HC Deb 13 July 1847 vol 94 cc278-305
MR. ESCOTT

rose to move— That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, that Her Majesty will be pleased to take into Her gracious consideration the matter of the Petition of Robert Langslow, Esq., late one of Her Majesty's District Judges in the Colony of Ceylon, of the 19th Day of December, 1840, and grant to the said Robert Langslow such relief in the premises as to Her Majesty shall seem fit. He earnestly entreated the attention of the House to the case it would be his duty to lay before it. The papers issued about three months ago disclosed all the evidence upon which he rested his defence of this dismissed Judge, and in some degree his inculpation of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) by whom he had been dismissed. The case divided itself into two heads; the complaint was of two kinds. He complained of a personal wrong done to a learned Judge, who had been ruined in his profession and in his prospects by his dismissal from office. If, however, the case had been one of personal hardship only, he might have hesitated in bringing it before the House; but the professional hardship was so grave as to warrant him in asking the House, by its decision, to support the Motion with which he should conclude. If Mr. Langslow had been wrongfully dismissed from his office, then not only had a grievous personal wrong been done to him, but a grievous wrong had also been inflicted upon the colony to which the impartial administration of English law had been a manifest blessing. This case had been under the view of three successive Colonial Administrations—Lord Stanley's, Mr. Gladstone's, and Earl Grey's. The noble Lord who now presided over that department had not thought it his duty to interfere with the merits of the question; in accordance with the established practice, he abided by the decision of his predecessor; and, concluding that his predecessor had taken due pains to investigate the merits of the case, he had not deemed it consistent with his duty to re-open the question. He was, therefore, entitled to say that Earl Grey's decision was no decision upon the merits of Mr. Langslow's case. The same might be said as to Mr. Gladstone's decision: he never investigated the merits of the case; and, feeling bound by Lord Stanley's acts, he refused to enter upon its consideration. He (Mr. Escott) imputed no blame to Lord Stanley beyond that which the facts necessarily implied; nor did he accuse the noble Lord of any personal feeling towards Mr. Langslow. The ground of his complaint was, that, without any personal feeling or interest in the matter, Lord Stanley had taken upon himself to decide the case without having the evidence before him—without having heard the accused, or giving him an opportunity to answer statements made in secret without his knowledge, and behind his back. Lord Stanley had in effect confirmed the decision of the local Government of Ceylon, whilst in the same paper in which he confirmed the decision, he said it was not in his department to enter into the only legitimate grounds upon which the decision was founded. He therefore complained of Lord Stanley's judgment. He would now state in a few words the principal facts. Mr. Langslow was a gentleman of considerable learning, born and bred in the same station of life in which those who sat on both sides the House were accustomed to move. He was practising with every prospect of ultimate success at the bar; and he went the Western Circuit, on which circuit he (Mr. Escott) had the honour to be well known to Mr. Langslow, who at that time was one of its most popular members. In the year 1832, he was appointed Attorney General of Malta, under the Government of Sir Frederick Ponsonby, who very much approved of the appointment; and whilst he remained Governor, nothing could proceed more harmoniously, or more advantageously to the business of the court in which Mr. Langslow was the chief officer of the Crown. In 1838, in consequence of the report of a Commission sent out to inquire into the judicial establishment of Malta, it seemed fit to the Home Government to abolish the office of Attorney General altogether. Mr. Langslow, consequently, had no longer sufficient interest to detain him at the bar in Malta, and he returned to England. On his return, so high was he held in the estimation of the Government, that he received a retiring pension; and he was given to understand that the pension would be continued till some other public employment could be found for him. In 1840, when the noble Lord now the First Minister of the Crown was Colonial Secretary, a great change took place in the administration of justice in Ceylon. The district judges of the colony had, up to that period, always been at the disposal of the civil officers on the colonial establishment in the colony; but in consequence of representations from the people of Ceylon, the mode of appointment was changed. Instead of being appointed by the Colonial Secretary, on the advice of his coadjutors in the civil government of Ceylon, they were appointed by the Home Government, and chosen from members of the English bar. The Home Government, in the exercise of its discretion, selected Mr. Langslow to fill the office of district judge of Colombo. In1840, he proceeded to Colombo; and in 1841, before he had been there a full year, an address was sent to this country, signed by suitors in the court, by merchants, and inhabitants of all classes, expressing to Her Majesty's Government their deep sense of the service which the Colonial Office at home had rendered to the colony by the appointment of so just and able a judge. In 1842, disagreements broke out between Mr. Langslow and the Ceylon Government. These differences were stated in the papers presented to the House. Nothing, however, was done in consequence of them. Neither the Governor at Ceylon, nor the Colonial Secretary at home, thought fit to act upon them; but in 1842, a strong representation was made to Lord Stanley respecting Mr. Langslow's conduct. Up to this time, he was bound to admit, Lord Stanley's proceedings were unexceptionable; but it was extraordinary that Lord Stanley, who, in consequence of these representations, sent to the Governor requesting inquiry to be made into the truth of the allegations against Mr. Langslow, and to be informed of the evidence on which they rested, should in 1844 have dismissed Mr. Langslow from his office without any evidence whatever to support the allegations against him. He believed the fact to be, that the noble Lord had forgotten he had ever made a request for the evidence. He believed that seeing Mr. Langslow, amongst other charges, was alleged to have written party articles in a newspaper—no doubt a discreditable offence—and his memory must have failed him that he requested the evidence to be furnished—he had proceeded to pass sentence. In 1843 the Executive Council of Ceylon suspended Mr. Langslow; and they very distinctly stated the ground of that suspension to be because he had been dilatory in the discharge of his duties. The best reply to that allegation was the unanswered fact, stated by Mr. Lanslow himself, and never contradicted, that the number of cases which he, as judge, decided in a given time, amounted to three or four times as many as had ever been decided in the same time by the ablest of his predecessors. There was, however, a certain period of time during Mr. Langslow's occupation of the bench, when the criminal business of the court stood completely still. This arose from an abstruse question of practice between Mr. Langslow and the Queen's Advocate. It would not surely be contended that a judge was to be removed because he differed with an advocate at the bar upon a point of practice. The judge was bound to decide according to his conscientious belief what was law; but owing to difference of opinion in this respect there was delay. He now came to the most important part of the case. Lord Stanley, as Colonial Secretary, had to sit in judgment upon the acts of the Colonial Government at Ceylon; and the first paper in the book contained the noble Lord's reasons for the sentence he subsequently passed, not in confirmation of the order of suspension, but of revoking the Queen's commission, and final dismissal from Her Majesty's service. The hon. Member read extracts from this despatch, and contended that the reasons were weak, inconclusive, and inconsistent. Were the grounds assigned by the noble Lord to be taken as proofs, without the evidence of the witnesses? Before withholding the Queen's commission from Mr. Langslow, the noble Lord was bound to enter not only with minuteness into all the proofs, but to sift and examine them in every possible way. Was he not also bound to lay the statements upon which he proceeded before Mr. Langslow? He thought the noble