The Sun.
London, England, 1840-04-14 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 1840.

list?.n to an application to stay procecdlngs, after ,
Commission ceased, and the defendant would be corn-
pelled to put in bail, and wait until the next Assizes to
stay proceedings. This was the case of publication
without authority. When the House ordered certain
official papers to be published, they were only published
in the ordinary way ; but, under this clause, any one
might go into the immediate neighbourhood of a person,
whose character was attacked, and, with the most ma-
licious intentions, hawk these re-publications about, per-
haps calling out the person's name in order to attract
public attention, and he would be justified. Besides,
by that clause the House lost all power of stopping pub-
lications.—(Cheers.) There had been a gross libel on
the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, contained
in a petition which had been printed, but he believed
not published for sale. That petition had been pre-
sented at a late period of last Session, when the mem-
bers of the Committee were out of town, through an
oversight of the Clerk, who had ever since suffered the
greatest distress of mind in consequence. The petition
had inadvertently been printed. The matter would
have been disposed of long since, but it had been
thought better to pass it over, as all
who knew that
Learned Judge, knew that a more kind, learned, just,
or patient man did not exist. Could there be any doubt,
that had that subject been mentioned to the House the
order would have been recalled, and the printing the
petition had been stopped. Under the present clause,
that would have been impossible. He would mention
another case, to show that the House ought never to
part with the power of stopping publication. To the
Report of the Committee on New Zealand there was
attached a map. That map, it afterwards appeared,
had been published previously by an individual. That
individual had been awarded compensation ; but if the
House had chosen to prevent the publication of that map,
the present clause would prevent them from doing so.
It was a clause requiring the gravest consideration.
In his opinion, the last clause also was calculated to
produce the most mischievous effects. The clause
enacted, that, in cases of prosecutions against persons
for printing extracts from or abstracts of publications
ordered by that House, they might plead as a ground of
defence that the extracts or abstracts were made bona
fide, and without any malicious intention. Now, a
man might make a most malicious extract, and print it,
but take gond care not to publish it himself ; he gets
some other man, who perhaps might not be able to
read, to publish it ; and when this man was prosecuted,
he could prove he had published without any malicious
intention. There were great doubts as to whether it
would not be proper to punish a man for the publica-
tion of truth, with a malicious intention ; but unde-
niably punishment was called for when the extract was
of an unfair nature. With regard to the first amend-
ment, he objected to it, as giving the Courts of Law
jurisdiction over the acts of the House ; and the two
last clauses were not connected with the original object
of the Bill : and as the clause relating to Howard had
been struck out, and those other clauses added, he
thought that the House would find that the Bill in
its present state did not tend to relieve them from their
difficulties.—(Cheers.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL hoped the amend-
ments would be agreed to. They had been placed in a
situation of great difficulty, and although he felt there
were strong objections to this Bill, he thought the dif-
ficulties were less on that side of the question than on
the other. The House had not parted with its powers;
and he trusted it never would ; but that if necessity
should again arise, it would again commit plaintiffs, at-
torneys, attorneys' clerks, and skeriffs, in vindication of
its privileges. Had the amendments given any discre-
tion to the Courts of Law, he should strenuously have
resented them, but they merely went to substitute a
Judge for one of the officers of the Court, and his func-
tions were purely ministerial. Had the Court pos-
sessed the power of dictating the te:ms on which pro-
ceedings might be stopped, he would certainly have op-
posed it, but it did no such thing. Had a clause been
introduced to do away with the sale of the publications,
he would certainly have moved that it be read a second
time that day six months, but it did no such thing.
With regard to notice, it certainly was right that some
notice should be given to the plaintiff. In the original
draft of the Bill it had been proposed to give forty-
eight hours' notice after application. It was :now al-
tered to twenty hours' notice before application, and he
saw nothing to object to in this. He was rejoiced at the
protection given to the re-publication of the papers of
that House ; he should have wished to have seen such
a clause introduced before the Bill left that House, but
he had been afraid of clogging it too much, and risking its
losslAs, however, the clause had been introduced, he re-
joiced at it. His Hon. and Learned Friend had said, with
regard to this clause, that the proprietors of newspapers
had greater advantages given them than the officers of the
House. He thought, if his Friend would read it over
again, he would find he had not put a proper construc-
tion upon it. He was satisfied from the time the Bill
received the Royal assent no actions for libel, in conse-
quence of their publications, would be ever thought of,
