a bill of
this nature was passed, he apprehended it was the duty
of those who proposed it to show that itwot
adminis-
tration productive of still greater inconvenience in the
of the criminal law. The house was aware that
in civil matters the law gave parties the power of mov-
ing for a new trial, if they were dissatisfied with the
ruling of the judge or the finding of the jury, but except
upon points of law, there was no such power of revision
in criminal cases. It was right, however, that he should
state that in one case of felony of recent date, the Court
of Queen's Bench had granted a new trial, although all
the previous authorities were diametrically opposed to
such a proceeding. The law, as it was at present ad-
ministered, contained many anomalies. For instance, if
a man was tried upon a criminal charge in the Court of
Queen's Bench, or before a special jury in Middlesex, or
the city of London, he could appeal to the court above
against the dictum of the judge or the finding of the jury ;
but there was no power of appeal in a case tried at the
Assizes, or before a recorder or petite jury. Now was it
strange that there should be the power of appeal in one
case and not in the other. We should have thought, if
any exception was to be made, it ought to be in favour
of the first and not of the latter case. Well, then, the
object in this bill was to remove the defect in the crimi-
nal law, and to give to the Court of Queen's Bench an
enlarged control over the proceedings of criminal cases,
no matter where they might have been tried. In mat-
ters connected with the record a power of appeal already
existed ; but the record was no more a reflex of the
merits of the case than were the minutes of the house
a record of the question debated last night. A judge
might admit improper evidence, but the record
would take no notice of that, because the re-
cord was prepared before their trial ; and the
principal abject of this bill was to give a power
of appeal in cases where evidence might have been
erroneously admitted, or the decision of the jury was
opposed to the facts. Observe, the bill introduced no
new principle into the law, because upon points of law
the judge who tried a criminal already had the power of
reserving matters for a decision of the court above ; but
this bill proposed to give a power of appeal in the cases
he had stated without the consent of the presiding
judge. He had the greatest possible objection to
leaving the right of appeal to the decision of
the judge. He thought it ought to be au
absolute right without any limitation whatever,
and since this power of appeal had made the English
law what it was, he hoped the house would find
no difficulty in adopting this measure. He need not
cite cases where erroneous convictions had taken place,
they must be familiar to all who heard him, but he
must remind the house that in several cases parties had
lost their lives through the erroneous finding of juries,
which could not have happened had the provisions of
this bill been in force as law. Now, why should not
a man, on his trial for life, have the same protec-
tion of appeal as he had in a civil action ? (Hear.)
He could see no reason whatever against it, and there.
fore he had proposed this power of appeal with proper
machinery for carrying out speedily which would be found
fully explained in the language of the bill. If the house
admitted the principle of the bill, he should have no ob-
jection to refer it to the consideration of a select com-
mittee. (Cheers.)

Mr. EWART seconded the motion, and thought it
discreet to refer the bill to a select committee. As the
bill now stood it was only applicable to Ireland, but if
the second reading was carried, he should move that it
be an instruction to the committee to inquire into the
state of the law of England as well as Ireland. For his
part he thought the whole subject, and not the bill
alone, ought to be referred to a select committee, with
power of examining witnesses. The subject too of
appointing a public prosecutor ought to be referred
to a select committee, and when an occasion offered, he
should make a motion to that effect.
Mr. PHILLIMORE said it did not appear to him
that any good could result from the passing of this bill.
The great objection to the measure was that it refused
to the judge the discretion of withholding an appeal
where he did not think the merits of the case demanded
one. With regard to the argument that it was unjust
to refuse an appeal to a man who was on trial for his
life, while he could have had an appeal in a trumpery
case of debt, it should be remembered that it seldom
happened in the former case that there were nice points
of law to be decided. The result of the trial generally
turned upon a matter of fact which a jury alone
could decide ; but in civil actions there was no end to
the questions, which only a superior court of law could
settle and dispose of. (Hear, hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON said if the principle of this
bill was right, he must object to its application piece-
meal. It should extend to the whole of the United
Kingdom, but he was opposed entirely to the principle
of the measure. Punishment in criminal cases was not
inflicted upon the culprit in a revengeful spirit, but
merely to deter others from falling into the same crime,
and therefore it was of the utmost importance that the
administration of the criminal law should be speedy and
certain. (Hear, hear.) In civil matters, it was perhaps
not necessary, that the fulfilment of the law should be
so rapid, but it would be highly inconvenient to extend
an indiscriminate power of appeal to criminal cases. It
was a mistake to suppose that the law, as it stood, was in-
sufficient to protect the man who was unjustly convicted
of crime, because in all cases where there was a doubt
as to the guilt of the party, ample opportunity was
afforded for an appeal to the Home-office, where the
whole case would be again investigated with a view to
the liberation of the party in the event of the conviction
being opposed to the opinion of the judge who tried him.
These appeals were of every-day occurrence, and quite
sufficient, he contended, to meet the difficulty which
this bill was intended to remove. (Hear, hear.)
The appeal, however, contemplated by this bill was
open to grave objections. It might have the effect of
encouraging perjury ; but if they gave power of appeal
to the party accused, why should not the prosecutor
possess the same power ? (Hear, hear.) The fact was,
this bill was surrounded with objections ; but even sup-
posing it were not, at the present time there was a com-
mission sitting for the purpose of investigating the whole
of our criminal code, and until that commission made its
report it would be unwise to pass a bill of this nature.
For these reasons, therefore, he must move that the bill
be read a second time this day six months. (Hear.)
