Commons Sitting of 8 June 1847

MINUTES.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord G. Bentinck, from Yorkshire, for Inquiry respecting the Anatomy Act.—From Charles Puttick, of East Preston, Sussex, for Alteration of the Game Laws—By Sir W. Moles-worth, from East Brixton, Surrey, for Inquiry respecting the Small Debts Act.—By Mr. S. O'Brien, from Farmers and Graziers of several Counties, against the Removal of Smithfield Market.

RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
MR. GISBORNEwished to ask his hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner of Railways a question of some public interest, connected with the new class of railway accidents which had been attended with such loss of life. The necessity of making the inquiry he was about to propose, had been suggested to him by reading an opinion stated by the Times to have been expressed by Mr. Locke, the eminent engineer, with respect to the falling of the Dee bridge. In the report of the proceedings at the inquest on the bodies of the sufferers by that unfortunate accident, as published in the journal in question, the following passage occurred:—
"Mr. Locke, engineer of the Grand Junction Line, corroborated Mr. Stephenson's testimony. He said the bridge did not fall from any pressure downwards, but from a side blow; this the exa-

241
mination of the fragments proved to him; he considered all manner of iron bridges objectionable, when brick and stone bridges could be had—as was the case—cheaper and better. 'Mr. Coroner and gentlemen of the jury,' said Mr. Locke, 'I believe that much blame lies at the doors of the Commissioners of the Admiralty, the Board of Trade, and the Commissioners of Railways, who require bridges built with too large a span, to answer their views as to shipping and other matters, without at all consulting the interest or safety of the public. I wish this to go forth to the world. I wrote a letter to the Government on the subject, and am sorry to say it was not attended to.'"
Before putting a question on the subject in that House, he felt it to be his duty to refer to Mr. Locke himself (than whom there was no gentleman of greater distinction in his profession), to know if the words attributed to him in the newspaper report were the exact expressions which he had used on the occasion in question. Mr. Locke at once told him what be bad stated at the inquest, and he (Mr. Gisborne) took a note of his expressions, which he would read to the House. What his friend had stated was to the following effect:—
"That the Admiralty and Board of Trade were disposed in many cases to attend more to the requirements of water-way and navigation, than to the safety of the public; and very unnecessarily placed on engineers the necessity of covering a width of space which could not be made entirely safe. That Mr. Stephenson, Mr. Brunei, and himself, addressed a joint letter to Lord Dalhousie, embodying this opinion, and that they never received any reply."
Mr. Locke further added, that that opinion he was prepared to adhere to before any Select Committee or before any court of law. He (Mr. Gisborne) felt it to be his duty to give his hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner of Railways an opportunity for affording some explanation on the matter.
MR. STRUTTwas obliged to his hon. Friend for putting the question, as his doing so afforded the opportunity for correcting a misapprehension to which an error in the newspaper report was calculated to give colour. As Mr. Locke's statement at first appeared, it conveyed a serious charge against three departments of the public service—the Board of Trade, the Board of Admiralty, and the Railway Board—namely, that they had caused bridges to be erected of an unnecessarily wide span, dangerous to the safety of the public. So far as the Commissioners of Railways were concerned, he begged to assure the House that on no occasion whatsoever had they interfered to cause
242
bridges to be built of any span that could be productive of the slightest danger to the public. And so far from any remonstrance having been addressed to them by Mr. Locke, he begged to say that the Board had not received any communication whatsoever, whether by way of complaint, remonstrance, or representation, either from that gentleman or from any other quarter whatever on the subject referred to. This showed that there was no foundation whatsoever for the statement inaccurately reported in the newspapers, so far, at least, as that statement could be supposed to affect the present Board. But he had not stopped there. He had examined into the Minutes of the proceedings of the Railway Department of the Board of Trade, to see if there were any mention of such communications. He found a letter addressed on the subject of bridges to Lord Dalhousie by Mr. Locke and certain other engineers. Into the subject of that letter it was not necessary that he should just then enter; but this he would say, that it did not relate to the conduct of the Railway Department of the Board of Trade, nor to that of the Admiralty Board, or of any other department whatsoever of the public service. It had exclusive reference to a clause proposed to be introduced into the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, and merely went to suggest an amendment in that Act. It had no relation whatever to the conduct of any public board, and solely referred to bridges not across rivers but across dry roads. With respect to the Board of Admiralty they had most useful functions to perform for the preservation of the lives of the public, in taking care that the regulations in reference to navigation were properly carried out. His hon. Friend the Secretary for the Board of Admiralty was in his place on Monday evening in the expectation that this question would be asked, in order that he might reply to it, so far as it concerned his department. If the hon. Member for Nottingham desired further information from the Admiralty, perhaps it would be as well that he should repeat his question when the hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Admiralty was present.
SIR GEORGE CLERKwas in a position to corroborate the statement which had been made by the Chief Commissioner of Railways. No instance had ever come before the Railway Department of the Board of Trade, so long as he was connected with that department, in which they had in-

243
sisted on bridges being constructed in any manner of which, an engineer could disapprove. With respect to the letter which had been addressed to Lord Dalhousie, it did not refer to bridges over water, but simply to bridges over roads. As for the Board of Admiralty, all they had to do was to see that the free navigation of rivers was not interfered with by railways or otherwise. It was for the engineers to decide whether, to prevent any such interference, bridges could be made of such strength and dimensions as to secure the safety of the public. On them alone rested the responsibility. He protested against their shifting it on any public departments. They alone were the responsible parties. If they did not think that the bridges could be constructed in such a manner as to ensure public safety, why did they not say so at once, and decline undertaking the task of erecting them?
MR. GISBORNEhad not intended to guarantee any statements whatsoever. He merely observed that a paragraph, conveying an imputation against three public boards, appeared in the Times, and he felt it to be his duty to afford to the authorities of those departments an opportunity for explanation.

