The Sun.
London, England, 1859-04-09 00:00:00

to delay the dissolution, and I am sure it would not be for
the convenience of our friends. But I say again, Ido not
think it would be convenient to pledge myself to a particu-
lar day for Parliament to be dissolved. I still think, as
well as we can calculate, that all the business will be con-
cluded about Tuesday week—the 19th. That, I think, is
getting " towards the end of the month." The noble lord
is somewhat hypercritical upon that point. (A laugh.)
The convenience of members is certainly to be considered,
but there are also other considerations by which we must
be guided. As soon after the business of this house is con-
cluded as we think is consistent with public conveni-
nience, of course the dissolution will take place. The pro-
rogation cannot take place until or " towards the end of
the month," and the dissolution will follow.
Lord J. RUSSELL.—The right hon. gentleman cannot
at this moment pledge himself to any particular day upon
which Parliament will be dissolved, because there might be
business which may take a longer time than is at present
calculated upon, although I believe that pretty generally
members of this house can estimate that the business will
not occupy us later than Monday week. But the right hon.
gentleman is perfectly able to answer the question of my '
right hon. friend whether the dissolution will immediately
follow the prorogation. (Hear, hear.) There can be no
difficulty about that. We have repeated precedents in
which the Crown, having thought fit to dissolve Parliament,
asked the assistance of the House of Commons, and that
assistance has been readily given, as I am sure it has been
now, but a dissolution has always followed, if not on the
same day at latest upon the day after the prorogation.
(Hear, hear.) I cannot imagine what difficulty there
can be in assuring the house that as soon as the Crown
is able to prorogue Parliament her Majesty will be advised
to do so. My noble friend is quite justified in commenting
upon the phrase of introducing a Reform Bill in June or
July. I believe that upon the 19th or the 20th of this
month Parliament may be dissolved, and then the new
house can meet about the end of May. (Hear, hear.) The
right hon. gentleman the other day rather taunted my noble
friend and myself with a want of patriotism, for ask-
ing, as Sir Robert Peel asked me in 1841,' that if
the existing Parliament should be dissolved the new
one should meet as soon as constitutional prece-
dents and the requirements of the law would permit.
Since that time a law has been passed, known as Lord
Brougham's Act, by which Parliaments may meet sooner
than formdrly. The new Parliament might meet by the
end of May. What is the meaning, then, of talking about
a Reform Bill in July ? (Hear.) There can be no diffi-
culty, if a Reform Bill is really in contemplation, in intro-
ducing it, as was done in 1831, 10 days after the assembling
of the new Parliament, and if Parliament meet by the end
of May a Reform Bill might be introduced by the middle of
June. I cannot help thinking that there is something
strange in the declaration of the right hon. gentleman upon
this subject ; but, as the house has behaved with the utmost
courtesy to the Government, I trust that we shall not be left
in doubt with respect to the dissolution. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. GLADSTONE—If there has been any ambiguity in
the language of the Government with respect to the disso-
lution I have no doubt that we shall have it speedily cleared
up, because there can be no question that it is desirable upon
every ground that the dissolution should take place at the
earliest possible moment—which may be qualified on the
present occasion, however, to the extent of a day or two, by
the intervention of Passion week—and that the meeting of
Parliament should also take place at as early a period as
possible. lam quite certain, therefore, that that can never
become a matter of argument. (Cheers.) With respect
to the other subject, which, owing to the accident of the
discussion, has become mixed up with the question of the
dissolution, I would venture to say that the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer should not understand that
any imputation is sought to be cast upon the Government
with regard to the Galway contract. This matter of the
packet service is, after all, a young subject. It has
been growing up of late years, and it may be that
during its progress the hens* has been mreo anxious to
witness its growth than to maintain with strictness the ex•
ercise of its own constitutional control over the public ex-
penditure. (Hear, hear.) But upon this occasion an
important contract with a new company happens to have
come before the house when the contract is as yet Uncom-
pleted. The speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if
rigidly interpreted, might be construed to mean that it is
positively better that there should be no control by this
house over such contracts until they are completed, and
until the money of private persons has been laid out upon
the faith of those contracts. (Hear.) Then at last an
estimate is proposed—not for future expenses, as from the
nature of an estimate is implied—but for the payment of
expenses already incurred ; so that, in point of fact, no
option then remains to the house. (Hear, hear.) i And
the Chancellor of the Exchequer must know as well as
anybody, when he speaks of the control of the House of
Commons in such a case, that it really means no control at
all. (Hear.) There is no blame .to the Government if they
have proceeded in this matter as former Governments have
done. But if it be desirable, for the sake of a due control
over the expenditure, that an estimate of the ordi-
nary expenses of a single year should be placed dis-
tinctly before the house before the expenses are
incurred, much more is it desirable that this house
should exercise a prior and not a posterior judgment on a
contract which is essentially of a somewhat delicate cha-
racter, and which is to bind the public-faith for a very large
sum and over a considerable period of time. (Hear, hear.)
Without blaming the Government I would point out that
this matter comes before us at a time when the public faith
is not pledged, and when we can without imputation vin-
dicate to ourselves the right of considering it, and of trying
the reasons which have approved themselves to the minds
of the Government. I would, therefore, respectfully sub-
mit to the Government that, under those circumstances,
they would do well and wisely to recognise the constitu-
tional jurisdiction and control of the House of Commons
over the public expenditure, and to afford to it a full oppor-
tunity of considering the contract which they purpose to
complete before it is completed, and before private persons
have laid out their money upon the faith of it. (Hear.)
Colonel FRENCH said that, although the right hon.
gentleman who bad just sat down had disclaimed any inten-
tion of blaming the Government for what they had done in
the matter of this contract, the Government had twice been
attacked. without much consideration, on account of it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer had fairly thrown down
the gauntlet, and had stated that he was ready to justify
the contract, and to show that it was for the benefit of the
public. If the right hon. member for the University of
Oxford ' doubted that, let him take up the gauntlet in a
straightforward way, instead of attacking the proceeding by
a side wind. (Hear.)
Mr. F. IV. RUSSELL complained of the secrecy with
which he alleged that the contract had been attempted to
be carried out, and urged, as there were other ports besides
Galway which might contend for the advantage of despatch-
ing steamers to America, that it was the duty of the Go-
vernment to suspend the completion of the contract until
the assembling of the new Parliament.
Mr. RICHARDSON claimed for Ireland the benefit of a
direct communication with America, and was understood to
advocate the Galway route as affording the readiest means
for the shipment of manufactured goods.

