The Sun.
London, England, 1846-08-21 00:00:00

AIII.I.BANK PRISON.

The Marvis of LANSDOWNE laid on the table severi
deeaments and r. parts in referrnce to this establishment.
CONFERENCE WITH THE COI ONS.

Te following Noble Lords were then appointed to meet the
Commons in Confer, nee on the Bill already named :—Th.
Earl of pinto, Earl Spenear, Earl Ducie, the Bishop of Oa-
k. d, Lord Ponionby, Lord Churchill, and Lord Alonteagle.
The members of :he deoltation then withdrew, and after an
absence r f about fire rr inutts, returned
The Earl of MINTO, approaching the table, said th.
Commons had submiued to them the reasons why they dis-
sented from certain amendments made in the Bill in their
Lordships' House.
The .Marquis of LANSDOWNE then moved that the
Howe do -not insist on the amendments referred to, which
was agreed to.
fheit Lordships immediately after adjourned.

Housß ng commONS. August 20
NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE AND CARLISLE BRANCH
RAILWAY.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)

After a few words from Mr. A. SMITH,
• Mr. MUNTZ said, if they were to throw nut the Bill en
account of the alleged !much:, they would be inflicting a great
hardship on the, shareholders, who were nut parties to the abuse
• complained of.
J The gallery was then cleared for a division, when there ap•
Feared—
For the adjournment of the debate
.Against it
Majority lB
- - -

The House again divided on Mr. J. A. Smi,h's amendment.
• " That the House do not agree to the Lords' amendments,"
when there appeared
For the
t Agaia,t it
a nijurity against the amendment —2o
+. The Lords' amendments were then agreed to.
GLASGOW COLLEGE ESTATE BILL.
Mr. GIBSON CRAIG moved that, in the case of Mac-
e farlan's (Glasgow Colege) Estate Bill, the standing orders
$ Nos. 120 and 139 be suspended, and the report be now con.
• sidered, amended prints of the Bill having been delivered to
! the doorkeepers, and the amended breoiate laid upon the
table, on Tuesday last.
Mr. WARBURTON complained of the college property
0 • being taken without proper compensation being given. He
thought this matter ought to have been brought under the
consideration of the Lords of the Treasury, and have their
• Sanction.
• Mr GIBSOII CRAIG thpkight tha best ecittria 70'114 be to

take any discussion on the measure in the next stage of the
Bill. The Bill had received the sanction of the law officers of
both the late and the present Government.
Mr. J. OSWALD did not complain of the professors wishing
to part with the present buildings, so as to get a more eligible
site for themselves, He did not, however, think that a fait
price wa4 guaranteed by the railway company for the build-
ings. He was quite sure that if the buildings were put up for
auction they would bring at least 20000/., instead of
3,0001., as proposed.
Mr. FOX MAULE said the objections he had had to the
Bill had been removed by the clause which was to be proposed
on the third reading. Ile considered the best possible price
should be obtained for the old buildings, and he should have
been better satisfied if some proper party was called in to value
the property ere it was parted with.
Mr. PROTHEROE stated that evidence adduced before
the Committee showed that it would be much to the advantage
of the professors and students if the college were removed from
the centre of the city to the suburbs. The faculty t f the col-
lege certainly were at-raid that if the Bill was passed without
restricting the railway company not to apply the present
buildings to any edleational purpose, they would
suffer from cAmpatition. The Bill, therefore, was passed with
that restriction through Committee. Now, however, it seemed
that a clause was to be introduced annulling that restriction,
so that the buildings might be applied for another collegia ;
still he hoped that, if this was agreed to, the railway company
would act honourably in the matter in the use they would
make of the buildings.
After some fut ther discussion the motion was agreed to.
ANDOVER UNION COMMITTEE.

Lord COURTENAY moved that the report of this Com-
mittee be brought nu and agreed to.
Captain PECHELL could not allow that report to be pre-
sented without bearing his testimony to the intelligence, ability
and courtesy which the Noble Chairman had exhibited in con-
ducting that inquiry.
Mr. WAKLEY said that no chairman could have shown
more ability, tact, and judgment, than the Noble Lord did on
that. occasion. It was but an act of justice to the Noble Lord
to make this declaration of his impartiality.
Mr. ETV ALL concurred in the encomiums passed upon th.'
Noble Chairman.
After some observation from Mr. CHRISTIE and other
Hon. Members, to the same effect,
Lord COURTENAY acknowledged the complimentary
terms in which he was r. ferred to, and observed that, in the
delicate inquiry over which he had presided, he had acted to the
best of his ability.
Mr. BORTH WICK hoped the report would be printed be-
fore Nlont,ay next, so that they might have it before the Hon.
Member for Montrose brought on his motion in reference to
the Poor-law Commissioners.
FLOGGING IN THE ARMY.