and if they should the Judges would immediately stop
the proceedings. He should have been much better
pleased if no Bill had been necessary, but he thought
good had been done to the community by the Bill
being brought into that House, and passed in the other
House, where, notwithstanding the observation of indivi-
dual Members of that House, it seemed to him that
a spirit of conciliation and moderation, and a desire to
treat the House with respect,wore shown, and he thought
they would not discover the same spirit if they rejected
the Bill. For these reasons he should vote for it.
Mr. WARBURTON thought it desirable the At-
torney-General should suggest the words which would
render the amendments of the Lords effectual for the
purpose evidently intended by them. He thought it
would be discreditable to the House to pass the Bill
without making the technical amendments which his
Learned Friend said were necessary. The Bill should
be made as technically correct as possible.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said there was one considera-
tion which should not be overlooked. If this Bill
were effectual for the purpose of preventing
resort to harsh measures, it would be un-
wise to involve themselves in a controversy
on technical points. It would be much wiser to look
at the great objects contemplated by the Bill. If he
found in it any amendment inconsistent with the privi-
leges of the House of Commons. or imposing conditions
it would be disparaging to the House to assent to, he
was prepared to take his stand in defence of their pri-
vileges ; but looking at the Bill sent down, he must say
he thought it manifested a sincere desire of the House
of Lords to meet their views ; they had made no
amendment inconsistent with the main object of the
Bill. If the House wished to get rid of the Bill, one-
half the ingenuity of the Learned Solicitor-General
would be sufficient for the purpose ; and, if it had been
employed in the House of Lords for that pur-
pose, would doubtless have succeeded. He was
ready to overlook minor considerations and matters
of detail, and particularly when he was convinced the
defects were not intentional. He had no other object
than to advise the House—(Hear)—and without
throwing any refection on any other person, he did not
know, judging from past experience, that he regretted
any portion of the advice he had given. He rejoiced
that he had advised the House to insist on the posses-
sion of this privilege. He did not regret the commit-
ments—he rejoiced that they had established the power
of defending themselves—that they had the power to
commit for contempt ; but he thought it an infinitely
wiser course to procure by legislation a sum-
mary way of establishing that power than by
continual conflicts—(Hear, hear)—which would lead
to a total absorption of the time of the House, anti
which conflicts would soon have been changed from the
Stockdales to men of much higher character in society.
He therefore did not regret the advice he had given to
resort to legislation. They had made the attempt, and
the result had justified it. He thought their privileges
would stand on better ground when this Bill was passed
than they would without it, as it afforded the ma more
summary way than they now possessed of enforcing them.
With regard to the amendments themselves, he did not
wish to enter into a minute description of them, but it
was now proposed that, instead of the officer of the
Court stopping an action, the Judges should be
compelled to do it, having no discretionary power ;
and though they should decline to do so, the
proceedings would be at an end ; but he must say
it was unfair to assume the Judges would refuse to
carry into effect the expressed intention of the Legis-
lature. Some of his friends had condemned him for
the course he had taken, but he had never shrunk
from it on account of its unpopularity. In his opi-
nion the Lords had done everything they could to
protect their privilege, and his advice therefore was
not to involve themselves in technical controversy on
points not affecting the principle of the Bill.
Mr. WAKLEY expected the Right Hon. Baronet
was about to say, if the Bill passed it was his intention
to abdicate his seat.
Sir R. PEEL—I advised the Bill.
Mr. WAKLEY—Not this Bill. The Right Hon.
Baronet had said lie would sooner abdicate his seat,
than give up this privilege. Had they succeeded in
maintaining it ? Every one knew the reverse. There
was not a person in the kingdom who, if he had any
understanding, discretion, or sagacity, did not
understand the majority of that House were woefully
beaten on the subject. The privilege of the House was
gone. They had been under the necessity of resorting
to the House of Lords, and beseeching that lordly as-
sembly to concur with them in passing a law to enable
them to publish their proceedings. This was the miser-
able figure they were cutting in the eyes of England.
This privilege being gone, was there one of their privi-
leges safe ? Would any man say their privilege of com-
mitment would not be next called in question, or that
every privilege of the House might not in turn be ques-
tioned by the hereditary branch of the legislature, and
every one in turn prostrated, as the one they were now
I discussing. The party of the Right Hon. Baronet never
would extend a right the people wer.e desirous.of having
them, but on this occasion had
.driven them
oarndds
those
sask
veryfo r
Judges
ssswiohno tioladp udbe-.
\and atrocious, now this Bill had been introduced, ac-
etlS'‘lsatitirele'ntedhdeetHidlri oetiruores pea
os
assertion tL;ion of this principle

