Star.
London, England, 1830-05-24 00:00:00

Sir R. PEEL adverted, first, to the proposal of h., hon. antrgal-
Lint friend, that all timber proceeding should be abandoned by the
house, in order that a prosecution might he instituted against Sir J.
Barrington, and that parliament should be governed by the result of
that criminal enquiry. He (Sir IL Peel) could nut acquiesce in any
such recommendation ; he would not leave it to a Court of Law to
decide whether Sir J. Barrington had or had not committed a legal
offence. The advantage of the law giving independence to the judges
was qualified by many disadvantages. No doubt, on the whole, it
was better that the judge should be independent of the crown ; but
if, presuming on that independence, they neglected their duty, the
public, by the operation of the statute, suffered a material injury.
A judge might commit many acts of immorality and i
cency not cognizable as crimes in a court of law, which would tuliy
disqualify' him for the discharge of his official functions, and %at.
rant the house in addressing the crown for his removal. Ile !nigh.
depart the realm, and leave his place savant—or. from extreme age,
he might be notoriously unfit to retain his appointment and was
it to be permitted, that founding himself upon the independuce of
the judgs, he should continue to receive his salary ? Neither was
parliament to be bound by technicalities of courts of justice, with re-
gard to flatters of evidence. The next question was. whether the
house could proceed upon the report of its select committee, without
hearing further evidence at the bar ? lie thought it could ; am; if
the testimony taken before these delegated bodies were of no value.
it would be far better never to appoint a select committee. The evi-
dence, on which he felt competent to decide upon the guilt ut
Sir J. Barrington, was documentary ; and as no explanation had
been attempted to he given of any of the documents, Lis mind was
impressed with a moral conviction that Sir J. Batrington had been
guilty of acts which disqualified him for continuing in the situation
of a Judge. Redid not sec the necessity for further investigation,
and he should receive with reluctance and wariness any suggestion
that would have the effect of deferring a decision until a future ses-
sion of parliament. At the same time he deeply regretted the ne-
cessity of inflicting so severe a sentence upon a gentleman holding
a high office belonging to an honourable profession, and who had
now reached a very advanced age It seemed to him impossibi.!
for the house to avoid a proceeding which, while it showed that it
was the sole authority to effect the removal of a Judge, would mark
with sevens taprobation the acts imputed, and of which he was sorry
to say there existed sufficient proof.
Sir R.WILSON—Iie thought that Sir Jonah Barring'on ought
to be called to the bar, and asked the nature of the evidence he was
desirous of producing; and the house would then be able to judge
if it was of sufficient importance to gintsull other ittoett.dings distr.
He should thetefore move that Sir .1. Barrington be c.11;,(1 to tie.
bar, and asked the nature of the evidence he was deshous to proileee.
Lord F. L. GOWER was oppused to any further delay.
Mr. A. DAW:SON thought that delay ought to be 31:owet1.
Mr. HARVEY—If it was necessary that the affair should be
settled Mitt session. why was not the report brought in In the first
week of the session ? It would appear from the letter of Mr. Lomb,
that he did not entertain Ilse same view as the noble lord who now
held his office. The evident:, if correct, no doubt would justify
the proceedings that were taking; but all that he wished for w.ts,
that they might come to a unanimous cnclusion, sitting, as they
were, judicially on this case.

Sir It. PEEL—Mr. Lamb's letter was written in 1828, and the
report of the commissioners was not till 1829, therefore 31r. Lan b
was ignorant of the charge against Sir Jonah Barrington at the
time that he wrote ; besides which, the letter only said that as
he was not then in office, the cAse must be referred to his sae-
ccssor, which did nut seem to be any very strong expressidii of
opinion. _ _

Mr. HARVEY explained.
Sir J. NEWPORT could state that Mr. Lamb's letter was
written not with any ides of corrupt practices having taken place,
but in allusion to absence and neglect of duty.
Mr. Alderman WOOD did not see how the inconvenience of the
House could be urged u a reason for not hearing J.Barrington's
evidence. The Officer of a Com always asked a prisoner if he
had any thing to say why sentence should not he passed, and 1:e
therefore did not sec why the House should not indulge Sir J. B tr-
rington wish a similar opportunity.
Lord F. GOWER said that he had never said a word about
inconvenience to the House.