BARON BRAMWELL AND WELSH JURIES.-
HEREFORD MAGISTRATES.

Mr. S. ESTCOURT rose to answer one or two questions
which had been asked some time ago, and which, he said,
the house had very likely forgotten, owing to the varied
character of the discussion which had taken place since they
had been put. The hon. member for Chester had called
the attention of the house to remarks said to have been
made by Mr. Baron Bramwell at Bala, on the North
Wales circuit, and speaking as a private individual, had
exercised the right—which he (Mr. Estcourt) would not
contest—of expressing an opinion upon the discretion of
the remarks attributed to the learned judge. The hon-
ourable gentleman pointed out that some of those re-
marks not only impugned the verdict of the jury, but
that they seemed to depreciate the Principality of Wales
in point of honesty, as compared with England. He might
join with the honourable gentleman in thinking that al
though nothing was said by the learned judge which could
be made the subject of complaint, still, as a matter of dis-
cretion, a comparison between one part of the country and
another might have been avoided. (Hear, hear.), But he
(Mr. Estcourt) would beg the house to observe that he was
called to speak on this matter as a Minister of the Crown,
and that there were considerations connected with it of far
higher importance than that immediately referred to in the
notice on the paper. (Hear) The question was really one
which seriously trenched on the independence of the judges.
(Hear.) He should be loth to take any step, or to use any
expressions which might in the smallest degree disparage that
independence of the judges, which was one of the last quali-
ties which that house ought to surrender. (Hear, hear.)
So strongly had Parliament always endeavoured to maintain
the independence of the judges that they were not reckoned
as officers over whom the Home Secretary had any control.

The judges of the land, in addressing juries from time to
time, had frequently made use of remars intended as warn-
ings or reprehensions, or as guides to public opinion on
matters not immediately before them, but which inci-
dentally arose out of the circumstances they were trying.
That liberty of remark had been felt to be a great
fi reat preserve-
ve against innovations, misconduct, an 4 a number of
practices deserving of reprobation, in chocking which no
such opportunities were afforded as those which came with-
in the province of the judges in the administration of justice.
That being so he had to state that he did not think it con-
sistent with the duties of his office to offer any explanation

by way of apology for the learned judge who was said to
have made the remarks to which the hon. gentleman had

called the attention of the house, (Rear, hear.) He turned

„
now to the recent appointment of magistrates for Hereford,
which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clive) who represented that
city, had brought under consideration in an earlier part of
the evening. That was a different matter, and he (Mr.
Esteourt) had felt bound to direct the attention of the Lord

Chancelfor to the notice which the hon. member had placed
upon the paper, in order that the nobleand learned lord might
have an opportunity of affording- any explanation he might
wish to make in reference to the subject. It was impossible
for him (Mr. Estcourt) to divine beforehand the nature of
the speech with which the hon. gentleman (MrXlive) would
preface his question ; but whit he understood the right hon.
member to complain of was, that six gentlemen should have
been added to the commission of the peace for the city of
Hereford; all of whom were supposed to hold Conservative
opinions, and two of whom the hon. gentleman rather in-
sinuated were scarcely fit for the office by reason of being
tradesmen, and carrying on business in that city. He also
understood the hon. gentleman to impugn the course pur-
sued by the Lord Chancellor in having made the appoint-
ments in question without communication with the autho-
rities of the city of Hereford. First, with regard to those
six gentlemen, he understood that about this time last
year, from which the commencement of this transaction
dated, there were altogether, including the Recorder, the
Mayor, the ex-Mayor, 10 gentlemen in the commission
of the peace for that city. One, a medical gentleman, had
never acted ; and of all that body of gentlemen one alone
was supposed to hold Conservative opinions—(hear, hear)—
and eight of them had been appointed by former Lord
Chancellors holding Liberal opinions. That being the
state of the case, he (Mr. Estcourt) thought no one would
wonder that gentlemen living in the city of Hereford and
holding the same opinions as her Majesty's present Go-
vernment were dissatisfied, and that they considered a
meetingsimilar opi-
nions had fairly arisen when there ought to be an n
in-
fusion into the magistracy of gentlemen holding
nions with themselves. They held a public
which the names of certain gentlemen were canvassed, at
after several transactions had taken place consequent
Griffithin nomina-
tion, of those gentlemen declining to beipanond
tion, the names sent up were :—Mr. JJ. • , a bar-
rister, a county justice of the peace, the son of a county
justice of the peace, residing five miles from Hereford ; Mr.
John Prince, a gentleman of larg property residing one
mile from the city; Mr. Charles
rice, a lieutenant ih the