Mr. T. D'EYNCOURT presented a petition from Peck-
ham, in Surrey, signed by 1,500 of the most respectable in-
habitarrs of that locality, against military flogging.
Capt. PEGII ELL presented a petition from Philip Herring,
who was a prisoner in the Queen's Bench prison since 1841,
against the keeper of that prison, for harsh treatment.
Mr. HAWES presented a petition from the Manchester
College of Surgeons in favour of the Medical Regulation Bill.
Mr. ‘VAKLEY presented several petitions to the same
effect. The Hun. Member also presented several petitions
from Essex, Kendal and other places, numerously signed, against
what the petitioners designated the " sanguinary " practice of
flagging. Also a petition from the pawnbrokers of London
(at the request of Mr. Masterman) in favour of the Pawn-
brokers' Bill.
NEW ZEALAND LOAN ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and ass I
CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL.

The House went into Committee on this Bill, which was
agreed to, and ordered to be reported.
CUSTOMS' DUTIES (No. 2) BILL
On the motion that this Bill be read a third time,
Mr. HUME hoped that during the recess Government would
institute an inquiry into the duties performed by Custom-house
officers, and he proposed next session to recommend some re-
duction in the expense of that establishment. He truded, too,
that in future the appointment of Custom-house racers would
not be under political influence, but be dependent upon the
merits of appointees fir the situation they proposed to fill.
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT BILL.
This Bill was also read a third time and passed.
SIMALCDEBTS COURTS' (SALARIES OF
OFFICERS) BILL.
The report on this Bill was brought up by Mr. GREENE
and agreed to, and the Bill was ordered to be engrossed.
SMALL DEBTS BILL.