Lord was. Mr. Langslow's son had been fined 5s., at Malta, for doing that which half the Gentlemen in that House did every night on retiring from it—for smoking a cigar in the streets. Subsequently to that circumstance, that gentleman was apprehended by a policeman, as Mr. Langslow thought, illegally; and whilst that case was under consideration, before it had been determined upon, the Governor of Malta wrote to Lord Stanley a statement, which formed the foundation of Lord Stanley's final determination to recall Mr. Langslow. It appeared that Sir H. Bouverie, who succeeded Sir F. Ponsonby, at Malta, wrote in 1836 a certain statement to Lord Glenelg, upon which Lord Stanley grounded his charge. Surely, that of itself—the fact that Lord Stanley should dismiss that judge, not upon evidence from Ceylon, but upon an old staple charge made six years before, and which up to that time had lain unnoticed upon the shelves of the Colonial Office—showed that there was no real substantial ground for the removal of Mr. Langslow; certainly it did appear to him to be a most extraordinary proceeding on the part of a Minister of the Crown towards a new judge. Sir H. Bouverie said to Lord Glenelg— The conduct of Mr. Langslow since I have been in the island, and in the time of my predecessor, has been one continued attempt to set himself up as a leader of a discontented, factious party, holding forth on all occasions upon subjects most likely to pervert the minds of the people, and to embarrass the Government. If he, the Attorney General of Malta, had been allowed for six years to behave as the ''leader of a discontented and factious party," it was most extraordinary that he should have been presented with a pension when he retired, and should have been raised on the first opportunity to the office of district judge of Ceylon, Mr. Langslow, however, denied that he had ever attended any public meeting, or had ever held forth to the people. Sir H. Bouverie went on to say— Previous to his departure for England last year, Mr. Langslow's eldest son was constantly at issue with the police, whom he annoyed and insulted in every way. In most instances, the magistrates did their duty and fined the son. The "most instances" was that one to which he had referred, for smoking in the streets. It would really puzzle one to think what motives could have prompted the making of such charges. Was Sir H. Bouverie, when he wrote those confidential letters to Lord Glenelg which ended in the temporary degradation of Mr. Langslow, actuated only by an earnest desire to benefit the public service? Why, at the moment Sir H. Bouverie wrote those secret despatches he knew that Mr. Langslow was, in point of fact, removed from the office he held—that the Commission had already decided that the office should be abolished. The only motive he could conceive which could have induced Sir H. Bouverie to take the course he had taken, he would not have attributed to that gentleman had he not himself stated it—it was to deprive Mr. Langslow of his pension at Malta. Sir H. Bouverie concluded his despatch with these words:— I mention this in order to show how desirable it is that Mr. Langslow's connexion with this Government should cease at as early a period as possible. That was in May, 1838, and in April the Commission had decided to dispense with his office. Sir Henry continued— I know not what pension his length of service may entitle him to; but I am very sure that for any service rendered by him to this Government, or for any use that he has ever been of to the island, he has been already far more than amply repaid. A more improper person never was employed by any Government; in English law I believe he is extremely ill versed—of the Maltese he is totally ignorant; and during his absence of nine months, not only no difficulty has arisen in carrying on the law business of the Government, but the greatest benefit and quiet has resulted from it; and I sincerely hope that this island will not be called upon to pay a pension to such a man so totally undeserving of it. When that despatch reached Lord Glenelg, that nobleman not only disregarded its recommendations, but he did more, he rose in his place in the House of Lords, and stated his surprise that any individual should say there was anything in Mr. Langslow's conduct at Malta at all calculated to detract from his character as a gentleman and an able lawyer. Lord Melbourne spoke in similar terms, and expressed his wish that the first opportunity for again enlisting his services should not be lost by the Government of the country. But not only that, the Chief Justices of Malta and of Ceylon—Chief Justice Oliphant and Chief Justice Stodhart—bore the highest testimony to his character and ability; and when a man was condemned by a military Governor, it was something to have the praise of such men as those. He would not throw out any insinuations; but in the absence of some ground for removing a person from office, he was bound to look around for reasons. About that period, complaints had been made that many of the officers in the civil government of Ceylon spent much more of their time in attending to their own interests in their coffee plantations and their farms, than in the discharge of their public functions. Judge Langslow set his face against that conduct. Lord Stanley had sent out a very proper despatch, commanding all civil officers to give up these proceedings; and Judge Langslow earnestly set himself to carry out that despatch. That might have given offence; but from the beginning to the end they had made out no specific accusation against the Judge, who had been discharged upon no intelligible grounds, and with the Colonial Secretary himself refusing to examine into his conduct as a judge. It was very difficult from Lord Stanley's despatch to make out the precise charges upon which Judge Langslow had been dismissed; but he observed that they ranged under three heads, none of them referring to his conduct as a judge, all being extra-judicial. The first was, that he was in the habit of embarrassing the Government. Now of all the vague charges to make against a lawyer, that was perhaps the most vague. Suppose a case arose between a coffee planter and a native, and the judge found that in order to do justice according to the principles of English law, he must give judgment against perhaps a civil servant of the Crown. He should not be surprised if those who took such trivial objections to a man's conduct, should proclaim that that was a considerable embarrassment to the Government. Whatever that might be considered, there was not one single instance in the despatch, from first to last, which showed of what that embarrassment consisted. The next charge was of a still more extraordinary kind even than the last. It was one of a want of propriety and decorum in his communication with the authorities of Ceylon. Why could not the noble Lord, when he dismissed a man for impropriety of language and indecorum of speech, mark out one phrase in which he had offended? It would not, indeed, have been unnatural if Mr. Langlow had been betrayed into a momentary warmth of speech; but surely Lord Stanley was not the man who should have dismissed a judge for an inadvertent intemperate expression. He had, however, read the whole of the despatches through, and he defied anyone to point out one hasty or indecorous expression. Lord Stanley had himself admitted it was plain the charges at Ceylon were futile and weak; therefore he had recourse to those charges which had been made in confidence to his predecessor six years before, when Mr. Langslow was practising at the bar at Malta as Attorney General. It was because he was not punished for his conduct as Attorney General at Malta that he must be removed from a judgeship at Ceylon. But now what was the popular feeling with regard to this dismissal? The moment it was known in Ceylon that he was suspended, the bar, with one accord, came forward and adopted a petition, praying, the Governor to reconsider his decision, and not to inflict such a fatal blow upon the administration of justice by removing so just and able a man. That memorial was couched in language so plain and strong that he might be excused for reading a few sentences from it. They said— As members of the community we lament with inexpressible grief the intended suspension of Robert Langslow, Esq., District Judge of the District Court of Colombo, No. 1, South; for, in common with the public, in that suspension we fear the infliction of a general calamity not easily to be borne, and still less to be remedied. It is not, however, as members of the community that we present ourselves before your Excellency; to the public we leave the task—a task which it will be their duty and their pleasure to fulfil—of vindicating the virtues of a man who, considered in his