Wr. W 1 NN—Sir J. Barrington had had the choice of being
heard by himself, or Counsel ; and having chosen the latter, he had
no right now to ask fur the former.
The House then divided—

For the Amendment . . 4
Against it

Majority.
On our re.admitetion' we found the Clerk reading the Resolutions.
On that which stated the Report to be warranted by evidence, &c.
Sir C. WETBERALL thought that it would be judicious to add
a Resolution, that ft was not deemed material to call evidence at the
Bar on this case. By so tieing they would be proceeding on the
spaific circumstances ofjhe case, autlenot besetting a precedent for
all other cases.

The Resolution wu than agreed to. •
Ou the Resolution expressing that Sir J. Barrington had been
guilty of salotts nialversation, and was therefore unfit to hold Ins
office
I

Mr. WYNN thought that malversation was rot exactly the right
term.

Sir N. PEEL said, that "serious malversation" was the expres-
sion which Sir J. Barrington had been given to understand would
be used in the resolution, and he, therefore, thought it better to re.
lain that phrase. With respect to what had fallen from the honour.
able and learned gent. he agreed with him that there was no geseral
rule for hearing evidence at the bar ; but there were special circum.
stances in this we, which rendered that step unneeemesay. How.
ever, from the manner in which the honourable and learned int.
hiidued the ease, there could be no doubt that any suggestion
proceeding
from bim was well entitled to consideration.

Sir C. W. WYNN explained--ln general, he thought it better
to have witnesses examined at the bar, rather than by a select com-
mittee, but he thought the present OM was an exception to the rule.
The resoludon was then agreed to.

Lord F. L GOWER moved that an humble address be presented
to his majesty, praying that he would be graciously pleased to re-
move Sir Jonah Barrington from his office of Judge of the High
Court of Admiralty in Ireland.
Mr. RICE opposed the motion for the present, on the ground that
no sufficient notice had been given of it.
Sir R. PEEL (who spoke in a low tone,) was understood to say.
that after the resolutions which they had agreed to, it was impossi-
ble that they could avoid arriving at the conclusion which bis noble
friend proposed. However, as the present was an unusual we, and
as it was one of a very grave nature. he sow no objection to a cont.
atittee being appointed to prepare the address.
Mr. RICE objected to the time and manner, not to the resolution
itself.

Mr. C. W. W. WYNN would not allow an hour longer than th
proceedings actually required. Sir J. Barrington was already so
stigmatised by the proceedings of the House of Commons, that he
could nor bola his situation Mager without disadvantage to the public
service—die only question which could require time ten, whether
they should ptoceed by address t r impeachment. Now, as there
lamed to be no difference of opinion as to the nature of their pro.
eroding, be saw no motive for postponement.
The resolution for an address, as given above, was then put and
agreed to.

STRANGE SCENE.
At this moment a person in the gallery distributed several copies
of a paper entithd " The iniquitous Cause of Poor Rates, Paupet-
ism. and Ctime exposed." It was an incoherent and violent denun-
ciation of the public institutions and public characters of the noun•
try. Immediately dug handing toss about to those near him in
the gallery, he dung a few copies into the body of t►e beam. On
being taken into custody by the messengers, he said, " I don't
care—l have done my duty 1" He we, then removed, and brougbt
down So the lobby.

Sir R. PEEL moved, that the prisoner be brought to the bar ;
whisk having been agreed to, and the order complied with,
IitiIIPEAKER sired his name P
Priewerw—William
ThIIIIPEAKER--What could have induced you to commit the
ol privilege of which you have jest been guilty P
Tie prisoner mid that be had long observed the proceediogn of
this Weft, and had seen so much inconsistency between itsprotes
siege and its acts, that, considering its exercising the frown
is the state which it did, be bad littk hope of its interposing to peo-
ny. justice fee him • he felt disposed, however, to psi be.
fore them. Ho hatestruggkid with the world foe six-and.twenty
!yews, and melt was the case of society in this country, that hi
ironed it Impoesible to live se an honest was.
He was then ordered to withdraw.
Sir R. PEEL moved, that be be committed to the custody of the
&Omni at Aims.
Sir B. WILSON observed, that possibly he had not meant to
offend the Hesse.
Sir IL PAL raid, that fit the sake of the example he ought
to be omemitted.
After a few words from Mr. Dwienos,
Mr.SADLISK was untlftstatAtelltiebt the sanity of the
Sir LL PSKLAospersil that ..ebleg reload% big
alteell#Klo4lollllPai
mirtiurAPllo-1/8 himety•
te‘areing if any mpg favors need

WOOO, sod an expiosodon from
soloollto lOptamodiad sotto amain( die

...

zpo-siodarti=
.cFmap
•

Nit