ADMIRALTY COURT—JUDGE'S SALARY. (Hansard, 22 June 1840)

§ Lord Hotham
rose to move the addition of the following proviso at the end of the first clause:—"That any such judge, after the present Parliament, shall, during his continuance in office as judge, be incapable of being elected or sitting as a Member of the House of Commons." The noble Lord said, that the division when this question was formerly discussed was so small, that the opinion of the House could hardly be fairly considered to have been expressed upon it. He considered it a great disadvantage that a judge should owe his seat in that House to popular election; and if the objection were urged that the Recorders of London and of Dublin were popularly elected, he would say that they were not appointed by the Crown. Then, also, there was a great difference in the position of a judge in the House of Lords and a judge in the House of Commons; because, as had been said by a writer in a public print, which advocated the opinions generally advanced by hon. Members opposite, the former held his post for life, and lost no dignity by playing the mob orator.

§ Mr. Hume
seconded the amendment. He did so with some regret, however, as, if carried, it would necessarily exclude his hon. Friend, the Member for the Tower Hamlets, from the House. But as he had always voted for the exclusion of judges from this House, he should do so again now.

§ Mr. Ward,
when he saw hon. and learned Gentlemen filling similar situations to that which was held by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the Tower Hamlets, (he alluded to the Recorders for London and Dublin), he could not help thinking, that all the arguments which were applicable to one case applied equally to the other. He would vote for such a proposition if it were made generally to exclude all judicial functionaries from the House. But he could not support an amendment which was intended to exclude one individual singly.

§ Mr. Shaw
had intended to vote against the amendment of the noble Lord; but holding a judicial office himself, he was prepared to withdraw from the House if it were considered desirable he should do so. Lord Althorp had said, in reference to the proposition for excluding judicial officers from the House, that it should not be applied during the lifetime of the present 1411 holders of such offices; and as he had had the benefit of that principle in his own case, he certainly thought it should he extended to the case of the Judge of the Admiralty.

§ Lord John Russell
said, that his sentiments were already known as being opposed to the principle of the amendment moved by the noble Lord opposite; and he had not heard anything from the noble Lord this evening, that at all shook his opinion on the subject. Not one of the arguments used by the noble Lord, but would apply equally against the admission of all judicial officers in this House. For his own part, however, he had always maintained that it was for the advantage of the constitution of this House, that there should be in it as many men of learning as the people would send to it. The hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets was a man of education and talent, and he should therefore be sorry to see the House deprived of his services. Having so stated his opinion upon this subject, he should not, however, press it to a division, perceiving that the sense of the House was against him, and in favour of the amendment of the noble Lord.

§ Sir E. Sugden,
upon the balance of evils and benefits, thought that the evils were more than recompensed by the advantages of great learning being brought into the House. There were many occasions where questions of international law, and of the construction of treaties, were discussed, in which the House stood greatly in need of such learning as the right hon. Gentleman possessed. He should therefore reluctantly vote against the motion of his noble Friend.

§ Dr. Nicholl
felt reluctantly bound to support the amendment. With the highest respect for the talents and integrity of the present learned Judge of the Admiralty Court, he did not think it possible that he could give a judgment which should be beyond suspicion, as long as he represented such a constituency as the Tower Hamlets. This objection would equally apply to a representative of Hull, Liverpool, or any other place of that character.

Mr. Pryme
opposed the amendment, and said, that it might with just as much propriety be moved to exclude the Chancellor of the Exchequer from Parliament, as that officer, in the course of his duties, had to give important decisions upon various applications on commercial subjects.