Mr. PHINN supported the bill, and declared that
many of the highest legal authorities, not even except-
ing the judges on the bench, were favourable to an ap-
peal in criminal cases, as they had seen too many in-
stances where parties had been improperly convicted of
crime, and laid open to the punishment of the law.
There was a great objection to the appeal referred to by
the noble lord, because if a man obtained his liberty
through that medium, it was not granted to him
as a matter of right, but as an act of mercy
from the Crown. The case of Mr. Barber, who
was unjustly convicted of forgery, was a strong evidence
in support of this bill, and he trusted the house would
read the bill a second time, with a view to its being re-
ferred to a select committee. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. NAPIER had given this bill his most careful
consideration, and his firm conviction was that it would
be unwise to adopt it. The right of judicial authority
was against the granting of new trials in criminal cases.
The most enlightened and humane judges had decided
against it. The great object had always been to have
criminal trials final and decisive. At present, if a judge
were dissatisfied with the verdict of a jury he
reported to that effect to the Executive, and the Execu-
tive usually granted a pardon on such occasions ;
whereas, the present bill would, under similar cir-
cumstances, send a man back to take his chance of a
second trial. He could say most conscientiously
that in the whole course of his practice he had never
known but one case in which he believed an improper
conviction had taken place, and that was set right the
next day. He thought the jury system was capable of
considerable reform, and he hoped to see improvements
effected, but ho hoped he should never see the day when
the great constitutional system of criminal trials would
be altered in the manner proposed by the present bill.
Mr. WMAHON considered that no answer what-
ever bad been made to the principle of the bill.
(Hear, hear.) He believed that more guilty persons
escaped punishment than would do if this bill
passed into law. He belihved that the bill would alr•
decrease the number of instances of perjury.
Sir G. GREY said it was impossible to deny that the
alteration proposed by the hon. and learned gentleman
was a grave and important subject, and well deserved
the attention of that house. He believed, however, that
that alteration would be very hazardous—one which
would lead to delays in the administration of justice,
and would impair its efficiency. It was not called for,
neither would it provide a remedy for the cases cited
by the hon. and learned gentleman. He thought that
a proper and merciful exercise of the Royal prerogative,
exercised under the advice of Ministers responsible to the
Crown, would meet all the evils which could possibly
and, in fact, meet them better than this bill. Ho
belied this bill would lead to a much harsher adminis-
tr-ttLn of the law than at present, and if juries were
aware that their verdict was liable to bo reversed by
second iurY, they would be much less disposed to give
the benefit of the doubt to prisoners than they were
now. The house
ieoenl if
fd
eeirtat Bane
initionbeed
panredeihpeitsalt, athcteing with considerable
principle of the bill,
or the second reading.
Mr. GEORGE saidYth?tPthis bill would put every party
concerned in a new trial in position, and he
should, therefore, oppose the seacolidit:Treenkling.
After a few words from 11Ir. I.
the second read-
ing of the bill was negatived without la
JUDGES EXCLUSION BILL:.
On the motion for the third reading of this bill,
Mr. H. DRUMMOND moved that the bill be read a
third time that day six months. The bill was founded
a narrow basis, without any grasp of the past for
',he future. The presence of eminent
had been of the greatest value when
is bad been before the house, such
fleet, and the discussion
the Danish ish
They
might say that such
might never occur again, but did
in the new claims of America,
Meetly even
fectly certain that the
In:::
those
lions more difficult t
men
illiwhanieth
Wiliam Grant
denuseirowf exim.inen
Stchoettpranes

would be of the greatest importance ? He could not con-
ceive that there was any degradation to any man in can-
vassing 51. householders, and yet to free judges from
this fancied degradation, was the sole reason which the
noble lord could assign for this bill.
Mr. MA.CAULAY then rose and said : Sir, I cannot
suffer the house to proceed to a division on this question
without expressing the very strong feeling which I en-
tertain on this subject. I shall vote with all my heart
and soul for the amendment moved by my hon. friend
the member for East Surrey. I never gave a vote in
my life with a more entire confidence that I was right,
and I must say that I think it hardly creditable to the
house that a bill against which so much can be said,
and for which there is so little to be said, should have
come to this stage without a division. On what ground
is this bill brought in ? Is it brought forward on that
ground, which is the only one on which as I should
conceive a great statesman—a Conservative statesman—
could ever propose any reform ; is it brought forward
on the ground that the present state of the law
has produced any practical evil whatever 1 That ground
is utterly disclaimed by all those who support the bill.
Not one of them has asserted that in any single case any
inconvenience, during the experience of ages, has arisen
from our permitting the Master of the Rolls to have a
seat in this house. The office of the Master of the Rolls
and the House of Commons commenced their existence,
I think, in the same generation—certainly in the same
century. During 600 years the Master of the Rolls has
been eligible to a seat in this house. To go back no fur-
ther than the time of the Hanoverian succession, we have
had amongst the most distinguished members of this
house a succession of Masters of the Rolls—Sir Joseph
Jekyll, Strange, Kenyon, Pepper, Arden, Sir William
Grant, Sir John Copley, Sir Charles Bell, and John Ro-
milly. Is it pretended that in any one case any one of these
eminent judges ever, in any respect, discharged his judi-
cial duties less efficiently because he was admitted to a
seat in this house? And if not, I ask if it is the part of a
wise man—if it is, above all, the part of a Conservative
politician, to propose to alter a system which has ex-
isted for six centuries, and against which it is not alleged
that it ever, in any single case, produced any single in-
convenience, solely because it does not appear to the
house to square with ari abstract principle ? Well, and
what is this abstract principle ? It is, that it is desirable
to separate politics from judicial functions. "Nothing
is so hateful "—I think these were the word of the noble
lord who brought in this bill—" nothing is so hateful as
a political judge." The union of the political and judi-
cial character is contrary to a principle so sacred, that
even when we cannot find that the union has produced
any pernicious effect in the experience of centuries, yet,
in order to be true to a general theory, we should de-
stroy it ! If I adopt the noble lord's principle I must
pronounce this bill the most wretched and pitiable re-
form that was ever produced—the most hoceopathic dose
that ever quack proposed for the widest spread malady.