knowle'i'red it to he eggivitial to the performance of the
functions of Parliament. The Attorney and Solicitor-
General would both in person sit on the Bench. The
House had heard their opinions. Would these change
when they got there ? He did not know which would
be Chief Justice first, but when on the Bench, they
would be acting under the same obligations—would
their opinions change ?—( Hear, hear, hear.) Those
Hon. and Learned Gentlemen differed in that
House with regard to the law, and what he
wished to know was whether when they were on the
bench there would be an uniformity of opinion ?
(Hear.) Under all the circumstances, looking at the
nature of the Bill, seeing that the House had aban-
doned the high grounds it took at the commencement
of the Session, if no other Member would do so he
would divide the House against the amendments.
Mr. PEMBERTON denied that the Bill was an
abandonment of the privileges of the House. He saw
nothing in the Act which was inconsistent with the
doctrines maintained by the Hon. Member opposite, or
his Hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth. The
Bill did not prevent them from asserting their rights
and privileges, if they existed in every mode which it
was competent for him to adopt, before the Act should
pass into a law. In fact it left their privileges precisely
where they were, but it gave to them a more easy mode
of exercising their powers and preventing parties fi om
interfering with the exercise of them. He had heard
with great regret the observations of his Learned Friend
the Solicitor-General—anything less conciliatory he had
never witnessed.—(Hear.) He agreed with his Right
Hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth, that although
there were clauses in the Bill that were objectionable,
yet those objections were not sufficiently stringent to
induce the House to reject the Bill altogether. In
conclusion, he trusted that when the present measure
became the law of the land the Noble Lord
would give effect to the spirit of the measure
by coming down to that House and moving the
liberation of those individuals who had been incarcerated
for a breach of its privileges. He was sure that if the
House wished to stand well with the country they must
adopt that course.
Sir R. INGLIS trusted that the Noble Lord would
put in force the suggestion of his Hon. and Learned
Friend, and the moment that the Bill passed would
move for the liberation of the individuals who were now
in custody. He considered that in adopting the amend-
ments of the House of Lords they were not foregoing
their own privileges, and he should, therefore, support
them.

Mr. HOBHOUSE trusted that the House would
not adopt the amendments of the Lords. He con-
sidered that no arguments had been adduced that in the
least degree controverted the powerful arguments
which had been made use of by his Hon. Friend the
Member for Finsbury.

Mr. FRESHFItLD would support the amend-
ments of the House of Lords, considering that in doing
so that House was not surrendering any part of its pri-
vileges.

Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it

Majority
The amendments were then put and agreed to.
Mr. J. O'BRIEN said as the Noble Lord had now
obtained the Bill, he begged to ask him what course he
proposed to adopt with respect to the prisoners ? He
thought they ought now to be discharged.
Lord HO WICK said, before his Noble Friend an-
swered that question, he begged leave to say that he
trusted the parties now in custody would be relieved
from that custody only upon petition, and complete sub-
mission to that House.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL was not then pre-
pared to state what course he would recom-
mend to be pursued with respect to the par-
ties now in custody, but he would be prepared
to state it to-morrow. With respect to the persons
now in custody, he must say that their case was very
different from that of the Sheriffs—the latter acted upon
compulsion, as it were ; they acted under the orders of
the Court of Law. There werealso the son and clerk
of Mr. Howard, they were persons filling an inferior si-
tuation, and acting under the orders of their master ;
their case also deserved consideration. So far as regarded
Stockdale, he was the original commencer of all those
actions, and had done all in his power to set that
House at defiance. In that course of conduct he
had been aided and abetted by Mr. Howard, who even
at the present moment had an action pending against
several of the officers of the House. Their case was
aggravated, but to-morrow he would be prepared to
state the course which he would recommend the House
to take.