judicial capacity, presents a rare instance in this country of great legal erudition, high moral courage and impartiality, and determined and uncompromising independence and probity. Those public virtues claim the admiration of all men, and they hare gained, we are happy to say, for the district judge the respect and esteem of all classes. The true and unerring criterion of his having given satisfaction in the discharge of his duties is, we humbly submit, to be discovered in the opinion of the majority of suitor's before the District Court of Colombo, No. 1, South, who, comprising the successful parties as well as the unsuccessful, have evinced, and do even now tes- tify to the justice, impartiality, and independence of the learned judge, to an extent not hitherto felt in this country, and little known at this period in the island. But, in common with other deserving and meritorious men, he has been unable to give satisfaction to every individual; and, indeed, it was to be expected, that independence and uprightness, equal justice and impartiality, without favour and without fear, should have created against the learned judge individual dislike and dissatisfaction. To these causes, we hesitate not to affirm, are owing the complaints that have induced the intended suspension of Mr. Langslow. And again— Regular, zealous, and unremitting in the discharge of his duties, the learned judge has been most indefatigable in the performance of his high functions; learned, he has instructed; independent, he has created confidence; just, he has given satisfaction; and impartial, he has won golden opinions from all classes of the community. We entreat your Excellency, therefore, as your Excellency values the administration of justice in this country, and as your Excellency fears the appalling consequences of visiting with such unmerited obloquy the really deserving, and the evil effects from such causes on the public service of this island, we entreat your Excellency, for the country, and for ourselves, the bar of that country, that your Excellency will recall your intention of suspending from his office the Judge of the District Court of Colombo, No. 1, South. Should not those gentlemen have been examined by the Colonial Secretary previous to the dismissal of Mr. Langslow; for who was more competent to pass an opinion upon his conduct than the Chief Justice of the island and the members of the bar? But that was not the only petition which had been adopted. The merchants, the landed proprietors, and the householders of Ceylon also came forward in a mass, and in the strongest language implored the Governor to reconsider his determination. That petition was signed by 1,821 individuals, and it spoke of Judge Langslow as "an able, upright, and talented judge." But, more than that, the suitors of his court also came forward, with other individuals, to the number of 2,095, bearing, if possible, still stronger testimony to the able and upright conduct of Judge Langslow. And it must be borne in mind, that those addresses were not instigated by any friends of Mr. Langslow's, but that they were the voluntary productions of men who had had causes in his court, and who were grateful to the Judge for his able and impartial conduct. Under these circumstances he implored the Government not to interpose, either through any chivalrous desire to defend Lord Stanley, or from any reluctance to re-open a question which by some might have been considered set- tled, to prevent some species of relief being given to the Gentleman in question. If a judge were to be removed without any opportunity of knowing who his accusers were, much less an opportunity of answering them—if he were to be removed upon such unfair, such partial testimony as he had referred to, in opposition to a testimony which he should have thought a sufficient answer to the slanders that had been propagated against him, then, he said, the administration of justice was not safe; and the people, who were more attached to our rule by this one thing than by any other, namely, that they could look to the judicial bench for a fair consideration of all their grievances, and for that impartial administration of the laws which had so long characterized the bench at home—then, he said, the people would be disappointed, and the Government would have thrown away one of the best opportunities of knitting their hearts to the mother country. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the resolution already given.

MR. HAWES

said, his hon. Friend had brought forward his Motion in a manner which entitled it to every respect and attention, and in a manner to which he was sure the noble Lord whose conduct was more immediately assailed would not object. Moreover, he thought his hon. Friend was quite justified in bringing this case under the consideration of the House, since it was the only appeal open to him. Mr. Langslow had attempted to bring his case under the consideration of the Privy Council; but from circumstances which were fully explained—namely, from the fact that he had been dismissed on account of general misconduct, and not for his character as a judge—it was thought that an appeal to the Privy Council was impossible. He (Mr. Hawes) did not feel called upon now to go into the merits of the case. He knew Mr. Langslow himself, and he knew many friends of his; and he really believed him to be a perfectly upright and respectable man, and a very able lawyer. He made these admissions fully to his hon. Friend; and he merely confined himself now to the grounds assigned by his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Department for refusing to re-open the question. His hon. Friend stated that the charges which had been brought against Mr. Langslow in Ceylon were unknown to him, and that he had had no opportunity of answering them. Now, in point of fact, no one could open the book which had been presented to the House, without seeing that the charges which had been made against him as a judge were most fully and distinctly stated in the Minutes of the Executive Council, and that they were met by a full and complete reply on the part of Mr. Langslow. With reference to the Maltese case, he thought it unnecessary to make any remarks. No doubt both Lord Glenelg and Lord Melbourne did distinctly state, some years ago, in the House of Lords, that nothing had occurred at Malta which disentitled Mr. Langslow to be considered worthy of the future patronage of the Crown; and that future patronage was subsequently bestowed upon him. With regard to the merits of the Ceylon case, he adhered to the statement which he had made by the direction of his noble Friend, and which appeared in the correspondence and bore his (Mr. Hawes's) name, that he did not pronounce any opinion whatever upon the merits of Mr. Langslow as a judge at Ceylon. He was satisfied the House would concede that the Secretary of State must be often called upon to decide upon cases of this nature; and then the question arose, whether the decision of the Secretary of State was again and again to be brought before succeeding Secretaries for revision? In looking at this case, they ought to ask themselves, were all the circumstances brought before the Secretary of State before he made his decision? The case was brought fully, in all its bearings, before Lord Stanley; and when his successor was called upon to pronounce an opinion upon the circumstances, it was found that no new circumstance was brought forward in addition to those which were laid before Lord Stanley, and, consequently, no reason was assigned sufficient to warrant any alteration of that decision. The present Colonial Secretary saw nothing in the circumstances to justify him in altering the decision of Lord Stanley; and he, therefore, did not interfere in that way. The fact was, that some rule should be laid down in such cases; as, if they were perpetually re-opening cases decided by former Secretaries, and re-investigating the circumstances, it would cause the greatest possible inconvenience. The despatch announcing the removal of Mr. Langslow having arrived in Ceylon, that gentleman left the colony, and arrived in England in 1845, when he applied personally for an answer which he gave to the despatch of Lord Stanley directing his re- moval. At that time he was, of course, aware of Lord Stanley's decision; but he never asked Lord Stanley to reverse it; on the contrary, he left the question untouched till the early part of 1846. On one occasion, in writing to Lord Stanley, he said, in reference to the decision, that his object in writing was not to procure a reversal of his Lordship's decision, which he thought was in some degree harsh and unfair; but he wrote with a view to a modification of the sentence, in order that he might be enabled to secure a pension or retiring allowance, such as it was