(Hear.) For if he considers the nature of the political
and judicial institutions of this country, he will find the
political and judicial character so combined, so inter-
woven from the top to the bottom of our system, that
the reform he proproses to make will be only an infinite-
simal change when compared with the systelm he proposes
to amend. (Cheers.) It has been asked, with great
justice, if the Master of the Rolls is to be excluded, why
not the Recorder of London ? (Hear.) I should be ex-
tremely sorry to see the Recorder of London excluded
from this house ; but I must say that the reason for ex-
cluding him is ten times as strong as that for ex-
cluding the Master of the Rolls. But, to go still further
why not all recorders, and all chairmen of quarter sessions?
I will venture to say that there are much stronger rea-
sons for excluding chairmen of quarter sessions than for
excluding the Master of the Rolls. I have attended
quarter sessions formerly. I have seen presiding over
the quarter sessions of a great country a man of the most
eminent abilities—one of the most able and expeditious
judges I ever saw, but a member of Parliament, a very
keen politician, a very decided party man. He was a
man who had made a motion that caused a change of
ministry—he was a man who before the end of his life
occupied a seat in the cabinet ; and this distinguished
member of Parliament, himself the head of the blue in-
terest, as it was called in the county, would have had to
try for an election riot any orange rioters. (Hear, hear.)
He took a very conspicuous part in the case of the
Queen—so much so indeed that he was hooted by the
mob of London—nay, I am not sure that he was not
pelted. He then went home to his county, there to try
people for breaking the windows of those who would
not light up for the Queen's acquittal. You allow per-
sons of this kind to be members of this house ; although
nothing can be more notorious than this, that whenever
the nation has been in a discontented state, whenever
there has been any disposition to outrage and turbu-
lence, you have had universally the whole democratic
press crying out that the chairmen of quarter sessions,
the unpaid magistracy, were not to be trusted in the ad-
ministration of justice with regard to the friends of
liberty. So loud were these cries at one time, that Mr.
Canning, in one of his most eloquent speeches, said that
one of the worst signs of the times was that here, in this
house, there was a growing distrust of the conduct of
gentlemen of this kind in political cases. Yet you allow
forty or fifty of these judges to be members of this
political assembly, but would exclude a judge whose
functions are such, that since the time of Edward 1.,
neither he nor any of his predecessors have been ac-
cused even by calumny, or have ever been suspected of
using their judicial power for political ends. You turn
them out because, forsooth, you say you hate political
judges. (Cheers.) Well, but even if I were to admit
there was something in the functions of the Master of
the Rolls which makes it peculiarly important that he
should take no part in politics, I should still vote against
the bill before the house as being utterly inconsistent
and inefficient. If it be unfit that the Master of the
Rolls should be a member of political assemblies, why
not exclude him from all political assemblies ? (Hear,
hear.) But you do no such thing. You shut him out
of this house, but leave the House of Lords still open
to him. (Cheers.) Is that not a political assembly ?
And is it not notoriously the fact that for several cen-
turies judges have always had considerable sway in that
house, nay, that they have very often had a decided as-
cendancy in that house ? Is it not perfectly notorious
that Lord Hardwicke--a great judge—long ruled that
house ?—that he bequeathed that power to another
judge, Lord Mansfield ; and that when his energy de-
cayed the power passed to a third judge—Lord Thus-
low ? We many of us can remember how powerful
a political influence Lord Eldon exercised in that house
—how he made and unmade Ministries—with what
veneration, approaching to idolatry, he was regarded by
one great party in this country—with what peculiar
aversion by the other. When Lord Eldon's long domi-
nation ceased, other great judges, both Whig and Tory,
were contending there. Some who are here can re-
member, and no one who had then a seat in this
house can have forgotten—those first ten days of Octo-
ber, 1831. It was the most alarming and exciting crisis
during my life. It was the time at which that great de-
bate of many nights took place in the House of Lords
which ended in the rejection of the Reform Bill on
the second reading. God forbid we should ever see
such another crisis ! I certainly can never hope to hear
such a debate. It was, indeed, a great and most splen-
did display of every kind and variety of ability. I dare
say some of those are here who, like myself, waited all
that last night—waited until the late daybreak of an
autumn morning for the result of the division—walking
up and down the Court of Requests, crowding and
squeezing to reach the doors of the House of Lords—
pleased if we could catch a word of that wonderful con-
flict of oratory. And there, in the front of either side,
appeared two judges leading the opposite parties—Lord
Brougham, the Lord Chancellor of England, on the one
side—and Lord Lyndhurst, the Chief Baron on the
other. (Cheers.) How we hung on their words ! How
eagerly they were read before noon that day by hundreds
of thousands through the country ! What fearful ex-
citement these proceedings caused was proved a few
hours later by the disasters of Nottingham and the sack
of Bristol. (Cheers.) And yet this so exciting and im-
portant arena the noble lord, who hates political judges,
is perfectly willing to leave open to the Master of the
Rolls. His objection is not to the union of the political
and judicial functions, but simply to the union of the
judicial character with that of a member of the House
of Commons. (Hear.) The Master of the Rolls may
be—the noble lord has not the least objection to it—the
soul of a great party—the head of a great party—the
leader of a democracy, the leader of an aristocracy—he
may use all his powers of rhetoric and sophistry to in-
flame the passions and mislead the understandings of the
senate ; but it must not be in this room ; he must go a
few hundred feet from where we are assembled ; he must
sit on a red bench and not on a green one ; he must say
" my lords" and not " Mr. Speaker," and then the noble
lord is perfectly willing to allow him to form part of a
political assembly. But I am understating the case ; indeed
I am greatly understating it. For this union of the judicial
and political character in the other house is not a mere
accidental union. The fact is, not only that a judge
may be made a peer, but that all the peers, as peers,
are necessarily judges, Why, no foreigner who had
been admitted to the gallery of this house, and had
heard the noble lord laying down the principle that we
should make a change in the law in order to, prevent the
union of the political and judicial character, could ever
have irctagined that in this country the supreme court of
the
this very
assembly was a great assembly ; that to that
per-
fectly clear that if law, froLgtehuP appeals
from
Round he should b all the courts of equity and
ter of
in Scotland and Ireland, and from
but with the Ron
icf..f the Rolls himself. Is it not per-
t.he principle of the noble lord was
ego), not with the Master of the Rolls
court above should be it
is
ciTstituted on right principles
.Clearer than this,setaftirds For can any position be
more important that the
wrong,gthe House of LorZle Master
orrect him -
than the court below ?