CANADA GOVERNMENT BILL.
Lord J. RUSSELL moved the Order of the Day
for the second reading of the above Bill.
Mr. PAKINGTON, before the Order of the Day
was read, wished to make an appeal to the Noble Lord
for the postponement of the Bill. It was a most im-
portant and vital Bill, and he thought it ought not to
be pressed under the peculiar circumstances of the case:
—( Hear, hear.) He had a precedent exactly in
point for making such an application, and one
to which the Noble Lord would be disposed to pay
much attention. In 1791, when Mr. Pitt brought for-
ward the very Bill relating to the Clergy Reserves in
Canada, he fixed the discussion for the 21st of April,
being immediately before the Easter holidays. Mr.
Sheridan applied to the Minister for a postponement of
the measure, on the ground that many Members had
gone out of town in the full expectation that such im-
portant business would not be taken so immediately be-
fore the holidays. The event was that the Bill was
postponed. The cases were perfectly analogous ; the
only difference between them being the difference in the
Members making the application. It was impossible
that Hon. Gentlemen could be prepared to discuss
the question, considering the late important debate.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS wished to make the
same appeal to the Noble Lord, and upon such
similar grounds that it would be unnecessary for him
to take up the time of the House. He did not believe—
and ho meant no disrespect to other Hon. Gentlemen
opposite—he did not believe that there were four
Hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side who were pre-
pared to enter upon the discussion.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL had given his reasons
for pressing this Bill the other night, and he did not
think that those reasons had been answered or set
aside by the arguments of the Honourable Mem-
ber for Droitwich. The case cited by the
Hon. Member was not at all analogous to the present
one, because Mr. Pitt had had a second reading to the
Bill. The Bill had even gone into Committee. He
had had his second reading. He obtained the assent
of the House to the general principles of the Bill,
which was exactly what he (Lord J. Russell) wanted.
The other reason given by the Hon. Member rather
told against himself, because the Hon. Member for
Wolverhampton was again going to bring the Corn
question under discussion, and any Hon. Member on
the opposite side of the House might bring forward
some other motion, and if he were to allow such a rea-
son to prevail, be would never be justified in proceed-
ing with the Bill, which he thought was essential
to the welfare of the Colony. He could not assent to
the Hon. Member's application, and must press the
second reading of the Bill.
The Order of the Day having been read,
Mr. HUME said he thought the Noble Lord was
perfectly justified in pressing the second reading of the
Bill, because of the immense importance of the Bill to the
Colony, and by reading the Bill now, those who wished
to take part in the discussion would have plenty of
time to make themselves acquainted with the details
of the Bill before it proceeded to another stage.
It might be wished that the two provinces should, by
separate legislatures, conduct their own affairs ; but
after what had taken place, he doubted whether this
could be expected,and he thought it was important that
no further delay should take place in the settlement of
he question. In Committee he should have certain
amendments to suggest. The object of the Noble Lord,
doubtless, was to tranquillise the colony. But would
the measure have that effect ? Why, there was nothing
in the Bill to settle the question of responsibility in the
Executive. Then, again, as to the proportions in
which the representations were to be adapted to the
populations of the two provinces, was it fair that Upper
Canada, with a population of 350,000 should have as
many representatives as Lower Canada, with 600,000 ?
He could not help remarking, too, on the great amount
of Civil List established by the Bill-30,0001, whereas
the whole expenses of the Federal Government in
the United States was 13,000/. or 14,000/.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—WhatI including the
Judges ?
Mr. HUME—No, no—(Hear, hear)—the Judges
are paid by the different States. The Hon. Member
went on to say that he believed in accordance with
Governor Thomson and Lord Durham, though they
had been reprobated for so saying by the Bishop of
Exeter, that a great source of the disputes that
had arisen was the question of Clergy Reserves.
—(Hear, hear, hear.) He thought that the Bill was
drawn up in so obscure and technical a manner,
that he did not believe even a barrister of eight years'
standing would be able to make out from it the Constitu-
tion of Canada.
Mr. GALLY KNIGHT said he feared this Bill
was but the preparation for a separation of the Canadas
from the mother country—(Hear, hear)—which he
thought sooner or later would assuredly arrive.—
(Hear, hear.) The reason of all the discontent that
had arisen was the too hasty conferring on the
Canadas the benefit of free and representative
institutions, for which they were unprepared.--( Hear.)
The first measure was the substitution of English laws
and of the English language for the 1 rench, and if that
change had been matured before the introduction of free
institutions, it would most probablylhave worked well.
But the Act George 111. was passed, th. French laws
were restored, and a House of Assembly was given to
the colony. All the evils which had since occurred
might be traced to that concession: The people were
attached to France, and they had made use of their
power to endeavour to throw off the yoke of England.

