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

MONDAY EVENING, MAY 24, 1830. l'aicE 7D.

N°. 13,482.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-SATURDAY.
SIR JONAH BARRINGTON.

I Lord F. GOWER moved the order of the day fur the further
consideration of the resolution of this house, relating to the Admi-
ralty Court in Dublin.
Mr. DExmax, who appeared for the petitioner, said the pro-
ceeding in which he had now the honour to address them was one
of a most unprecedented kind. In former times, the tenure of the
judicial office was during the pleasure of the crown. The incon-
veniences of such a rule were mainly instrumental in occasioning
the resolution, and when King William landed, the evil was at once
remedied by the Parliament who brought him in. On the one hand
it was improper that the judges should be removable at pleasure,
while, on the other hand, justice required that in gross cases of coal-
versa;ion in these offices they should not be protected front punish-
ment. The Bill of Rights established the principle that they wee.
amenable to punishment. The first case that occurred under the
principle was in 180 S; but that was abandoned, on the ground that
the proceeding first originated in the House of Lords ; in conse-
quence of which, if coaled forward, this house would hate been de-
prived of any concurrence in the matter. The next case was that of
Mr. Justice Johnson, who, having been convicted of a libel, was
permitted to effect a compromise, and retire from his office. Some
proceedings were then taken against Mr. Baron iti‘Cielland, but
they were not taken up by the house. The next instance was
that of the present Chief Baron Olitady, who was accused of
having unjustly increased his own fees by the force of his
own authority. Yet, although in that instance two commit-
tees reported that they agreed with the report of the com.
missioners, the House refused to be bound by their opinion,
and took upon themselves the examination of the case. The
sante rule, he contended, ought to be adopted in this case, in which
the Resolution
agreed to by this house had taken all the Bar. as it
had taken him, by surprise. Such a course was, in his opinion,
subversive of the Constitution itself. He warned the house of the
danger of their present proceeding, and argued that nothing but the
proof of guilt in a Court of Justice—proof given under the rigid
rules of law—should be adopted as the foundation of such a course.
—Without such proof the house ought not to dctomine on ad.
dressing the Crown for the removal of a Judge. (Hear, hear.)
—There was one mode of proceeding—namely• by impeachment
—which might be adopted in this case. That course was,
however, open to many objections; but there were two others which
could fairly be adopted. These were, a writ of mire facial to re-
peal the patent by which the office had been conferred, and a cri.
urinal information at the suit of the Attorney-General. By the
latter of these especially the case might speedily be decided, as were
those cases in which any unfortunate printer or publisher called
down on himself the censure of the King's Attorney. General, for
any animadversions he might have passed on all or any of the mem.
ben of his majesty's government; no objection of delay could be
brought against such a course. No removal of a Judge ought to be
recommended by this house, without the fullest investigation made
by the whole of its members. A part of them, however respectable,
however able and careful in instituting an inquiry, ought not to bind
the house by their opinions. No legislative assembly could render
itself popular, by acting as a judidal assemblyon the report of a se.
lect committee of its own members. It ought to adopt a more solemn
mode of proceeding; one more resembling the proceedings of those
courts of justice, where the administration of the law was held as the
great reliance and great defence of the subject. The house, if it
did not adopt such proceedings, might be open to the suspi-
cion of having acted hastily or intemperately, or from party
motives. Roger North had expressed those suspicions of pro-
ceedings, " cooked up," as he said, " for parliamentary decision."
In his opinion, it would be better to leave such a proceeding as that
of advising the crown to remove a judge in the hands of the respon-
sible ministers of the crown, than for the house to take upon them.
selves to make an address to the crown on such a subject, founded
on the report of a committee of their own. The petitioners, had,
indeed, to a certain extent, acknowledged the authority of the cons.
missionen in Dublin by appearing before them, but Isis ap
there could not give them, nor the committee who afterw inves-
tigated the case, the authority to decide conclusively on it. He
(Mr. Denman) was himself quite ignorant of the merits of this case
—he had been taken by surprise, and could not prepare himself on
the subject, but he knew well that his learned client desired nothing
more ardently than a full investigation into the circumstances.
Again he called the attention of the house to the peculiar nature of
this proceeding, and declared that he spoke in behalf of all West-
minster Hall when he stated that no judge, however upright, how.
ever able, could hold his seat with security, if Ise was liable to re-
moval on reports of commissioners, made on exparte statements. He
concluded by praying the house to allow counsel and evidence
to be heard on this case at their bar. Mr. Denman having
withdrawn—