ster of the Rolls goes
e of Lords'? (Hear,
is to correct the errors of thregn but ivlao
bear.) The noble lorcl
Content that their

lordships shall, in the morning, sit as judges upon
those questions on which depend the liberties and the
property and the character of every man amongst us ;
that they shall decide these in the last resort—
shall pronounce determinations which- until they
are altered by act of Parliament, are absolutely binding
on all inferior tribunals in the realm—the Master
of the Rolls amongst them ; and that then in the
afternoon the same lords shall meet as politicians,
shall attack each other sometimes pretty sharply, some-
times in a way for which if you, sir, were amongst
them, you would be inclined to call them to order—
(laughteie—and shall debate the question of the Cana-
dian clergy reserves, of Irish education, of the Govern-
ment of India—and to all this the noble lord says he
has no objection whatever. (Hear, hear.) Here, then,
you have a judicial system in which the exercise of poli-
tical functions is combined with the judicature both
above and below. If we pass this bill it will probably
be taken to the House of Lords by men who have judi-
cial functions, and will there be taken out of their hands
by the Lord Chancellor, who is a Cabinet Minister, and
at the same time the highest judge in the realm—and
this mummery we call " purifying the administration of
justice." (Cheers.) Oh, no, it is nothing of this kind.
This a bill for the purpose of purifying the administration
of justice ! If justice does need such purification it is
utterly ineffectual ; it is effectual only for one purpose—
the.purpose which has been so ably noticed by my hon.
friend—it is effectual only for the purpose of weakening
and degrading the House of Commons. (Hear, hear.)
This is not the first time that a similar game has been
played. More than 150 years ago there was a very
great and general outcry—and a just one—there was
great reason for it—against the number of placemen in
Parliament, and the immense influence of the Crown—
an evil which did admit of remedy, and a remedy was
tried by well-intentioned men (and I doubt not that the
noble lord is well-intentioned) but rash and short-sighted
men—a remedy that would have produced evils far
worse than the disease they desired to cure. (Hear.)
They inserted in the act of Parliament a clause which
provided that no person who held office under the Crown
should be permitted to sit in this house. The clause
was not to take effect until after the accession of the
House of Hanover ; but, happily for this house and fur
the country, it was repealed before that accession took
place. If it had not been repealed it is easy to see what
its effect would have been. (Hear, hear.) It was said
by those who defended it that it would purify the Par-
liamentary atmosphere ; that the influence of the Crown,
which was so fatal to the interests of the people should
be done away. It was said it was but just that the ser-
vant of the nation should be the servant of the nation
alone. They asked how could a person who was deeply
interested in supporting the prerogative of the Crown be
a faithful guardian of the liberties of the people. All
that was specious enough ; yet no person can doubt
what the effect would have been of that clause in an act
of Parliament, if it had remained the law. (Hear, hear.)
The effect would have been to degrade that branch of
the Legislature that springs from the people, and to
elevate the hereditary aristocracy. (Hear, hear.) All
the Ministers of the Crown would be necessarily mem-
bers of the other House of Parliament. As soon as any
man by his eloquence, or by his knowledge of business,
had raised himself to such distinction that he was selected
to be Chancellor of the Exchequer—First Lord of the
Admiralty—Secretary of State—First Lord of the
Treasury—Secretary at War, or no matter what, he
should instantly turn his back on what would have
been then emphatically called the Lower House,
and go to that house in which it would be alone
possible for him to display his great ability for the
administration of public affairs. (Hear, hear.) Sir
Robert Walpole, the first Pitt, the second Pitt, Fox,
1 Canning, Peel—all the men whose fame was inseparably
associated with the lower House of Parliament—whose
names were mentioned with pride—whose memories
must be in the recollection of every one who passes
through St. Stephen's Chapel, the old scene of their
conflicts and of their triumphs— (cheers)—all these men,
in the prime and vigour of life, would have become peers;
while the conflict of opinions having been transferred
from the House of Commons to the House of Lords, it
would be utterly impossible for the House of Commons,
left without a single statesman conversant with high and
grave questions, of alliances, of peace, of war, to give as
this house has given, and as I hope it always will give,
a general direction to the whole external and internal
polity of the realm. (Cheers.) Then all Europe would
be looking to the great conflicts of Pitt and Fox in the
House of Lords, and the House of Commons would be
left to look after turnpike roads and canals. (Hear,
hear.) That is the exact spirit of the legislation which
you are now required to proceed with. (Hear, hear.)