That was the true solution of the events of 1833. The
demagogues had made use of their power for this pur-
pose. The people had taken little part in it, and there
was little public opinion on the subject. They were not
long in finding out specious pretexts to induce British
sympathisers to take up their cause—these were gene-
rous men, who had been led astray by their feelings—
others, however, had taken up their cause, not from such
pure motives. Grievance after grievance was brought
forward to keep the cauldron bubbling, and no sooner
was one grievance redressed than another was brought
forward, and when all were imagined to be removed,
the House of Assembly came forward with an astound-
ing list of 92 new grievances. Their object was to
throw off the English Government altogether, and when
their designs were unmasked, the rebellion broke out.
He believed the French Canadians were unchanged,
and now in 1840, they were the same as they were in
1761. He believed the union was objectionable, but
having been proposed it was difficult to be withheld.
He did not approve of keeping the Constitution
of Lower Canada suspended while the Upper
Canadians were left to the enjoyment of their Con-
stitution. Neither did he approve of the restoration of
the Constitution to Lower Canada. He therefore
should vote for the second reading of this Bill, iut he
should submit to it as a necessity rather than as a mea-
sure meeting with his approval.
Mr. GOULBURN thought the union of the two
provinces was, under existing circumstances, the wisest
course that could have been pursued, but he should
reserve what he had to say on the subject for the mo-
tion of the House going into Committee.
Sir C. GREY expressed his concurrence in the
general principle of the Bill, but rose to express his dis-
sent from that portion of it which related to the sale
of Crown lands. He thought if it could be done, it
would be better that the Crown should retain the power
of'disposing of the net proceeds of the sale of Crown
lands ; and he hoped if it could be done consistently,
that the Royal Assent would be given to the Bill of
the Legislature of Upper Canada relating to Clergy
Reserves. It always appeared to him, that the
plain way of settling that question would be to
sell the lands known as Clergy Reserves, so that
they might not be obstructions to the progress of settle-
ment and cultivation, and that the proceeds should be
handed over to the Established Church, either of Eng-
land, or of England and Scotland, if both were entitled
to share in them, and then from the sale of the waste
Crown lands provision might be made for the other re-
ligious sects which stood in need of such provision. By
this method that feeling with regard to the Clergy Re-
serves would be removed which bad tended so much to
damage the cause of the Church in the minds of the in-
habitants of these Colonies.