On the question being put for going into Committee on this
Bill,
Lord G. BENTINCK said this Bill was of too much in
portance for them to go into Committee upon it without hearing
some further statement from the promoters. Ile was aware
that this was a measure which originated with the late Govern-
ment, and her Majesty's present Ministers had obtained it by in-
heritance. The measure bestowed more patronage upon the Go-
vernment than any other measure that had been brought in for
some time past. He thought at this period of the session,
when there were so few Members left in the House, they
were entitled to have it delayed till a complete expla-
nation was given of how the patronage was to
be bestowed, and of the whole extent of expense
that would be brought upon the country by this measure.—
( lit ar, hear.) There was a psver in the second clause of the
B 11 to divide every county into so many districts that might
seem fit to her Majes y's Miniver; in Council assembled. Now
they ought to know the number ot districts into which such
county in England was to be divided. As the Bill stolid at
present, it appeared that each district was to have its separate
jm'ge, and each judge was to have a salary of 1,2001. a year, their
appointment so be in the patronage of the Lord Chancellor of
England. Each court was to•have a clerk, with a salary of
6001. a year ; and each court was also to have a treasurer,
but no amount of salary was devised for this last office. It
was left to the discretion of the Commissioners of her Majesty's
Treasury to decide how many treasurers there should be, and
what artionnt of salary they should receive.—( Hear, hear.)
was commonly supposed that the number of districts would, in
all probability, be not less than a hundred. He t.ad learned,
since he had entered the House, from the Honour
able and Learned Gentleman the Solie.tor-Genera!,
that he estimated that the number would not exceed
sixty-five. Well, he would take the number of courts at sixty -five.
There would be 65 judges at a salary of I,200!., which would
amount to a sum of no less than 78,0001. Sixty-five clerks,
with a salary of 600/., would amount to 39,000!., and
these two sums together would amount to 117,000/.,
as the patronage to be disposed of by the Minister
of the Crown.—( Hear, hear.) The salaries to be given to the
treasurers were to be left to the discretion of the Lords Com-
missioners of the Treasury. Here, then, there was no
limit to the salary of the treasurers ; and, therefore,
he thought they ought to hear what was the limit to
be put upon the salaries of these treasurers, or the
number there was to be of them.—( Hear, hear.) There were,
however, other considerations connected with this measure which
rendered explanation necessary. These judges were, for in-
stance, to be paid by fees, while one provision of the Bill pro-
vided that the judges of these Courts were to perform many
duties belonging to the High Court of Chancery. They would
have the power of acting as Masters in Chancery and Masters
of the superior courts of law, and fur their services they were
to be paid fees in addition to their salaries. These
fees would be paid in diminution of the fees
that were now paid in the Court of Chancery.
Now, the expenses of the Court of Chancery he thought, in
round numbers, amounted from 134,000/. to 135,0001. This
sum was made up to the Consolidated Fund by the fees
paid into the Court which used formerly to be paid to
its officers ; but if these fees were to be diminished
in the manner he had jest mentioned it was right
they should know it was proposed to make up the
deficiency to the Consolidated Fund.—( Cries of " Hear,
hear.") Then, again, there was to be compensation given to
all officers of the new courts now subsisting. There were at
this moment 450 courts of different descriptions, which, for
anything they knew to the contrary, might be superseded by
the new courts to be established by this Bill —( Hear. ) Now
if these 450 courts were to be abolished, all the officers who
did not choose, or had not the apt ion given to them, of taking
effices in the new courts, wool I be entitled to compensation.
at the discretion of her Majesty's Lords of the Treasury.—
( Hear, hear.) Now he thought they ought to hear from
Ministers what would be the amount ot all this compena.ion,
in order that they might have some sort of notion
what the expense would be of carrying this 11.11 into
effect.—( Hear, hear.) He had no charge to make
against Ministers, who had conic by this Bill and all its
advantages in the course of inheritance. . Their was, to be
sure, . this difference made in the Bill since it had
come into their hands, that the patronage was to
be given to the Lord Chancellor, anti not to the
First Lend of the Treasury.--( Hear, hear.) Much might
be said in favour of this change, but at the same time it was
matter for grave consideration whether or not they should put
into the hands of any Government additional patronage to the
extent of upwards of 117,0001. There were many
matters of detail in the Bill which he objected to
but he should not trouble the House upon them till
they got into Committee on the Bill. He objected,
for instance, to the despotic power which the Bill gave
to the judges, but he should leave all this for
comment in Committee, and, in conclusion, he could only
say that he thought this measure was of too much import-
ance—gave too much patronage to the Government—to be
disposed of when the great majority of .Members were not
present.—( If ear. )
Sir GEORGE GREY said the Noble Lord had told
them this Bill was a legacy left to the pre-
sent Ministry by the late Government, but so many altera-
tions had since been made in it that it might be said to be a
new Bill.—( Hear, hear.) The Bill in its new shape had gone
before the country, and he believed it was generally approved
of. Indeed no remonstrance had been made against its
principles, and the objectiens to come of its de-
rejig could easily be got rid of in Committee. --(Hear, hear. )
The amount of fees in the courts to be established by this Bill
would depend upon the amount of business. It would net be
necessary to divide every county in England. Li fact, in some
parts, two or three counties might form the. district of one court,
whereas, such densely -populated counties as Lancashire and
aliddleeex would have to be divided for the purposes of this
Act. In case the amount of busine-s should turn out
to be very large, the Home Secretary would have
the power of liroi•ing the salary of the judge to
1,2001 , in some cases the salary might be much less.
hen as to the patronage to be conferred by the Bill, he thought
that the best hands in which it could be placed were those of
the Government and the lieutenants of the different
counties. ( Hear, hear.) As the Noble Lord had
himself said, it would be much better to postpone
Any further discussion of the merits of this Bill till it was in
Committee ; and when it reached that stage he ( Sir George
Grey) would be prepared to explain its objects more fully. The
judges of the present local courts for the recovery of small
debts would stand a better chance of being appetites! judges