usual to give to those who had been for such a length of time in the public service. In that application, therefore, it was clear that he only sought to have the sentence modified, in order that he might be secured his retiring allowance. That securing of a pension was not, however, in the province of the Colonial Department; it was a subject which properly could only be regulated by the Treasury. When Mr. Gladstone came into the Colonial Office, he interfered in this matter; but he did so only because he had heard, in a letter from a friend of his (Mr. Hawes), that the Governor of Ceylon (Sir Colin Campbell) had altered his opinion of the case of Mr. Langslow; and in consequence of that report, Mr. Gladstone forwarded the letter to Sir Colin Campbell, and received an answer to the effect that Sir Colin Campbell had not changed his opinion upon the subject. Upon those general grounds, his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Office declined to go into the case again, unless some additional cause was shown. If they were to re-open that case now, without any additional reason, he did not see they could refuse to re-open any of the cases which had been decided upon for the last twenty-five or thirty years, and thus greatly interfere with the transaction of public business. He had stated the general grounds which had precluded his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Department from going into the case anew; and he should leave the merits of the case to be spoken to by his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Hope), who was well acquainted with them; but before he sat down, he was anxious to express his conviction that the Colonial Department, at the period when Lord Stanley was at its head, had given the most attentive consideration to all the facts of the case. The hon. Member concluded by moving the previous question.

MR. HOPE

said, the case was one which occupied a very small compass; and he could assure the House, that during his experience he had not seen any case which had received a more careful and conscientious consideration. The House would scarcely be aware of the great difficulty which was felt by those who had to deal with such a question; and, so far from there being any danger of an unnecessary degree of severity being used, he thought the probability lay the other way. It would be great injustice to the colonial interest if a person, who was deemed insufficient for the proper discharge of the duties which devolved on him, were allowed to continue to hold office; and that applied particularly to those engaged in the administration of justice; and he thought the worst service which that House could do to the colonies would be to keep any person in employment who had been held to be ineligible by the Secretary for the Colonies. The hon. Member for Winchester had most correctly admitted that it was impossible to attribute in this matter any personal ill-will to Lord Stanley; and as a proof of that he (Mr. Hope) could state, that when Lord Stanley heard that the matter was to be referred to Earl Grey for decision, he said he should not look upon it as any reflection upon his (Lord Stanley's) decision, if Lord Grey should employ Mr. Langslow again, and that in fact he should be glad to find others had come to a conclusion contrary to that which he (Lord Stanley) had felt it his painful duty to express. The question, in fact, then was, whether Mr. Langslow was eligible for employment elsewhere; and if Earl Grey considered that he was fit for that employment, it would not be any reversal of Lord Stanley's decision. Having said so much, he (Mr. Hope) would add, that the subsequent non-employment, under the colonial administration of Earl Grey, was so far a proof of the validity of Lord Stanley's decision; but he knew that if it was otherwise decided by the present Colonial Government, Lord Stanley would not make the slightest objection to his re-employment. He thought, that the observations of the hon. Member for Winchester, as to the cause of Mr. Langslow's dismissal, were calculated rather to mislead the House as to the real cause of that dismissal. The hon. Member seemed to think that nothing further than being indolent had been shown to be capable of proof against Mr. Langslow. [Mr. ESCOTT: Of being dilatory.] He thought that the decision of Lord Stanley had been placed upon very different grounds from that of being dilatory, for the noble Lord had distinctly stated that he had been dismissed in consequence of failure in temper, self-control, and discretion; and Mr. Langslow had been allowed the clearest opportunity of understanding the cause of his dismissal. It appeared from the correspondence of Mr. Anstruther, that for a long period Mr. Langslow had disposed of no more than six cases, and he had assigned no reason for that; and it was stated that from what had appeared, and the correspondence with Mr. Langslow, that the course which he had adopted had been the result of an improper and insubordinate contempt of the Government under which he was employed, the result of which was to render comparatively unsuccessful the exertions of the police in a large district; and that was a state of things which the Colonial Government could not longer permit to continue. It was quite clear that the cause for which Mr. Langslow had been dismissed was not merely dilatoriness. The hon. Member for Winchester had stated that nothing could be more satisfactory than the conduct of Mr. Langslow while in Malta; but the report on the subject of the administration of justice in Malta at the period, stated that they (the Commissioners) thought the office of Attorney General was useless in Malta, as, from the ignorance of the law of the island on the part of the gentleman who filled the office, and of his ignorance of the Italian language, he was unfit either for the business of the court, or for an adviser of the Government. It was rather an unusual circumstance for a Judge to get up—he would not say get up—but to receive popular addresses praising his conduct on the bench, and regretting that he was leaving that position which he had occupied; and that, in his (Mr. Hope's) opinion, gave a peculiar appearance to this case. Having shown that Mr. Langslow had not been dismissed because he was dilatory, but superseded for the general tenor of his conduct, he would not go into the question of whether Mr. Langslow had been dilatory or not, as there was evidence through out the whole correspondence of his unfitness for the office which he held, such as justified his noble Friend Lord Stanley in no longer continuing Mr. Langslow in that office. He altogether denied the statement that Mr. Langslow had been dismissed from the office which he held in Ceylon in consequence of his conduct in Malta; but other facts were laid before Lord Stanley, and the previous conduct of Mr. Langslow only bore out the decision which the noble Lord had felt it his painful duty to pronounce. The hon. Member for Winchester had referred to the order of Lord Stanley, that the civil servants of the Government in Ceylon should not engage in the management of coffee plantations, and stated that the part which Mr. Langslow took in carrying out that order had caused a great deal of prejudice against him; but he could assure the House and the honourable Gentleman that Mr. Langslow had no concern at all in carrying out that order; and he could add that the civil servants in Ceylon were gentlemen of high character and standing; and for his part he should feel inclined to think more highly of Mr. Langslow's merits if he had not, in order to bolster up his case, endeavoured to detract from the character of those gentlemen. The hon. Member for Winchester had said, that he had read through all the papers, and he could find no proof of con-duet on the part of Mr. Langslow to justify the charge of indiscretion; but had he seen the advertisement which Mr. Langslow had published in Ceylon? He was sent out by Lord Stanley, and upon arriving in Ceylon he considered that his salary was not sufficient, and he, therefore, desired an increase of salary; but during the discussions on the subject of his salary, he published an advertisement in Ceylon, offering for sale several valuable law books, and stating that he could not keep a valuable law library with such an insufficient salary. Now he believed that all the Members of that House would agree that nothing could express a greater desire to bring the Government into contempt than that advertisement, and particularly amongst an excitable population. Lord Stanley, in writing to the Secretary in Ceylon, stated that he had no desire to interfere with the disposal of Mr. Langslow's private property; but that parting with his law library would not form, in the opinion of the Government, any ground for not discharging his