It is true that the evils to be apprehended from this bill
are not so extensive ; but still they are very serious,
because the tendency of this bill and of similar bills
is to make this house decidedly less efficient than
it once was, and decidedly less efficient than the
House of Lords is for all the most important
purposes of a legislative assembly. (Hear, hear.)
I have heard this question argued as if the only
business of the House of Commons was party wrangling
—as if the only thing which a learned and eminent judge
would have to do in this house would be to vote on ques-
tions where the effect would be to turn out one set of
men, and to bring another set in. Party wrangling, no
doubt, always will be ; but there is an abundant and
extensive province of parliamentary business that lies
quite remote from the contentions of parties—(hear,
hear)—and in which a great jurist would render immea-
surable and inestimable service, and obtain for himself
an imperishable name. (Cheers.) And if ever there was
a time when such a jurist was needed here, and was
likely to be justly appreciated, it is the present time.
(Hear, hear.) No observant man can fail to perceive
that there is in the public mind a generally growing and
earnest, and at the same time, I must say, reasonable
and sober desire for extensive law reform. (Hear, hear.)
I hope and believe that some of the sessions that are ap-
proaching will to a great extent be occupied by discus-
sions on the state of the law and the law reforms that
are required, and in such discussions no person is so
well fitted to bear a useful and distinguished part as an
upright and enlightened judge— (hear' hear)—and yet at
such a time it is that we are asked to shut the door of
this house against the last great judicial functionary
whom the bungling legislation of former Parliaments
has left to us. (Hear, hear.) In the meantime
the other house is open to him, and is open also to
that other great judicial authority, the Judge of
the Admiralty, who is already driven from amongst us ;
and I believe that is an obligation which this house owes
to the noble lord who now proposes to confer upon us
this other favour. (Hear.) In that other house they
may have besides, the Lord Chief Justice, the Chief Jus-
tice of the Common Pleas, the Chief Baron, the Lords
Justices, and the Tice-Chancellors ; but here you are
driving out the very last man that could give to this
house consequence in any attempt—(l am very far in-
deed from anticipating or expecting any conflict of a
hostile kind with the House of Lords)—but the presence
of such a man would give us consequence with them in
any honourably rivalry that may take place to reform
our institutions. (Hear, bear.) I don't know whether
the hon. member for Montrose is in his place ; but when
I came down here, when the bill was last on the paper,
with the intention of voting against it, I learned it
could not come on in consequence of the debate on a
bill brought in by the hon. member for Surrey, on the
subject of combination. I believe the hon. member for
Montrose is decidedly favourable to the bill of the noble
lord ; but I was amused to hear that hon. gentleman
press the house to pass a bill on the subject of combina-
tion, for this reason—we really, said he, know nothing
about it—it may be right or wrong—send it to the lords,
there are judges there—they will decide whether it is right
or wrong. (Laughter.) Did any person ever hear that a
great legislative assembly was ever called upon to abdicate
its privileges in a way like that ? And is it not extra-
ordinary that a gentleman who is so zealous for the
popular part of the constitution should be the person to
propose that in a matter so grave and so deeply con-
cerning the interests of the great body of our constitu-
ents, we should content ourselves with simply register-
ing whatever the judgment of the House of Lords might
be? (Hear, hear.) And, feeling as we do the deficiency
of this house in most important respects, should we pro-
pose to shut out of it the learningand ability that might
yet come in ? (Hear, hear.) But it is said that the
duties of a Master of the Rolls as a judge are hardly
compatible with the duties of a member of Parliament ;
it is said he is paid by the public, and the public require
his whole time ; it is said, let us enforce the division of
labour, and let us not permit his time to be wasted on
anything, but oblige him to devote it to that to which it
more particularly belongs. If this be an argument, it is
an argument for keeping judges out of the House of
Lords, as well as out of the House of Commons ; but I
deny it is useful for any such purpose whatever. (Hear,
hear.) I say the principle of the division of labour is
one of great value and importance, but one that may
be most easily abused. (Hear, hear.) You can carry
it out in matters that are purely mechanical, but
you may easily carry it too far when you come
to higher operations. (Hear, hear.) I will refer
to a high authority on the question—that of Adam
Smith ; and though I may admit that one man is to do
nothing but throw up the hay while another man is to
sharpen the point of the stack, I do not believe that
Michael Angelo would have been a greater painter if he
had not been a sculptor ; cr that Sir Isaac Newton
would have been a greater philosopher if ho had not
been a mathematician. (Cheers.) I do not believe that
a man would be a greater lawgiver because he was not a
great judge ; on the contrary, I think that between the
duties of a legislator and those of a judge there is as close
a connection as between anatomy and surgery. (Cheers.)