Sir R. INGLIS would not now enter into any dis-
cussion on the question of Clergy Reserves. He en-
tertained great doubts on the question of the union of
the provinces, and thought the present measure hasty
and unadvised. This measure had been proposed 17
years ago, and had ever since been repudiated by
every Colonial Secretary. In the present state of the
House discussion was impossible, but be rose for the
purpose of protesting against being considered to ap-
prove of the Bill, because he did not divide against it on
the second reading, although he thought this measure o
great improvement, is some respects, on those proposed
last year.
Mr. E. ELLICE had entertained great doubts on
the question of the union of the two provinces, and
those doubts had only been removed by the general ex-
pression of opinion by the inhabitants of both provinces
in its favour. He must take that opportunity of doing
justice to his Right Hon. Friend the Governor-General
of Canada, who, by his able and conciliatory conduct
had given complete satisfaction to all parties in the co-
lonies, and had succeeded in uniting all classes in favour
of the principle of this measure.—(Cheers.) He had
also great satisfaction, in seeing his Noble Friend occu-
pying the office which he now held, as it gave him a
pledge that they were at length approaching to a satis-
factory settlement of this question. He only objected
to one part of the Bill—he alluded to that which gave
the Governor-General the power of establishing com-
monalties in the two provinces. He concurred in the
principle that such assemblies should be instituted,
us he considered that the more those bodies had to do
with the local administration of affairs the better.
He was also of opinion that it would be indispensable to
adopt some measure of taxation of waste lands, in order
to force the proprietors of the lands to bring them into
cultivation, but he thought all these matters had better
be left to the arrangement of the local legislation. He
should give his cordial support to the second reading of
the Bill. In conclusion the Right Hon. Gentleman
expressed his fervent hope that the measure might lead
to a satisfactory adjustment of this long-agitated ques-
tion.—( Hear.)
Sir R. Peel just here entered the House, and
Lord J. RUSSELL having risen at the same mo-
ment. said, if the Right lion. Baronet wished to address
the House he could proceed.—(Sir R. Peel intimated
that he did not desire to go on then.) The Noble
Lord proceeded to say that, of course, he could not pre-
vent Gentlemen opposite from taking the discussion in
the Committee, but this he must consider, that whether
they assented or not, by agreeing to the second reading,
the House did sanction the principle of the Bill.—
(Hear, hear.) He felt bound, after what had been
said by the Hon. Members for Kilkenny and Notting-
ham, distinctly to declare that no the measure which he
might propose or support in regard to Canada, did he,
in the most distant manner, wish to contemplate the se-
paration of the colony from the mother country—
(Hear, hear)—on the contrary, he thought it for the
interests of both that the connection should exist—
(Hear, hear)—for he thought that such colonies were
part of the inherent strength of the country.—( Hear.)
Sir ROBERT PEEL said if he had thought that
any thing he could have to say would require reply
from the Noble Lord, be should have been happy to pro-
ceed when the Noble Lord called on him, even at so
very short a notice.--(A laugh.) He perfectly agreed
that it was for the honour and interests of this coun-
try that we should not lightly abandon our connection
with the Canadas.—(Hear, hear.) Still, that con-
nection ought to be founded on good-vrill.—(Hear,
hear.) We could never maintain that tnost important
of all wars—a war of horror—in regard to the Canadas,
at a distance of 3,000 miles from the mother country,
unless we were supported by the attachment of at
least the British part of our Canadian population.
—( Hear, bear.) It had been proposed by some that
Upper and Lower Canada should be divided into three
provinces : a portion of Upper Canada to form one,
Lower Canada to form another, and the Island of
Montreal to form a third. But it was impossible not
to see that very formidable objections might be made to
such a proposal.—(Hear, hear.) That proposal had
not, however, been put forward in such a shape as to
enable the House to form any opinion upon it. He
looked with great apprehension to the results of the
plan then before the House for the union of the two
provinces ; but it was impossible to suggest any scheme
to which great objections might not be started. The
maintainance of a despotic form of Government, con-
sidering the vicinity of the United States, he con-
sidered to be impracticable. (Hear, hear, hear.)
They were about to constitute a new assembly, where
parties would be equally balanced, and it might be
that the union of the two provinces might have a
tendency to increase religious animosities ; but when he
found that the project of the union of the Canadas re-
ceived the assent of all parties—when he found that re-
solutions in its favour had passed the House of Assem-
bly, whatever apprehensions he might himself entertain,
he thought it would be inconsistent with his duty
to refuse his assent to the principle of the measure.
He should vote, therefore, for the second reading,
leaving the consideration of the details to another pe-
riod. With respect to the Clergy Reserves, ho trusted
the Noble Lord would most carefully consider that sub-
ject, before he brought forward a measure, the effect
of which would be to give effect to a Bill that would
ultimately be of no avail.
The Bill was then read a second time ; and upon the
question that it be committed,
Lord J. RUSSELL said he should not propose any
measure to the House upon the subject of the Clergy
Reserves without due consideration.
The Bill was then ordered to be committed on Mon-
day, the 11th May.
LORD SEATON'S ANNUITY BILL,
Mr. BERNAL brought up the Report of the Com-
mittee on Lord Seaton's Annuity
Bill.
Mr. J. O'BRIEN said he did not at all intend to
disparage the conduct of Lord Seaton, on the contrary,
he had always voted in favour of the principle of the
annuity, but he was of opinion that the services of the
Noble Lord would be amply repaid by granting the an-
nuity for the life of the Noble Lord and his immediate
successor. The Hon. Member moved accordingly.
Strangers were ordere d to withdraw. The House
divided when there appeared
For the Amendment 33
Against it .......... ....
Majority against the Amendment —7l
ADMIRALTY COURTS.
The House then went into Committee on the Ad-
miralty Courts Bill, Mr. Beatim, in the Chair.
Clauses up to .5 were agreed to without observation.
Clause 6, which related to salvage, was struck out.
The remaining clauses were then agreed to, the
House resumed, and the Report was ordered to be re-
ceived to-morrow.
ADMIRALTY COURT (JUDGES' SALARY).
The House then went into Committee on the Admi-
ralty Court (Judges' Salary) Bill, Mr. BERN AL in the
Chair.
On clause 1 being read, which provided that the
salary of the Judge should be 4,0001. per annum,
Mr. HUNIE proposed that the blank in the clause
should be filled up with 3,000/. The average number
of days during which the Judge had sat of late years
was from 25 to 40, and under such circumstances he
thought the remuneration much too large. It appeared
to him that. the salaries of the Judges generally were
much too high, and he could see no good reason why
the pay of the present Judge should be increased.
Mr. WILLIAMS had made the same proposition
when the Bill was before the House last year. Ho