Lord Y. L. GOWER said that he felt considerable difficulty inl
tt;l
assenting to the princi laid down in the arguments of the learned I
counsel. He hardly t ht that much of that argument was at all
relevant to the subject. here VW a considerable distinction be-
tween the cases cited and the present. In the case of the Chief
Baron O'Grady, it was true that the house did not adopt the re.
,commendations of the two committees, but they declined to do so on
F the ground that, in point of law, they entertained doubts of the cri-
minality of the accused, not because they thought the committees
ought not to have decided on the ease, or bad exceeded their au-
thority in that respect. They could not agree that the house ought
not to act except upon the verdict of a Jury, for that would be sur-
rendering a most important power,of which they ought not to be de.
priced. If this were a principle of the constitutional law of the
country, he saw no reason for the passing of the 12th and 13thWil.
Liam 111. for the practice of impeachment had misted long before
that period. It would be a total misconstraerise of the Act, if
they were to give up their power in such cases to any other tit.
burial lie did not mean to say that the house should be definitively
bound in all cases by the report of a committee : but when they
gave the evidence on which they had decided, as they did in this
case, they furnished to the house the best and most ready means
of determining on the correctness of the opinion they had head.
Under all these circumstances he thought that the house would net
be weU advi.ed to assent in this case to the argument of the keened
counsel; but that they ought to adopt the resolution of concurring
with the decision to which a committee of the whole house might
come.

Sr R. WILSON said, that in criminal cases in the courts below
the witnesses would be examined on oath, and the house ought, on
that principle, to grant the examination at the bar, as that in which
the most satisfactory mode of taking the testimony might be adopted.
He should support the proposition of the lama council.

The SOLICITOLOENERAL obsessed, that be had libilet
patiently and carefully examined the whole of the evidence in
this case, and would most positively declare, that in no instance
whatever had a more direct and distinct we been made out
against any man than had been made out spinet this petitioner, on
documents in his own hand-writing. The parole evident* might
be put out of the we, and then there could be no doubt that's, was
pel7. Every charge against him had been fay supper Mil es
in his own band writing. The learned this went
torn a detail of the evidence in the ems, and ding Is• ass who
r:ad that evidence could doubt of the guilt of INr Jima
It ought to be known to the house end to the essfars:Vildt
only reason why no criminal infest:wise had bas mist the
petitioner wee to be found in a merciful cdadididiks Ys dd.
yawed Oak It W•llzEtriri et 000sideratien asitgossion to
his age Oat that had not been inetituesd. 9s was sure
that no palates of. Jonah Harlington lived& hare advised
rod the pr seat mplidnion to the house, he every one who enslave},
the Memo meet be convinced that, if a cambial leformstien
hod been SA easel him, there must have been a seven personal
punishment indlsted en him.
Or 201121 T WILSON said, Is was Sir Jonah's wish to me
wlistitar such woad be the result of that proceeding.
The 80LICITORAIENERAL said, that they were bested net to
eseemh his wishes, but their own sense if duty. The only ipso.
don now was, whether the peeper course to be permed was is 'Eqpt
the resolution under consideration ? On that pant it seemed to
him Impossible to entertain a doubt. The conduct of the radium
in now ceiling foe an investigation was d a pine, with ebe test of
bis aomduct. When an ihttll have biwrilliwa
be woo Invited to meta Into it—enders belay vat him
let Ile purpose,_ he threw every obstacle in the wayths_ jr?
hope *Sett that sad persona in shy' which he lied
neestitadlidely avoided. Thebes. end Ismail alookbor sowdolloil
tVag Mot lb* moo voroihd admilhoh•Spitectilre Isbar
bestowed upon it, and he was now y satisfied

his duty called on him to vote in favour of the noble lord'. pro.