duty properly. Mr. Langslow had complained of having been insufficiently paid, and said that he would not have gone out if he had not been placed by the Government in a position in which he ought not to have been in common honesty placed; but it was not his noble Friend who was to blame, if any blame attached. It should be recollected, that it was the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell) who appointed Mr. Langslow, and not his noble Friend; and yet Mr. Langslow thought it decent and proper to complain, that in common honesty he ought never to have been placed in such a position by the Government. Again, Mr. Langslow complained to the Government of Ceylon of the onerous nature of his duties, and said that his health was failing, that he was worn out, and that the people were complaining of delay in the administration of justice in the south court; but also stating, "I must, however, add, that they do not complain of the Judge of that court"—namely, himself. The Government of Ceylon then offered to remove him to another district, the duties of which were less onerous; but Mr. Langslow, although he complained of the work of the district being too severe for him, said, in reply to this offer, that if it was intended by the Government to remove him from that district, he should question the power of the Government to do so. Now he asked whether such language as that could be tolerated in any officer? The proposal, however, to remove him being declined, it was found necessary to leave Mr. Langslow where he was, though he himself said, that he was unable to discharge the duties of his office. His conduct on this occasion showed, as he was sure the House would feel, a great want of temper and discretion. If the House, however, would look to page 18 of the correspondence, they would see that his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) contented himself with directing that Mr. Langslow should be admonished; and he thought that his noble Friend did not, if any thing, go far enough in saying that a public officer who would not, or could not, discharge his duties, should be merely admonished, and told that if he persevered in such a course of conduct, he should be obliged to remove him. But there was a third point to which he wished to call the attention of the House. At page 19 of the correspondence would be found a despatch of Sir C. Campbell, stating that Mr. Langslow's conduct was most mischievous, and that he should ultimately be obliged to remove him. The hon. Member for Winchester said that Sir C. Campbell was a soldier; but he thought him every whit as competent to judge of the conduct of an officer of the Government as the gentleman to whom the hon. Member had referred. Besides, it must not be forgotten that Sir C. Campbell was not sitting alone, but was assisted by his Council; and the Council stated that they had considered Mr. Langslow's conduct with attention, and thought that two serious cases of misconduct had been established against him. In proof of that statement they referred to two documents, one of which was a letter, and the other a speech of Mr. Langslow himself. They expressed their opinion that his conduct was a source of very serious and intolerable embarrassment to the colony; and that was the opinion of the whole Council, and not of Sir Colin Campbell alone. As to the charge against Mr. Langslow, with reference to his proceedings at Malta, they were only referred to because of similar proceedings which had taken place at Ceylon. It appeared that Mr. Langslow's son had become involved in some dispute which took place at a public ball at Colombo, and that the public prosecutor did not think proper to take up the affair. Mr. Langslow, it would seem, sought to magnify the matter into a great outrage upon his son, and wrote to the public prosecutor to say, that if the case for the prosecution failed except on its own merits, he should feel it necessary to bring the matter under the notice of the Government, and that he was induced to take that step because he had noticed several other failures. It appeared, therefore, from Mr. Langslow's own letter to the public prosecutor, that in this case also, as at Malta, he had interfered with the administration of justice. But the Council referred not only to this letter, but to a speech delivered by Mr. Langslow from the bench. This was upon the occasion of a decision of Mr. Langslow having been appealed from to the superior court, It appeared that an officer, while waiting outside the police court, in which Mr. Langslow presided, in whisking his whip about, struck a native. The place where this occurred was supposed to be within the precincts of the court, and Mr. Langslow accordingly fined the officer 5l., and sentenced him to imprisonment for ten days. An appeal was made to the superior court, and they remitted the imprisonment. When Mr. Langslow heard of this, he stated in. open court that he was happy to find that those learned persons could find it consistent with their oaths to remit the imprisonment, and that he could only say that he did not find it consistent with his own to inflict a lighter punishment. He added, that he would in future inflict the punishment of imprisonment before there was any opportunity of appealing against his decision. And yet he was told that there was no want of temper or discretion exhibited on the part of Mr. Langslow. He must trouble the House a little further. The last letter in the correspondence was dated January, 1843; and in December in the same year, after time enough had elapsed for Mr. Langslow to have seen the propriety of making some change in the course of his proceedings, his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) received a letter from Sir Colin Campbell, stating that he had been compelled, with the unanimous advice of his Executive Council, to suspend Mr. Langslow from his office. The grounds on which he was dismissed were stated at page 61 of the correspondence; but his noble Friend did not proceed upon the charge of dilatoriness against Mr. Langslow, because when there was a question relating to the conduct of a judge in his judicial capacity, it was referred to the Committee of Privy Council. Even, therefore, if that question had been decided in Mr. Langslow's favour after a long litigation, the question would still have to be determined whether his conduct altogether was such as would have justified Lord Stanley in retaining him in his situation, in defiance of the Government of Ceylon, with whom Mr. Langslow was at open war. He thought the House would agree with him in thinking that his noble Friend was perfectly justified in not keeping that question back, and in determining the matter in issue at once. But he must call the attention of the House to another point, relating to a question which had arisen between Mr. Langslow and the Queen's Advocate at Ceylon. Mr. Langslow having permitted 338 criminal cases to accumulate in his court, packed up all the records, and sent them in a lump to the Queen's Advocate, simply because there was a dispute between them whether the proper mode of proceeding was, by an information on the part of the Queen's Advocate or not. In one case there was an appeal from his decision to the supreme court; and the judges having decided against him, he took a technical objection, and refused to give any information to the bar as to what his course of practice would be. Under these circumstances, his noble Friend had advised Her Majesty to revoke the appointment; and he thought that he was justified in giving that advice. Mr. Langslow left office in 1845, and he did not ask for an investigation into his case, nor deny the charges which had been preferred against him. He (Mr. Hope) did not wish to press the fact of ac- quiescence against him; but at the same time he must remark that it disabled his noble Friend from making further inquiry into Mr. Langslow's case. Mr. Gladstone afterwards came into office, and a complaint was made to him, upon which Mr. Gladstone wrote to Sir Colin Campbell. In his despatch of the 12th of August, 1846, Sir Colin Campbell said— Whatever respect I may feel for the better traits in Mr. Langslow's character, I must adhere to my unshaken opinion, that his continuance as district judge of Colombo would have been most prejudicial to the prompt administration of justice, and inconsistent with the public interests. This was the opinion of Sir Colin Campbell, after a careful review of all the circumstances of the case. He believed that his noble Friend could have come to no other conclusion in the matter than he had done, however painful it might have been to himself, or however injurious to the prospects of Mr. Langslow. It was imperative upon his noble Friend to put an end to what would have been a permanent and increasing evil to the colony.