had withdrawn his amendment on the understanding
which was given by the Secretary for the Admiralty,
that the salary of the Judge amounted to about 4,0001.
per annum. It appeared, however, by the returns that
had been since laid upon the table that the average of
salary and emoluments for the last four years was 2,G09/.
If the Judge received 4,000/. a year, he would receive
1751. for every day he sat. He found on an average of
four years, the Judges of the Consistory and Arches'
Courts sat twenty-three days a year, on the average only.
Mr. M. O'FERRALL said if they did not increase
the salary they should not increase the labour.—
(Hear.) The Judge of the Admiralty had performed
other duties than those of that Court—he had sat
in the Privy Council. He also sat in the Ecclesiastical
Court, for which for a long period he only received 250/.
a year, while he had given up a great private practice.
It was idle to say a Judge only sat 26 days, for during
that time cases of great importance were to be decided,
and it was for the interest of the country the office
should be filled by a competent person. He thought the
motion was an unworthy one.
Mr. WAKLEY admitted it was necessary that the
Judges should be persons of great talent ; but the ques-
tion was whether or not such persons could not be ob-
tained for less than 4,000/. a year. He thought such a
sum was an exorbitant waste of public money. It was
a principle of his no lawyer had been, or ever would be,
worth more than 3,000/. a year.—(Laughter.) Mr. HUME could sec nothing unworthy in saving
the country 1,000/. a year.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the observation of

the Honourable Member for Finsbury did not apply
to this case, for when Lord Melbourne appointed
the present Judge it was upon the understanding that
the present motion would be made. He did not think
it would be possible to fill the office with persons of the
talents and learning it required for a less salary than
that proposed, since such persons could obtain so much
greater incomes by private practice in their profession.
The House then divided and the numbers were—
For the amendment
Against it lOO
Majority
Mr. JONES was surprised to find a salary
granted to the Judge of the Admiralty Court al-
most as great as that granted to the Judges of the
Courts of Law, who had far more laborious duties to

discharge. He blushed to see his party supporting
such a job.—( Hear, bear.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that he did
not think 4,000/. a-year at all too much for a Judge of
the Admiralty, who had most important duties to dis-
charge. The present Judge was besides, a man of the
highest legal ability, and his judgments were quoted with
respect even in foreign countries. He should also ob-
serve, that he would have additional duties to discharge
in time of war.

Mr. KEMBLE did not think the question should
be treated as a job. If he thought so, he would not
have given his vote in its favour. But he believed that
in giving that vote he was consulting not only the dig-
nity of the Court, and justice to the individual presiding
over it, but the interests of the public.
Mr. JONES had not called the transaction a Whig
job. He had said it was a mixed job—in which Whigs
and Tories had participated.
Mr, HUME said that not only was the Judge to
have a salary greater than his predecessors, but he was
also to have, what they had not, a retiring pension of
2,000/. a-year.

Mr. BERNAL (Chairman of the Committee) then
put the question, that the clause giving a salary of 4,0001.
a-year to the Judge of the Admiralty Court, be agreed
to, when

Lord HOTH AM moved a proviso to the effect
that " the Judge of the Admiralty Court shall,
after the present Parliament, be incapable of being
elected or sitting as a Member of the House of Com-
mons." In doing so he disclaimed being actuated by
those party motives which had been charged upon those
gentlemen who had before contended for the principle
upon which his motion was founded.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the Noble Lord
in bringing forward his proposition, had given expres-
sion to his opinions in a manner with which no one
could find fault, and he had referred entirely to the
constitutional objections which he entertained to Judges
having a seat in that House, and on the same con-
stitutional grounds, he (Lord John Russell) should wish
to see this Judge retain his seat in Parliament. He
thought it would be unjust to the House of Commons,