of the courts to be establiAled by this Act than any other new
candidate.—( Hear, hear.) With regard to compensation, the
same rules would be acted upon as bad been hitherto adopted
by the Treasury in similar cases.—( Hear, hear. )
Mr. MANNERS SUTTON said, that although the !we
Government had introduced a measure similar to this, there bad
been several changes since that period, which placed great
difficulties in the way of their carrying out this Bill.
He thought that there was great danger in placing such a vast
amount of patronage as this Bill would create in the
hands of the Government. The Bill of the late Govern-
ment had ha it a cause which would prevent any
abuse of patronage, and he did not think that the Government
had acted rightly in excluding that clause from the Bill.
Although he much preferred the Bill of the late Government,
he did not intend to impede this Bill by any oppoiition on his
part.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the !kn. Gentle-
gill' who ha I just sat donn was mistaken in supposing that
he Bill of the late Government would have placed the patron-
4ge which it would have created in the hands of the lord-
;ieutenants of the counties. It professed to do so, but did not
io Net. The patronage would really have been in the hands of
the Government by their Bill, and he (the Attorney-General)
(hought that the present Government were entitled to credit fur
having come forward, and plainly said that they did intend to
seek lor the patronage which this Bill would create.—( Hear. )
With respect to compensation to the judges of the present
courts, be contended they were not entitled to compensation,
because they had no vestrd rights in the office.—( Hear, hear.)
But ample compensation would, notwithstanding, be given to
every one-whom the Bill might iDjure, aril that comrasation