MR. F. BARING

concurred in the opinion that it was extremely inconvenient, as a general rule, to discuss cases of this sort in the House of Commons; and it had never been his habit to interfere with the discretion of a Government in dealing with its executive officers. At the same time he could not consider the situation of a judge to be similar to that of any other executive officer; and he believed that there were circumstances in the present case to make it one for the serious consideration of the House. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies stated very fairly that this was a case which must be decided here, for there was no other appeal than to the House from the decision of Lord Stanley. That decision once pronounced, Mr. Gladstone had refused to open the case; and Earl Grey now stood by the decision of his predecessor. If, therefore, there had been injustice done, it was only in that House that it could be remedied. He was anxious, before entering upon any explanation, to state at once his belief that there was no man less likely willingly to commit an act of injustice than Lord Stanley. But he could submit, he thought, such a case to the House as would induce them at least to doubt whether that noble Lord had acted properly in the transaction. The situation of judge was one of some importance; and he had always considered that a judicial appointment should stand on different grounds from that of any other. He believed, also, that a judge ought not to be removed at the will of any officer of the Crown, however high might be his opinion. Rightly or wrongly, however, it happened that that power of dismissal was still exercised by the Secretary for the Colonies at his good will and pleasure. He thought that he expressed the opinion of every person who had any respect for the administration of justice when he said that that power ought to be exercised with the greatest discretion and care; and when the hon. Gentleman opposite placed so much reliance on the opinion of Councils and Governors of colonies, it should be remembered that it was frequently the province of a colonial judge to stand between the power of the European and the rights of the native; and that the functionary who may be an uncomfortable and embarrassing judge for the one party, is frequently the one who deals out justice with the most rigid even-handedness. The case against Mr. Langslow separated itself into two parts. He was first suspended by the Council for misconduct as a judge. Now, as to that part of the case, he quite admitted that, according to the practice of the Colonial Office, the grounds of his suspension were submitted to him, and that he had the power, of which he availed himself, of putting in a defence to the charges brought against him. But it was quite an error to suppose that Mr. Langslow had seen all the facts sent home against him. After the grounds of complaint had been submitted to him, after the defence which he had offered, a long and laboured answer was drawn up by the Council, alleging fresh instances of misconduct, and stating facts in corroboration of those charges—a document which Mr. Langslow had neither the opportunity of reading nor answering. And what were those charges? He was accused of being dilatory in the administration of justice, and of having manifested an insubordinate spirit, and shown a degree of improper contempt for the Governor. Now, as to dilatory justice: the charge depended upon what was understood by justice. Mr. Langslow certainly conducted his proceedings more slowly than they had been managed before, and for a very good reason. He took the opinion of a gentleman high in office in Ceylon as to the state of the law and the practice there; and what was his view of matters? Why, that in the course of one month he could fling the whole colony into a state of disturbance and discomfort. Such was the existing system in Ceylon. Now, what did Mr. Langslow say as to his dilatory conduct? He stated that it had formerly been the habit, when a case was brought forward, to proceed with it, without taking any means to summon or apprise the party accused or proceeded against, and then to come to a decision on the very loosest evidence. Mr. Langslow did not go on with his cases until the notice had been given to all the parties concerned. Here was one cause of delay. Another was the introduction of the practice of taking down the evidence in writing by means of an interpreter; and Mr. Langslow added that he was particular before causing a witness to sign his depositions, in taking care that the man was perfectly aware of the nature of the evidence he was about to vouch for. Now all this would of necessity cause some delay. On this portion of the case Lord Stanley had pronounced no decision. As far as administration of justice went, his Lordship found no fault. The other charges referred to acts of insubordination, and entertaining an improper contempt for the Governor. Now what was the degree of contempt which could he properly entertained, he would wish the law officers of the Crown to explain. He called upon the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) to do so. What were the notions of Mr. Langslow's accusers of insubordinate conduct to the Governor? What notion had hon. Gentlemen learned in the law of such indefinite charges? He turned to the grounds upon which Lord Stanley had dismissed Mr. Langslow; and the reason of his dissatisfaction with these grounds was this, that Mr. Langslow had no opportunity before his dismissal of saying one word in his own defence, or offering a single sentence of explanation. Certainly, so far as his experience in connexion with the Treasury had gone, he would say that the notion of dismissing an official without giving him an opportunity of being heard in self-defence, would never have been for a moment entertained. Let them, at all events, do justice—let them not strike until they had heard. But Mr. Lanslow was dismissed for insubordination and contempt towards the Governor. To his conduct in the judgment-seat there was the highest testimonials; and to the public in Ceylon he had endeared himself by the firm manner in which he had administered justice. His temper, at all events, never showed it- self on the bench. The hon. Gentleman opposite had taken advantage of every point in the correspondence which could be construed as evincing intemperance of expression or impropriety of conduct in Mr. Langslow. He had but a very slight acquaintance with the gentleman in question; but he certainly should have thought him the very last man to have indulged in anything dishonourable or disreputable. He did not say but that there were some expressions in his letters which he should have wished to have seen avoided; but he put it to the House whether there were not in the circumstances of the case grounds for warmth, and palliations for the use of somewhat exciting and excited language. It was hard to arraign a man upon expressions in letters without giving him some opportunity of explaining under what circumstances he wrote them. But take one of the instances in question. Take the case of the speech delivered by Mr. Langslow relative to the alteration of one of his sentences by a court of appeal. The House would have thought from the speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite, that the authenticity of that address had been admitted. Why, it was a mere newspaper report, and even the newspaper did not pretend to state that it was a correct report, for it stated that Mr. Langslow expressed himself to the "following effect." Change, therefore, a few words, and let the address be delivered as he (Mr. F. Baring) believed that it had been delivered, and nothing improper would be found in it. It was, in fact, merely the announcement of the fact of the superior court having seen fit to take a more lenient view of a case than Mr. Langslow had felt it to be consistent with his duty to adopt. He had, however, communicated with Mr. Langslow on the subject; and he had his authority for denying, distinctly and solemnly, that he ever entertained the slightest intention of casting any imputation on the judges of the superior court, or that he had the slightest idea that his words would be construed in any such sense. He stated that he had pronounced a severe judgment, which he was glad to see that the superior court had thought it consistent with its duty to mitigate. Surely, at all events, the report of the speech ought to have been submitted to him, and the question put as to whether it were or were not correct? The accusation against Mr. Langslow was, that he was a quarrelsome man—ready to fight every man; but now, when dismissed it was said he acquiesced in his sentence. The charges were inconsistent. The fact was, a judge was dismissed without being fairly tried. He hoped that now at least he might have an opportunity of defending himself. He hoped the noble Lord at the head of the Government would not permit this blot on colonial administration. He should give his vote cordially for the Motion.