and tend to lower the character of it with the country,
if they were to disqualify persons who, by their posi-
tion, their talents, and their character, must be calcu-
lated to give the House useful information in debates
on subjects of the greatest national importance. He
laid that down as a general principle with regard to the
constitution of the House of Commons.—(Cheers.)
They must either maintain what was the present
practice on that subject, or they must carry their
principle much farther, and the result of the carrying
out that principle would be, that they would find them-
selves in a position of great inferiority as compared
with the other House of Parliament.—(Cheers.) With
regard to the propriety of Judges sitting in that House.
they should recollect that there were already two
Judges possessed of criminal jurisdiction, Members of
the House of Commons.—(Cheers.) Did the sup-
porters of this motion mean to say that those persons
ought to be excluded ? The two Recorders of London
and Dublin sat in that House, and he should be sorry
to see them excluded by a clause in an Act of Parlia-
ment, and, should such a clause be proposed, he should
most certainly give it his most decided opposition.—.
(Cheers.) He thought it of great advantage to have
those gentlemen in the House. 'The Recorder of Dublin,
whose opinion wasentitled to great weight, had frequently
expressed that opinion with great force of argument, and
had thereby added lustre to their debates, and he would
be sorry to see him excluded from Parliament. It
might be stated that there was a difference in this re-
spect in these two cases—that they were not Judges
appointed by the Crown, but nominated to their office
by local bodies. But the House itself had altered this
case with respect to Dublin, and he hoped they would
alter it also with respect to London ; and whenever a
measure for the reform of the Corporation of London
should be brought forward, that they would act on the
principles on which they had acted in reforming the
Municipal Corporations of Ireland and England. With
regard to the Corporation of Dublin, by the 166th
clause of the Municipal Bill, which had recently passed
that House, and which, before the end of the Session,
he trusted would be the law of the land, they had
vested the appointment of Recorder of Dublin, in
the event of a vacancy occurring, in the Lord
Lieutenant.—(Hear, hear.) Now, if any intention
had existed of laying down the principle that Judges were
not to sit in that House, there would have been an
opportunity to bring it forward when they were vest-
ing the appointment of a Criminal Judge in the Lord
Lieutenant, and regulating the duties of that Judge's
Office, and yet on that occasion no one deemed it
necessary to make any proposition that that Judge
should not have a seat in Parliament. Were they to say
that they would have one rule for one Judge and an-
other for another. or adhere to their principle in the
case of the Recorder of Dublin ; or, lastly, say the
Judges might still continue to sit in that House ? He
trusted they would adhere to the last part of the alter-
native ; he did not wish to make any imputations, but he
thought it would look invidious, as if they were influenced
by party distinctions, if they excluded one Judge without
excluding all, and saying that neither the Master of the
Rolls nor any other Judge ought to sit in the House.—
(Cheers.) Party debates frequently occurred in the
House of Lords. The Lord Chief Justice of the
Queen's Bench and the Lord Chief Baron had both
seats in the House of Lords, and took part in those
debates. They bad all read the reports of the pro-
ceedings in the other House of Parliament at the time
of the Reform Bill. The Lord Chief Baron of that
day had been one of the ablest speakers against the
measure, and his speech had doubtless been read with
great interest. Would they say that it was competent
for Judges to sit in the House of Lords, and yet that
they, the House of Commons, would deprive themselves
of the advantages to be derived from their presence, and
of the lustre to be imparted to their debates from their
arguments? Did they mean to say that they would volun-
tarily deprive themselvesof these benefits, and that their
talents were to be for ever excluded from adding force
to their debates ?—(Cheers.) He would allude to but
one instance more—one of the greatest speeches deli-
vered in that House on one of those questions which
always brought out great talent, was on the Bill for
suppressing sedition, and providing a remedy for the
abuses of the liberty of the press at the commence-
ment of the revolutionary war—that speech was made
by Sir William Grant, then Master of the Rolls.—
(Cheers) 'Would they deprive themselves of the op-
portunity of such things happening again ? He thought
they would be lowering the dignity of the House if
they did so. With regard to the present Judge of the Ad-
miralty Court it did so happen that be was the Member
for the Tower Hamlets. He would say it would be
more desirable that a Judge should not be connected
with so large and popular a body in the metropolis, it
would have been better had it not so happened ; that
Was not, however the fault of his Right Hon. Friend. He
Lad already been connected with that constittrkolney,and
had so gained their confidence, that ito w
limmense
to be
npslee
that they would disqualify the people of the Uniteda s
as n
a '
principle
withdrawn.—(Cheers.)
disadvantage
if they wereStuotlalyt itw downud bcof m
great
db
dd a lustre to t eir e ates, a
talent, who would a
f atio I' h
Kingdom from electing persons of reat eminence and
n w lie the
would be unable to p
.procure elsewhere. He thought
ficine great advantages to a fanciful
they would be sacri
give them that important in orm
theory.—(Cheers.)
Mr. WAKLEY said he was far from thinking it
an unfortunate circumstance that the Learned Judge of
the Admiralty should have been elected for the large
constituency of the Tower Hamlets—on the contrary,
he considered it very fortunate that, after having been
selected by the Government to a high judicial office, the
Learned and Right Hon. Gentleman should have been
declared by his constituents qualified to represent them.
His chief objection to the motion,however, was, that it
tended to limit and restrain the choice of the people,