It is as absurd to exclude a judge from acting as a legis-
lator as to say that the person who applies himself to
the practice of surgery is not to be deemed competent to
direct the study of !anatomy. I will refer to an autho-
I rity that the hon. member for Montrose probably rates
more highly than I do—Mr. Bentham. Of Mr. Ben-
tham as a moralist or a metaphysician alone I have no
very high opinion ; but I look upon him as one of the
greatest writers on the judicial organisation that ever
lived. (Cheers.) I find in his celebrated work onjudi-
cial organisation an article in which he dwells on the
exceeding evil of plurality in office ; he strongly objects
to suffering a judge to be anything but a judge, with
one single exception : "A judge," he says, " ought to
be permitted to sit in the representative assembly that
legislates for the commonwealth "—(hear, hear)—" for,"
says he, "the very best school for a great legislator is
the judicial bench " (hear, hear) and when legis-
lative abilities are so difficult to be found it would
be madness to throw them out when they are in."
(Hear, hear). My honourable friend has said that there
is something coarse in the way in which members get
into this house ; that there is something in it unworthy
of the judicial character. The noble lord, I think, spoke
of the unseemly jollification at elections ; I wish from
the bottom of my soul that this indecent jollification
was the worst thing to which otherwise honest men
stooped to get into this house. (Hear, hear.) I should
be very sorry that a Master of the Rolls should get into
this house by such means, (Hear, hear.) I should be

sorry that a Master of the Rolls should be mixed up
with the crimes of electioneering agents, with false names,
and false addresses, and all the other machinery of bribery
and corruption which we are told have been resorted to.
It is said on high authority that there are temptations which
saints even should not be exposed to, and that a Master of
the Rolls should be as scrupulous as a saint in avoiding
temptation. (Laughter.) On that point, if a long friend-
ship authorises me to speak with confidence of any one,
I can say that if ever the present Master of the Rolls
should sit in this house he would be brought into it by
means far different from those bylwhich he was excluded
from it. (Cheers.) As we are prepared to say that no
person can come into the House of Commons except by
means that are inconsistent with the gravity and dignity
of the judicial bench ? If so, it well becomes us to set
our house in order. (Hear, hear.) How can any country
long prosper, if that assembly on which all its dearest
interests depend—which by a single vote can change its
government, and give a new direction to its whole policy,
domestic, commercial, colonial, financial—can only be
entered by means which must lower its character. But
it is not so. In what measure did Sir Wm. Scott lower
his character by coming into this house ? in what way
did Sir John Copley lower his character by coming into
this house as member for the University of Cambridge ?
But it is not necessary to speak of universities ; it would
be most unjust and unfair not to say that delicacy and
liberality of sentiment that would do honour to any uni-
versity may be found amongst the 101. householders of
of a great city. (Cheers.) But need we go further than
to look at your chair ? (cheers.) It was, sir, of as much
importance that you, at the last general election, should
maintain the dignity, gravity, and impartiality of your
exalted character as that the Master of the Rolls should
do so. (Hear.) It would be impossible for you, sir, to
commit the smallest indecorum without grievous injury
to your public utility. (Hear.) Did the great county
which has done itself the honour to return you require
any conduct on your part upon which the Speaker of
this house must look back with shame ' • and what reason
bodyhave we to doubt that a constituent would not be
as just to a judge as to you ? (Hear.) There is no
reason, I think, to doubt but that a judge might take
his seat in this house without being required to do any-
thing inconsistent with the strict punctilio belonging to
his station. (Hear, hear.) It may be said the law is
inconsistent, and I admit it is; but my advice is, we are
now entering upon a bad path, and let us stop in it.
The time is not far distant when we must come to recon-
sider the constitution of this house ; on that occasion it
will be the duty of the Government most carefully to
recommend the rules according to which it shall be de-
termined who shall be excluded. (Hear, hear.) The
law is in a singularly unsatisfactory state, for the law is
that no person can sit in this house who holds an office
created since a particular day—l believe the 27th of Oc-
tober, 1705 ; and the effect of that rule on political
offices is this. For instance, there can be only two Se-
cretaries of State in this house, and only two Under
Secretaries of State in this house. If there should be
two Secretaries of State in this house, and if a vacancy
should occur in the office of Foreign Secretary, though
'a member of this house might be the person best quali-
fied for the office, he cannot have it—you must give him
the Admiralty, and give the Foreign Secretaryship to
some person in the House of Lords, who would probably
be better fitted for the Admiralty. (Hear.) There are
other consequences the effect of the system. The Post-
master-General cannot sit in this house ; but he is a
member of the Cabinet, and, so far as my experience
goes, with the single exception of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, there is no public functionary which it
would be so convenient to have in this house as the
Postmaster-General ; and I hope, when the constitution of
this house is to be reconsidered, this will be taken into con-
sideration. (Hear.) But to speak of the judges. Anyjudge
who is properly elected should be admitted into this
house except there is some plain reason why that judge
should not come in here. There is a reason, I admit,
against the admission of this house of the fifteen judges,
because they are occasionally summoned by the House
of Lords to assist them they have a place in the
House of Lords—and if you mean that the House
of Lords should continue to be the chief court of
error, their sitting in it is absolutely necessary. (Hear.)
It would be impossible to continue the House of Lords
as a great court of error, unless they are assisted by the
fifteen judges ; those judges have consequently seats in
it, and there you must leave them, for it would be in-
consistent with the privileges and dignity of this house
to have any member who was at the beck and call of the
other house. (Hear, hear.) The same rule applies to
the Scotch judges, and the Irish judges are excluded for
the obvious reason that they could not discharge their
duty if elected in this country. (Hear, hear.) But cer-
tainly I would leave the door of this house open to the
Master of the Rolls ; I would throw the door open again
to the Judge of the Admiralty, who was most absurdly
excluded; I would suffer those eminent judges who are
kept out of the house, not by any particular act, but
merely by the operation of the old act of Anne—the
Lords Justices and the Vice-Chancellors—to sit in this
house, if they could get constituent bodies to elect them.