LORD G. BENTINCK

Sir, when I came into the House I had no intention of taking a part in this discussion; but after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Baring), I think it would ill become me if I remained silent and made no attempt to defend the conduct of my noble Friend Lord Stanley. The right hon. Gentleman acknowledges that the district judge of the southern division of Ceylon was guilty of great indiscretion in the publication of the first advertisement he issued in that colony; and I, Sir, cannot help thinking that the judge who could advertise for sale the law books, without the assistance of which he might not be able to pronounce an efficient judgment, would be very much in the position of an officer or a soldier in the Army who might be tried for selling his arms and accoutrements. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has spoken of this gentleman as an admirable judge; but I think it is impossible for any one to read these papers, even in a cursory manner, without seeing that such praise is undeserved by him. My hon. Friend who sits by me quoted a judgment given by Mr. Langslow; and what could be more intemperate and unbecoming a judge than that judgment, passed as it was upon a gentleman for the offence of accidentally striking a native whilst he was amusing himself with his whip. For this offence Mr. Langslow, in the capacity of judge, passed the sentence of which you have heard. But what will be said when the House hears there is great reason to suppose that the true offence of the gentleman was, that he had, at a former period, carried a hostile message to one of the sons of this Judge? Was this, however, the only occasion on which there appeared to be reason to believe that Mr. Langslow, in the discharge of his judicial duties, was influenced by personal motives and private feelings with respect to his sons? His conduct whilst at Malta was of a similar character; and at that place his sons were constantly getting into hot water from misunderstandings with the police and the local authorities. But let us examine for a little what claims Mr. Langslow had to be considered an efficient administrator of the law. Sir Colin Campbell submitted a statement of the manner in which he discharged his duties, and contrasted it with the manner in which his brother Judge in the northern district did his duty; and what was the result? Why, the Judge of the northern district decided in civil cases, after hearing the evidence, 276 out of 1,842; while Mr. Langslow, out of 2,508, decided but 92. With regard to tribunal eases, his brother Judge decided 228 out of 652 cases, whilst Mr. Langslow, out of 969, decided but 109. So that when a comparison is drawn between two Judges, the Judge of the north district appears to have got through more business than Mr. Langslow did; so that I think there is no evidence which the right hon. Gentleman has afforded us can satisfy us of the expedition and indefatigable conduct of Mr. Langslow in the discharge of his duty. But when we hear of him as an admirable judge, and when the right hon. Gentleman says that a man may be insubordinate, or an incompetent judge, and still an excellent and impartial officer of justice, let me ask what was thought of him in that colony? And to what better authority can we appeal than the Council of Ceylon? The Council were unanimous, and they did not decide behind his back, as had been insinuated; they did not come to their judgment without hearing any defence, or knowing what Mr. Langslow had to say. But after the matter had been seventeen days before them, the Council came, amongst other things, to this unanimous judgment. I will not trouble the House by again reading the paragraphs read by my hon. Friend; but the Council say this:— The Council perfectly coincide with the Queen's Advocate in his views of the tendency of the general line of conduct pursued by Mr. Langslow; but though they are of opinion that it is dictated by no creditable motives, and is likely to load to most inconvenient consequences, they can fix upon no one specific charge which of itself would justify his suspension from office. In his most mischievous acts, it is easy for him to defend himself upon plausible legal grounds; and, under the full authority of the Charter and Statute-book, he may plunge the whole island into inextricable confusion. Under these circumstances, it appears safer to the Council to submit their views of Mr. Langslow's conduct to the Secretary of State, than to act upon them themselves. They would impress upon his Lordship the fact, that customs have grown up in this colony on every side, so frequently at variance with law, that a person so disposed may easily establish anarchy under the pretence of administering justice; and they take this opportunity of recording their opinion, that Mr. Langslow has evinced so unequivocal a disposition to take advantage of this unfortunate state of things, that they regard with great apprehension his holding any office which will enable him to give effect to such feelings. In support of this opinion, the Council would particularly call his Lordship's attention to the fact of Mr. Langslow having instigated his son (as proved by the declaration of the Judge of the North Court, and by further evidence which it is not necessary now to bring forward), to bring an action against Mr. Whiting, on the ground of that Judge's court not being situated within his proper district. They again go on to state— It is impossible for the Council to form any estimate of the dangerous consequences which are likely to follow from this step; its effect, if successful, will be to invalidate a long succession of judgments, and give rise to an endless number of actions against every officer of the North Court. Similar irregularities exist in other courts; and no doubt similar mischievous attempts will be made in respect of them, while there exists no power within the colony of providing a remedy. The Council would also call the attention of the Secretary of State to the letter of the superintendent of police, as furnishing facts equally illustrative of the motives and consequences of Mr. Langslow's conduct. The Council have strong reasons for believing that his motive in this instance was a desire of implicating a gentleman against whom he had a previous grudge; and the effect has been, as far as he is able to bring it about, to impair greatly the efficiency of the superintendent of police. Now, I would ask whether that is the sort of man it was fitting for any Secretary of State to maintain in office as the judge of a distant colony? And though it may be perfectly true that in this country the office of judge is one irremoveable by the Crown, still I think the office of judge in this country is removeable on the joint address of both Houses of Parliament, and with the consent of the Crown. Well, did Lord Stanley remove Mr. Langslow on this representation, or upon any judgment of his own, or upon the unanimous advice of the Council after hearing evidence? No; he was not dismissed on this report of the Council, which was made in 1842. The Government at homo and the Government at