would be paid out of the very large funds to be accrued under
the operations of this Bill.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. S. WORTLEY contended that the Bill, as drawn up
by the late Government, was preferable to it in its present
altered state.
Mr. ROMILLY said that before the Bill went into Com-
mittee he wished to make a few observations upon it. In the
first place, he did not consider it a complete measure, but he
considered it as a first step in the right direction. It enabled
the poor of this country to have justice brought home to their
own doors at a cheap rate. It appeared to him to be of great
importance to establish throughout the country judges who
would take on themselves the functions to be given to them
under this Bill. He thought that the expense of the adminis-
tration of justice should be made as light as possible, and that
that expense should be borne by the country.
Mr. H. BERKELEY said that this Bill was most anxiously
looked forward to by the country, and he hoped that the
Government would prosecute is with all possib!e dispatch.
Mr. NEW te e_:GATE agreed with the Hon. Member for
Bristol, that this Bill was most anxiously expected by the
country, but he should not be so Killing to support it if it were
the come:ler:cement of a system so extensive as had been
alluded to. He very much (illeted the probability of the ap-
plication of the principle on a large scale to the constitution,
and he the refore thought that considerable caution should be
exercised in carrying it into effect.
Mr. HENLEY thought that the amount of patronage likely
to be given to the Crown under this Act would give
opportunities for corruption to a very dangerous extent. The
Government also could give very little information in reply to
questions on the subject ; and he therefore thought that the
House ought to have some further information before giving its
assent to such a m 'asure.
The House then resolved itself into Committee on the Bill.
Causes from I to eit were agreed to without discussion.
On clause 9 being proposed,
Mr. WAKLEY objected to the clause which restricted
the selection of judges from one branch of the legal profession
only. Li principle it was most unjust to restrict the selection
to barristers only, as he believed the solicitors and attorneys of
the country were quite as able, as members of the bar,
to fulfil the duties, and their characters, he was sure,
stood quite as high. Why not leave it to the Lord Chan-
cellor to to take the judge.; from whatever branch of the legal
profession he thought best ? Believing the clause, as it stood,
to be unwise and unjust, he would move, as an amendment,
words to admit of the selection of attorneys as well as barristers
to officiate as judges ia these courts.
Captain PECHELL said it was intimated to be the intention
of the Government officers under which the Bill had been
drawn up, to continue the services of the revising barristers,
and other similar judges, who had been appointed by the Lord
Chancellor as judges under this Biil. if so. then there would
not he so much objection to the clause as it stood. But the
point should 6e clearly stated, in order that he might know
how to act.
Lord G it AN VILLE SOMERSET would prefer leaving the
appointment entirely to the discretion of the Lord Chancellor as
far as it regarded the qualification of seven years standing. He
did not think restricting the appointments to barristers of that
standing would enhance the qualification of judges. He also
agreed with the Hon. Member for Finsbury that the attorneys
were hardly dealt with by the Bill, and he would rather leave the
appointment open to them, though his own opinion was, that the
education of a barrister rendered him more eligible as a judge.
Sir G. GREY differed with the Noble Lord as to the view
lie took regarding the seven years' qualification. He consi-
dered it would be the means of securing men of gee ater ex-
perience if they retained the restriction in question. lie
could not agree with the amendment respecting the ap •
pointment of the attorneys, as it would be contrary to all
precedent in similar Bills, and would lead, he was persuaded, to
great inconvenience. Besides, he thought the training of a
barrister was better for a judge than that of an attorney.
er.r. B judges
it. objected to the clause limiting the
ie the manner proposed. He thought it would be better to
lenve the matter to the discretion of the Lord Chancellor.
Mr. HENLEY thought it would be better not to have any
definition whatever in reference to standing, but to leave the
responsibility entirely on the shoulders of the Lord Chancellor,
and he would have the same principle to al ply with regard to
attorneys and barristers.
Colonel SIBTHORP thought it very hard to exclude attor-
neys, and he hoped that the Hon. Member for Finsbury would
divide the House on his amendment:
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought that attorneys
would be by no means so eligible for judges of these courts as
barristers, and supposing there were persons in that profession
suitable for the situations, the Lord Chancellor had no means of
judging of their qualification, which was not the case with regard
to barristers. Besides, from their attention having been almost
entirely turned to the minutia" of legal details, they were not so
competent to deal with the business which would come before
those courts as barristers.
Mr. B. ESC° T I' denied that there would be any more dif-
ficulty in ascertaining the competency of attorneys than of
barristers. Ile knew many barristers of seven years' standing
who were utterly disqualified for such a situation, while at the
same time he knew many attorneys who were very eligible to
be judges of such courts.
Lord G. SOMERSET thought that Members of Parlia-
ment should net be judges is these courts.
Mr. ROMILLY hoped that her Majesty's Government
would introduce a clause in the Bill for the purpose of prevent-
ing Members of Parliament from becoming judges in them.
Sir GEORGE GREY thought that the Bill sufficiently
provided for that, as no judge of that court could be absent
from his duties more than two months.
Mr. BERNAL thought such a clause as that referred to by
the Hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. Romilly) necessary, as
she clause referring to the two months' absence might be
evaded
M. HENLEY thought that the judges should be prevented
from practising in the districts where the courts over which
which they presided were situated.
Mr. B °MILL Y thought that it would be much
better to invest the judges, as far as possible, with
a purely judicial character, and for that pu-pose he
considered that they ought not to be allowed to practise at all.
Let their whole time be occupied with the business of the
courts, and let them not be allowed to dabble in the litigation
of the locality where they reside.
Mr. S. WORTLEY thought a man might be a very good
judge of such a court, while, at the same time, he attended to
all the practice which he might get. He had known many
instances of that kind, and he never knew any evil to result
from it.