(Hear, hear.) I am perfectly certain that in that way
we should add to the credit of this great representative
assembly—with the credit of which the credit of repre-
sentative governments all over the world is intimately
bound up—and render our own body far more efficient
for the discharge of our duties. But whether those more
extensive changes which I recommend shall or shall not
be adopted, I see no reason for entertaining the bill of
the noble lord. (Hear.) I will ask the Conservatives
of this house, will they agree to make changes in the
state of a law which has lasted for twenty generations,
and from which they do not themselves pretend that the
smallest inconvenience has flowed ? (Cheers.) I address
myself to the Liberal members of this h ouse, and I ask them
whether it appears to them to be right to lower the cha-
racter and diminish the efficiency of that branch of the
Legislature which has sprung from the people. (Cheers.)
As one uniting in myself the character of Liberal and
Conservative, I shall divide most cordially for my hon.
friends amendment. (Cheers.)
[The right hon. gentleman sat down amidst renewed
cheers, having been listened to with the most marked
attention by a house which, thinly attended when his
address commenced, gradually filled as he proceeded,
until at the close the densely crowded benches indicated
the interest which his first speech during the session
inspired.]
Lord HOTHAM thought it was strange, if the bill
were liable to such great objection, that it should be
allowed to proceed to its present stage. It was with
regret he witnessed the opposition which it had received
from the hon. gentleman, though that regret was in a
very great degree diminished by the pleasure he expe-
rienced at hearing the eloquent speech that had been
just uttered. (Cheers,) There were many members of
the house who had now heard the right hon. gentleman
for the first time. He (Lord Hotham) had heard Ira
on many former occasions, and, whether agreeing with
or differing from him, he had always listened to him
with pleasure. (Cheers.) He was painfully conscious
of his inability to encounter the opposition that was
now arrayed against this bill, but, notwithstanding
that, it was his duty, and he felt exceedingly anxious
to say something in support of a measure which he had
introduced, and on which the house had hitherto
looked with favour. (Hear, hear.) The right honour-
able gentleman had alluded to the exclusion of the
Judge of the Admiralty, and bad noticed, ironically, the
benefit which he (Lord Hotham) had conferred on
the house by a former motion. He also stated that
the law is in an unsettled state, and had thrown
upon him (Lord Hotham) the onus of its being in that
condition. (Hear, hear.) These observations imposed
upon him the necessity of stating the circumstances
under which the exclusion of that learned judge took
place. (Hear, hear.) The exclusion of that learned
functionary was expressly recommended by a committee
of the House of Commons that sat in the year 1833.
(Hear. hear.) Amongt the members of that committee
were Sir R. Peel, who was not a person that was likely
to degrade the House of Commons—(hear, hear)—Sir
J. Graham, Sir C. W. Wynn ; the predecessor of the
Speaker, Mr. Abercromby ; Sir James Scarlett, Mr.
Goulburn, the present Lord Chief Baron, the Solicitor-
General of that day ; the present Lord Chief Justice of
the Queen's Bench ; and last, though not least, the in-
dividual about whose expulsion so much complaint was
made, Dr. Lusbington. (Hear.) When reference was
made to the state of things that was in existence in
former times, they should not forget the changes that
had taken place since the passing of the Reform Bill.
Things were now done at elections which, though not
a degradation to a private gentleman, were not fitting
to be done by a person holding the judicial office.
(Hear, hear.) Let them recollect what frequently oo-
curred at a chairing—was it no degradation to the judi-
cial office to see the successful candidate for the repre-
sentation of a University carried in triumph through the
streamingprin pal
withstreets
bol
of
ot town,
blood,
which
wwniet he
atnhsee
db a ck
by otfh e his a
tht
ae ad
e k
of some disappointed voter? (Hear, hear.) Ho wanted
to know if the judicial office would, or would not have
been degraded if the Master of the Rolls, or any other
judicial person, was the subject of a report read at the bar,
stating that he was. guilty of corruption by his agents,
and would it be any satisfaction tohim that the committee
should say there was no proof before them that the act
was committed with his knowledge?, (Hear, hear.) It
should also be recollected that the Master of the Rolls
Vice the .
Chancellor opinion
of
ownwas ceoonnsetatitnutelyntcsawlleedreuepoonneetrond
decide ide(Ccraieseesoifn
,which his
tdivide.")
Hhee elnotueldsirrefseraminuelsupport
omilof his views
the t o
when
was appointed, and likewise to the opinions of Lord
Langdale and Lord Brougham, as well as to the opinion
of a former Irish Master of the Rolls, Mr. Curran, who
when invited in 1812 to stand for the borough of Newry,
said, " I am not unwilling to go into Parliament, but I
will not go into Parliament on the condition of having
to canvass." (Hear, hear.) He might likewise refer to
Drummond), who on a former occasion had asked this
the opinion of the honourable member for Surrey (Mr.
pertinent question, " Why are there so many lawyers in
the House of Commons ?" (Laughter.) The honourable
gentleman answered the question himself in his initial
and emphatic tone ; he said, "Because they well know
that making political speeches in this house is more
likely to procure them judicial situations than quietly
studying in their chambers." (Laughter.) His object
was to preserve from any possible degradation the purity
of the bench, and that object could in no way be so well
effected as by a complete and entire severance of the
political and judicial functions. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUME, amidst cries of " divide " proceeded to
address the house. He was absent when the debate
commenced, and he understood that allusion had been
made to some speech of his on the combination laws, but
h‘. only wished to state on this occasion why he M
' ureP-
ported this bill • he supported it because he consi,cie d
the duty of the Master of the Rolls was utterly incom-
patible with the duty of a member of that house, and he

had voted for the exclusion of the Judge of the Admi-
ralty on the same grounds. (Hear, hear.)