Ceylon were alike willing to give Mr. Langslow every chance of amending his conduct; and it was not till the 23rd of September, 1843, that Sir C. Campbell wrote home to Lord Stanley in these terms:— It is with much regret that I have at length been compelled, with the unanimous advice of the Executive Council, to suspend Mr. Langslow, Judge of the District Court of Colombo, No. 1, South, with a view to his removal by your Lordship from the public service. So long as any grounds of complaint against Mr. Langslow consisted principally of disrespect and insubordination towards the Government, I felt myself exonerated from the absolute necessity for resorting to this extreme measure. I am aware that his insubordination has been so very publicly evinced on all occasions as to have had an injurious effect upon the public mind; and I am open to the imputation of having carried the forbearance too far. The Governor then goes on to say— It will be seen, from a letter to Mr. Langslow, dated the 5th of April last, copy of which accompanied that despatch, that I expressed a hope that he would for the future devote himself peaceably to his duties, in which case no further proceedings would be adopted against him; but so far from doing so, he soon after proceeded in a course which involved almost an absolute suspension of criminal proceedings in his court for many months, and had the effect of completely paralysing the police. I think it must be admitted to be a most extraordinary proof of the peaceable disposition of the people that no violent outbreak has taken place under such circumstances. Imagine a Secretary of State maintaining a judge whose conduct was such that but for the extraordinary peaceful disposition of the people an outbreak would have ensued from his conduct. Mr. Langslaw—this superior judge, as the right hon. Gentleman who once filled the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks him—was removed, and Mr. Temple was appointed in his place. And notwithstanding the great arrear of business, instead of feeling himself perfectly incompetent to the full discharge of his business, and applying at an early period of his judgeship for an additional officer to assist him, no sooner was he appointed than Sir Colin Campbell makes this report to Lord Stanley:— I beg to call your Lordship's attention to the fact, that, between the 24th June and the 14th October, Mr. Langslow tried only four criminal cases, acted twice as coroner, and took preliminary examination in four cases for the Supreme Court; and that in the seven months ending the 31st October, he only decided forty-three civil cases on argument, and seventy-eight on evidence; and to the reports of the superintendent of police, as to the effect Mr. Langslow's conduct has had as regards his department. Immediately upon Mr. Langslow's suspension, I appointed Mr. Temple, the Deputy Queen's Advocate, to act as District Judge; and I enclose a letter from Mr. Temple, dated the 21st instant, forwarding a memorandum of the business done by him in eight days. Your Lordship will perceive from it that in that short period he has decided more civil cases on evidence than Mr. Langslow did in all November, and heard as many criminal cases as Mr. Langslow disposed of between June and November. It is quite new that we are to be told that a judge is to be suffered to remain on the bench, the description of whose insubordination is this, that he refuses to perform the duties of his office—that a judge, who, in four months, disposes only of as many cases as his successor disposes of in eight days, is a man that deserves to receive the approbation either of the Secretary of State, or of the Colonies, or of this House. Sir Colin Campbell represents this work of Mr. Temple as by no means severe. Mr. Temple, it appears, was so perfectly competent to discharge those duties efficiently, that he assembled his court at the fashionable hour of eleven or twelve o'clock, and concluded at an early hour, there being no more business to be done. Sir Colin Campbell says— I trust that these explanations I have given will satisfy your Lordships that the retention of Mr. Langslow any longer was impossible, and that I had no alternative but to suspend him from office. Now, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman who just sat down was pleased to say that Lord Stanley dismissed this officer on grounds which were not sufficient to justify the dismissal of an exciseman. I appeal to the House, and to every man of common sense and understanding, whether Lord Stanley and Sir Colin Campbell did not bear with this judge till the period when it was impossible any longer to sustain him in his office, without throwing the whole colony into confusion; whilst the due course of justice had been impeded, interrupted, and interfered with to an extent which, I am sure, in no period of the history of this country would be endured. Why, Sir, I thought that in this country there was no subject to which the people were more alive than that justice should be expeditiously disposed of, and that the judgment-seat should be filled by a man, I will not say of mild, but at least of temperate conduct. But here we have a Judge who, originally when he was Attorney General at Malta, appears to have been influenced entirely by the personal quarrels of his son, and brought those family matters before the public; but afterwards when he was on a seat of justice in Ceylon, he actively interferes on an occasion where his son had got into some conflict with one of the officers of that island; and, when his son declined to prosecute, himself, the Judge of one court, in his own name, prosecutes in the other court. Sir, I think, so far as I can judge from the papers that I have looked over since I have been in the House to-night, that it does not require any great names to convince persons of common understanding that it was not possible that a more unfit man than this Mr. Langslow could hold the office of Judge; and that my Lord Stanley and Sir Colin Campbell were only consulting the best interests of the people of Ceylon, and only performing their duty in suspending him. And if I want confirmation of this opinion, it will be found that to the memorial to Her Majesty to revoke the sentence passed on Mr. Langslow, there was but one European signature attached, and that signature was the signature of the editor of the newspaper. Sir, I shall say "no" to this Address to the Crown.

MR. B. ESCOTT

stated in reply that he had not alluded to the advertisement of the sale of the law books (which was an indefensible act), because Mr. Langslow had been previously censured for publishing that advertisement, and because the Colonial Secretary had told him he should hear no more of it. That act, therefore, could not have anything to do with his dismissal, and should not have been brought up in justification of Lord Stanley. After the statement of the Colonial Under Secretary, he did not think he had any occasion to divide the House; but he trusted the party now in power would do what they could to atone for the gross injustice done to Mr. Langslow.

Previous question, and Motion withdrawn.