Sir C. WETHERALL was of opinion that to accede to the pro-
position that the house could only act on the verdict of a Jury in a
case like this, would be virtually to surrender the powers they law.
fully possessed.' There was another question, namely. whether the
proceedings before the committee were such that that house could
not act judiciously upon them ? On that question he had consi-
derable doubt, which induced him to wish that the Resolution of the
noble lord might not be pressed to a division at that moment.—
The doubts he entertained were, whether the Meuse ought not to
foUow up its usual practice oehaving counsel at tile bar before
it acted judicially on a question of tiths eon. (Hear, hear.) In
case of bribery at election, and in those affecting the removal of a
public minister—as, for instance, in the case of the Duke of York
—the members of the house examined witnesses at their own bar,
not that they doubted for one moment what the committee reported,
but as each individual in the house was to act as a Judge, he thought
himself bound to hear the evidence on which he should afterwards
live jugdment. For this reason he wished to take time to consider of
the resolution now proposed by the noble lord.
111 r. H. BATLEY confessed, that as the evidence now stood, the
case was fully proved against Sir J. Barrington ; but it the wit-
nesses were to be examined and cross-examined at the bar, a very
different case might possibly be cliched. He supported the appli.
cation of the learned counsel.
AIL C. WYNN said, that examinations at the bar had both ad.
vantages and disadvantages attending them. They were made be-
foie a fluctuating audience, some not hearing the beginning of the
case, others not waiting till the end of it ; and in spite of every wish
to the contrary, on the pan of each individual member, such exam-
inations never could be conducted in a manner wholly free from
party spirit. He doubted the correctness of the opinion of Sir C.
Wetherell, that it was the uniform practice of the house to take evi.
dence at their bar on proceedings of this kind. In the case of
Lord Melville, the evidence was taken before the Commissioners,
and then before the Committee, and the House of Commons did
not hear witnesses at their bar. In all cases of privilege, too, the
matter was referred to a committee, who made their report on evi-
dence furnished to them, and on that report the house acted and
awarded the punishment. Surely that was acting in a judicial ca-
pacity on the report of a committee. In the present MC every pos-
sible indulgence had been shown to the petittoner--every favour he
asked was conceded ; and since the report had been made, a delay
of nearly a year: and a half had occurred before any step had been
taken to enforce its recommendation. He must say that that
delay was disgraceful to the house. The petitioner now ex-
pressed an anxious wish to be personally examined. He had
expressed the same wish to the committee, yet he had never
attended them. He wrote a letter to tile noble lord, the mere-
tary for Ireland, urging the propriety of his being personally exa-
mined on this question, examination which he said " could only be
made with effect before a committee of Parliament." Yet after that
he never attended the committee. The committee wished him to
attend them, if he attended at all, of his own accord, in order that it
might not appear they compelled him to come before them, but he
himself requested them to summon hint, in order that by appearing
on their summons he might be protected from any legal process;
and yet, after all that, he never came before them. When the house
reflected on these circumstances, did they think that the committee
had acted in such a manner as to deserve to have their decision im-
peached, because of the haste or want of examination they had
manifested in arriving at it ? He maintained that the power
of addressing the crown on such subjects having been given
by statute was intended to be exercised, and he insisted that this was
not a case in which they ought to surrender that power. He declared
that nothing but the age and maladies of this person had prevented
him from insisting on a proceeding which, if a ted, would call for
personal punishment. The evidence given before the commissioners
, had been most carefully taken; .it was upon oath ; that given before
the committee had confirmed it ; but the manner in which examine.
door were taken at the bar was such, that it afforded every opper.
tunity to those who gave it to qualify, if they were so inclined,
their original testimony, or even to swerve from it altogether.
If the evidence taken before the committee upon the ease of Sir
J. Barrington had been of a conflicting nature, or if he thought that
anything important could be elicited by cromesansination, be
might, perhaps, be in favour of a further inquiry at the bar. The
case, however, depended upon undisputed documents, and without
the oral testimony of a single witness, it was fully established. He,