The house divided, when there appeared—
For the third reading
Against it

123
224

Majority lOl
The bill was accordingly thrown out.
COMBINATION OF WORKMEN BILL.

On the order of the day for continuing the further
proceedings on the third reading of this bill, a large
number of petitions were presented in favour of the bill.
Lord PALMERSTON said he had no objection to the
principle of the bill, so far as it gave perfect freedom to
all parties to combine for the purposes authorised by the
existing act, but there were 'words in the bill which he could
not assent to, because they might sanction a species of
intimidation which the framers of the bill had evidently
no wish to do. The words which he objected to were
these, "peaceably inducing or endeavouring to induce per-
sons to abstain from work." Under the authority of these
intimidation might be brought to bear upon parties who
were anxious to work without resorting to violence, or in
any way violating the law, and the consequence might be
that many poor persons might be seriously injured by
domineering persons in their own trade. (Hear, hear.)
He would therefore suggest that the bill should be read
a third time, and the further proceedings postponed for
a fortnight, to afford time for amending that part of the
bill to which he had referred. (Hear.)
This course was acceded to, and the bill having been
read a third time, the further proceedings were post-
poned until this day fortnight.

GAS-LIGIIT AND CORE COMPANIES.
Dividend Amount
Name of Company. per of Paid. Price.
Annum. Share.
£ a. d. £ a. d.
British • • •• • • .. • • • •
Ditto Provincial.... 1/. Bs. 20 0 0 20 0 0 23
Brighton .. •... •• •• ~ st. 20 0 0 20 0 0 16
City of London .. •• .. 61. 100 0 0 150 0 0 1130
Continental (3d Cap.)... 41. 75 0 0 43 10 0 67%
Equitable-. •• .• •• • • 501. 50 0 0 50 0 0
Great Central:— ..... 10 per cent. 10 0 0 10 0 0 14%
Imperial .. • • ........ 31. & bonus. 50 0 0 50 0 0 86
Independent ....... 6:. 40 0 0 40 0 0 46
London.• .• ••••• • • • • • 50 0 0 50 0 0
Do., Farl. Preference 61. per cent. 25 0 0 25 0 0 2436
P"cenix .•• •• 311. per cent. 50 0 0 49 0 0 I 28%
Ratcliff •••••.. • • •• • 5/. 100 0 0 90 0 0 I 73
United General •••...R 1/. 150 0 0 50 0 ; 20%
Westminster Chartered 51. per cent.l 50 0 0 50 0 0 38
Ditto, New ........5i. per cent. 150 0 0 10 0 0 6%
LIST OF SCOTTISEI COMPANIES' PRICES.

Dividend Amount
Name of Company. per of Paid. Fri Ce.
Annum. Share.
s. d. X s. d.
Tiank of Scotland *.. • • 71. per cent. 100 0 0 100 0 0 1921 0
British Linen Comp Si. per cent. 100 0 0 100 0 0 •2151 0
Caledonian Bank
City ofGlasgew Bank 5/. per cent. 10 0 0 10 0 0 0117 s
Clydesdale Bank •... 6/. per cent. 20 0 0 10 0 0 13 Os
Commercial Bank ..•• 71. per cent. 500 0 0 100 0 0 851 0
Paster, Bank*
E linb &Glasgow
Exchange:Bnk of Scot lOO 0 .0 31 5 0 Bs. od
National Bank
NortholScotland Bank 5/.percent. 20 0 0 2 10 0 413sCd
Royalßank of Scotland 5/. per cent. 100 0 0 100 0 0 1,61 0
roton Bank of Scat. * 8/. per cent. 100 0 0 50 0 0 931 Os
Western Bark
Alliance Fire and Life B%/•pr cent. 10 0 0 10 0 0 241103
British Guarantee
Caledonian Fire Instil*. 101. per cent. 100 0 0 10 0 0 261. Od
City of Glasgow Lite* 4/. per cent. 25 0 0 2 0 0 4 lOs
Colonial Life 5/. per cent. 50 0 0 1 0 0 4'7s6d
Edinburgh Life Insur. 41. per cent. 100 0 0 15 0 0 1251 Os
Eng. & scot, Law Life 5/.percent. 60 0 0 217 6 41 Os
Life Assoc. of Scotland 61. per cent. 10 0 0 110 4'. Ins
National Fire and Life 61. per cent. 10 0 0 1 0 0 ,11. 13s
North British Insur. * • Cl. per cent. 200 0 0 20 0 0 , 3511 fts
cottishUnionlnsnac. 7541. pr cent. 20 0 0 1 0 0 11. 14d
'standard Life ...... Si. per cent. 50 0 0 7 0 0 15/ Os
United Dep. Assurance 51. per cent. 10 0 0 1 0 0 111 s 6,
* Ex Dividend.

upon a. narrow
kilrikstruction of t
17 O,He• ,• OD
447A-•"4 ~" !. t
fs gib ,
• "gr.;
x'4l
t, 'ger
--- Would invot .uest
Vin the disc' on of
;ike such a 3 Sir. Wi