Mr. BERNAL said that he had known many cases on the
Welsh circuits similar to those referred to by the Hon. and
Le irnel Member who last addressed the Committee.
Mr. WILLIAMS said, that he believed the Herne Secre-
tary could find more than double the necessary number of able
barristers, who would be very glad to accept of the office
upon the terms proposed by the Hon. Member for Finsbury.
Mr. B. ESCOTT entirely concurred in the views of the
Hon. Member for Coventry.
Lord JOIN RUSSELL—In his opinion there were two
modes in which they could obtain very good judges, and one
way was that in which they appointed the judges of the superior
courts at Westminster, to whom they gave very considerable
sa'aries, and compelled them to separate from their practice
at the bar, and to devote the whole of their
time to the questions that came before them
in their judicial character. That plan was found to be calcula-
ted in an eminent manner to obtain justice to the ceuntry, and
by that means they no doubt obtained excellent judges. There
was another mode as respected the appointment to a less important
and more limited sphere, viz., the recorder of the country.
Ile gentlemen who were appointed to those offices were al-
lowed to continue in their practice at the bar. Ile believed
that with respect to one of the instances which the
Honisurable and Learned Gentleman opposite had mentioned,
Mr. Baines, the recorder of Leeds, he was the party who re-
commended him to the Crown, as a tit person for the recur-
ders'iip of Leeds. Now he thought it was most ridiculous to
say that that gentleman, and the others, who filled the office
of recorders of the country, did not perform their judicial
functions in an efficient manner. Their heads were con-
stantly exercised, and their minds kept in full vigour upon the
consideration of the legal questions that came before them.
There were no questions on the law of which they had
become forgetful, because they were continually in practice as
barristers in the superior courts. They had, therefore,
but two courses to take in respect to the app iintments to theju-
dicial offices to be created in these courts, either they must give
the judges very considerable salaries, and have those persons
constantly employed in judicial functions, or they must take
the other plan, which, in his opinion, was a very goa I and
efficient plan, namely, that of appointing persons who would still
be allowed to practice at the bar. With regard to the other plan
ne-nely, that of getting persors who would be paid better
-alaries, but would be compel! el to remain in certain districts
to which they might happen to be appointed, but that was a
plan which in his opinion would not be found to work well
—(Hear, hear)—and he believed that the consequence
of adopting such a plan would be that they would
find that persons who did not very well succeed
at the bar—(Hear, hear)—would all be anxious to obtain
these appointments, and that men who had talents, and
knew that they were likely to rise at the bar, would refuse to
accept any such employment—(Hear, hear)—and that they
would be thug excluding men of the best talents and the greatest
vigour of mind from those offices. —(Hear, hear.) He knew
that it was said, and indeed it was perfeetly true, that rum
eho had not much practice at the bar, had a great deal of
talent, knowledge, and judicial understanding. Now, al-
though that was perfectly true, yet the difficulty was for the
persons who had the patronage created by this Bill to ascer-
tain who those parties were. If a man with all this
talent had no practice at the 'ear, how were the dispensers
of the patronage to knew them? But when they appointed
tnen who had large practice, they were then certain that
their appointments must give satisfaction to the public.
They selected men of great eminence, acumen, and legal
knowledge. And lie believed that the course adopted in this
country was also adopted in Scotland, where the people
were never satisfied with the decisions of their local
judges who did not practice at the bar on mat-
ters of law. They almost invariably on difficult points
appealed from their decision to that of a superior judge,
who continued his practice at the bar, and was therefore
conversant with the whole machinery of the law. Indeed
the law of Scotland rendered it absolutely necessary that the
judges of those superior courts should attend the Courts
of Se sion at Edinburgh— (Hear, hear)—and on all
these grounds, he was therefore of opinion, that
the principle of this Bill, which would permit the
judges still to continue in their practice at the bar.
was the best that could be adopted,—(Hear, hear.)
He felt bound to maintain the Bill as it then stood, with one
exception. The Hon. Member for Winchester bad objected
to the appointment of barristers who were to practice in the
district in which they were to act as judges. His Hon.
Friend would make the necessary alterations to meet that
objection. which was, in his opinion, well-founded.—( Ilear.)
Mr. HUME said that, with respect to the example given
by the Noble Lord, he must dissent from it. Ile himself had
presented petitions from the people of Scotland, praying that
they sheubl have judges resident amongst them. He
thought a local judge would necessarily give more sn,tisf,c-
tion than he now di,l.—(Hear, hear.) He, therefore, pro-
tested agoinst the illustration given by the Noble Lord. He
thought that the judges should be judges throughout. They
should not be for half-and-half duties. What had taken place
upon an analogous question? Why, when the salaries were
fixed fie- the Masters of Chancery, he himself proposed to give
them 500/. a year additional.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. BERNAL said that different principles were maintained
in this Bill where the attorneys who were to be employed were
to discontinue their practice.—( Hear, hear.) He would make
these barristers a kind of justices going from one district to
another. He woulsl give them enough to do, pay them well,
and keep them constantly employed
Mr. MUNTZ said it was understood that these judges were
to change their localities; how, then, if they cunninneel to
practise, were they to discharge their functions according to
the provisions of this Bill ?—( Hear, hesr.)
Mr. WARBURTON said he could not agree to the Bill.
If he could clearly see the premises of the Noble Lord upon
which he founded his arguments, he might be able to agree
with him. It should be remembered that those judges had to
deal with a class of litigants who, from their habits and pre-
judices, wsre much more suspicious of the dispensation of the
law than those at Westminster.
Mr. HORSMAN said it was proposed to make such districts
as wool.' employ the whole time of these judges, and of course
then the etiology to the Court of the Recorder failed. He had
no doubt, if sufficient salary were fixed, judges enough could be
got from Westminster Flail.
Sir G. GREY said the lion. Member had mistaken his
meaning ; and he observed further, that salaries could not im•
mediately be fixed, as the districts would 4iffgr in the amount
of envilyraent, and ought alto in salary.