therefore, saw no reason for going through the facts a second time,
unless it could be shown that any point had not been duly inves.
tigated, and that new and important light could be thrown upon
any part of the transaction.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY had arrived at a different conclusion to
that to which he believed many hon. members had come. He
doubted the judiciousness of the course adopted by the learned coun-
sel in taking the high ground he had taken, because it was directly
opposed to the provisions of an act of parliament, which bad clothed
the house with, the power of proceeding by address, in conjunction
with the lords, for the removal of any judge. The question was,
whether, under the circumstances, it was fit that any other evidence
should be produced than that of which the house was alrea in
possession ? He thought that it was necessary. The reports tithe
commissioners on the courts of justice in Ireland only touched briefly
upon that in which Sir J. Barrington had presided. They found
that the register of the Admiralty in Ireland was the depository
of the funds of the Court, and at liberty to make use of it; the
only security to the suitors being the integrity of the officer.
The question then was, whether the Registrar was justified in the
mode in which be had disposed of the money. One of the princi-
pal sources of his emolument was the use of this money of the
suitors, and who was to say that the judge of the court was the only
person who might not borrow it ? It seemed to him (Mr. Harvey),
therefore, that Sir Jonah Barrington might borrow the money of
the officer of the court, although, at the same time, it might be dis.
graceful to the administration of justice in Ireland that the matter'
had for eleven years been neglected. An address from the hones
was one of the most permanent and indelible stigmas that could
rest upon the character of any individual, and it was sot because
Sir Jonah Barrington, weakened by age, and withered by Menai-
ties, was anxious to retire from public life, and sink into ob.
'entity, that that stigma was of no importance to him.—( Hear,
hear.)—lt seemed to him (Mr. Harvey) that the house was called
upon, not °ray by the request of Sir J. BanWgton, bet by a some of
its own duty, to summon Sir J. Barrington to the bar, and to exa-
mine him as to the facts. The evidence of Mr. ?Juneau showed
that there was only two cases of the kind—that of the Nancy and
Redstart. The conclusion at which he had arrived, after the best
attention. was this—he had no doubt that the money of the sukon
hod been improperly dealt with, but It was a question whether the
parties were responsible. or whether the responsibility was not on
the pert of the register, and that merely of a civil nature. It ap.
peered distinctly, with regard to one of the sums in ration, that
the 1001. borrowed had been laid out in public securities. He sub.
nutted that Sir J. Barrington ought to be called to the bar, in order
that he might have an opportunity, it be could, of rebutting, by
oral testimony, or by documents, the charges brought against him.
If this aged and inOrm individual were able to refute any part of
the imputation, be hoped the house would not think that it had
misspent its time.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL referred to the evidence before
the committee, to show that the 2001. had not been invested is
Securities; but that it had been withdrawn from the fends of the
Court, and rulers, by Sir J. Barrington, who bad not been able to
prevail upon the Register to join with him in nikrepresseting the
fact, and accepting a bond for the money.
Mr. WYNN further adverted to the same transaction, and denied
' altogether the doctrine that a Judge could be painniued eves to bor.
row money deposited in the hands of the Register. , foe the bear& of
the suitors. As to the mode in which Sir J. %mingles bad bee.
rowed the sums be hadobtained, it much resembled the mode toOmir.
rowing of the gentlemen, who, in former times, were in the habit of
frequenting Hounslow Heath.

The SOLICITOR OEN ERALealled the attention of the baser
to the undenied (set that Sir J. &eclogue bad ordered the money
of the Nihon to be paid by the region into kid bankers, sad had
ales dawn it est rpm his own private cheque.
Sir R. INGLIS okayed that the payer of the petition ed Sir J.
Barrington bud bees practically grated, and that hie ceased bed
not intim to_preiew fowler evidence. Tice het, ondoetbudly
_

war, that Mir J.s3erringii;;Zi always shanned iniii;ity ; aDdlt weld bow all
.111
as wee as one trilogies' wee appointed, be bed amiseetnated to beses
die won se ems sin, fee the puspess ef pestenswitest. The Aber aim We A
ivid=4e
easel as amok set mph *a mon of the nisi , wen ale. Begtuni bawls
Aelle deer eggsfei le wettest shalom is T without *Am&
illellerlobentedem. A. Op the pies ago et lift% iller~e j
cal Nellgtot• WS Ail, eree bed it best , r Segpisa, kw ri am. e teas
-is tee a stage el' the preeestbeis