§ SIR J. GRAHAMwished to ask a question of the Attorney General, respecting which he would have given the hon. and learned Gentleman notice; but the matter to which it referred had only become known to him within the last twenty-four hours. He had heard that one of the Judges appointed to one of the county courts was now a candidate for a seat in that House during the next Session. Now, so far as he was concerned, he by no means contemplated any such eligibility on the part of any of these judges. He supposed that their time would be too fully occupied in the discharge of their duties. The Bill which was now passing the Legislature imposed fresh duties upon them, and there was no doubt that they would be fully occupied now. There was no actual disqualification in the Act of last Session. Yet this was a new office, and although the judges of the county courts were appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and not by the Secretary of State, the question might 322 arise whether they were not officers appointed by the Crown. He wished to ask the Attorney General whether these officers were eligible to sit in Parliament?
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, his attention had been directed to this matter. The Act of Parliament did not give to the Crown the power of appointing the judges of these local courts, but gave the appointment to the Lord Chancellor. The question then arose whether they were not "places or offices of profit under the Crown." Parliamentary precedents might be cited both on one side and the other, a Select Committee of that House having given an opinion one way, and an Election Committee having given an opposite decision. If he gave an explicit answer to the question, he might, by giving an opinion which might not be upheld by an Election Committee, compromise the exercise of the franchise by the electors; and if, on the other hand, he should say that the candidate was qualified to sit, and the Committee were determined that he was not, the candidate and the Committee would both have cause to complain. For these reasons, if the House did not think it would be inconsistent with his duty, he must beg to decline answering the question.
§ SIR J. GRAHAMat once yielded to the reasons given by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and would not press for an answer to his question. But, as the law was so doubtful upon this point, he thought it would be the duty of the House to clear it up. And, although he disapproved of the practice of moving Amendments of importance upon the third reading of Bills, as cutting off the opportunity which hon. Members ought to have of expressing their assent or dissent respecting these points upon the different stages of the Bill, he gave notice that he would, on the third reading of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Bill, bring up a clause disqualifying the judges of county courts from sitting in Parliament.
§ SIR G. GREYcould say that, whether the judges of county courts were legally disqualified or not from sitting in that House, the Lord Chancellor was of opinion that their duties would be so onerous that he had never contemplated their having a seat in Parliament.