SALE OF BREAD.
MR. BANKESwished to put a question to the noble Lord the First Lord of the Treasury. Referring to a petition he held in his hand of considerable importance, but which he had not as yet had the opportunity of presenting—in consequence of the nature of the private business it had now, in fact, become an impossibility to present public petitions at all—the question he had to put was, whether the Government had taken the subject of the sale of bread into consideration, and whether they proposed to review the laws relating to the weight of bread? During the many fluctuations which had taken place during the last ten months in the prices of corn, the public had been very great sufferers from the absence of a proper control over the weight and price of bread. The bread never followed the prices of corn, and it was the prayer of the petition to which he referred, that, if they were to have cheap corn, they might have cheap bread also.
LORD J. RUSSELL: I thought the hon. Gentleman meant to make some inquiry with respect to an Act which once passed this House, and enacted that the sale of bread should not be permitted till a
244
certain time after it is baked. The subject has been under the consideration of the Government, but we do not think it practicable to enforce such an Act. I am convinced that very great waste takes place from the consumption of new bread before a certain number of hours have elapsed after it has been baked. But we do not think it desirable to introduce any Bill which it would not be practicable to enforce. The hon. Gentleman asks whether the Government intend to propose an assize of bread; we do not mean to introduce any measure on that subject.

CASE OF SIR E. WILMOT.
MR. HORSMANsaid, the House would recollect a very remarkable statement which was made in the House last night, as to two gentlemen holding high stations in Her Majesty's service. It was stated that these parties had made a statement to the Colonial Office regarding the absent Governor of Van Diemen's Land, on which statement he was suspended from public employment. It had been since discovered and admitted by all parties, that that statement was utterly unfounded. Now, it was mentioned on very high authority—the authority of a right hon. Gentleman, representing, he believed, his absent Colleague, who was formerly at the head of the Colonial Office—that two of the parties who made the statement held at this moment high official appointments in Van Diemen's Land, and that the other was in a position of the highest respectability. Now, he wished to ask the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies, whether, the statement having been made not merely upon rumours, but in such a manner as to make it appear authentic and semiofficial, Her Majesty's Government had ascertained the names of the public servants by whom the statement was made? Second, whether they had called for any explanation of their conduct? And third, whether, on the result of that explanation, if such was asked, would depend their continuance in the public service?
MR. HAWEScould only state, in answer, what he had stated to the House last night—that in the Colonial Office there was no official record whatever of any such statement as that which had been referred to, as bearing on the case of Sir E. Wilmot, and that it was not therefore in his power to institute any proceeding upon that statement. He had not the means of ascertaining what had occurred, as he was

245
in entire ignorance of any official record on the subject.
MR. B. ESCOTTwished to ask a question of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies, on the reply to which would depend whether or not he put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dorchester. His question was, whether the Colonial Office was, in fact, in possession of the names of the three persons who gave the information on which the late Secretary for the Colonies had thought fit to act in his despatch of the 30th of April, 1846? If the hon. Gentleman did not answer this question, then he would put it to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham).
MR. HAWEScould state no more than he had already done, that the Colonial Office had no official record whatever of the information which was given, or of the names of the parties who gave that information. He was, therefore, utterly unable to give the hon. Gentleman any other answer.
MR. B. ESCOTT MR. B. ESCOTT, seeing the hon. Gentleman had not given him an answer to his question, would ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Graham) whether, after the statement he made last night, he thought it consistent with his duty to state to the House who those persons were who, holding high official situations in Her Majesty's service, gave the information to Mr. Gladstone, on which he acted in his secret despatch of the 30th of April, 1836; and if the right hon. Gentleman did not think it proper to give the names of those persons, perhaps he would state his reason for withholding them?
SIR J. GRAHAMwould have been most happy to satisfy the laudable desire of his hon. Friend to have this information; hut he was not in a position to give him the semi-official information which had already been alluded to by another hon. Gentleman. He was in that House only as a private Member of Parliament. Last night he stated to the House that Mr. Gladstone received the information on which he wrote the private letter to Sir E. Wilmot from three gentlemen—that one of them had been in the service of the Crown, but was not now in that service; and that on application to him he refused to allow any use of his name in the matter. He had further stated that the letters of Mr. Gladstone rested on the information of two gentlemen, one of them now occupying a high station in the colony, and the
246
other a public servant. He was not prepared to give the names of either of those gentlemen; but he might state that the names of both of them had been communicated to the present Sir Eardley Wilmot. He did not think it consistent with his duty in these circumstances to mention the names of either of the parties. The hon. Gentleman had asked him, in the event of his declining to mention their names, to give his reasons for so doing. He did not consider that he was called upon to do so; but still he would comply with the request that had been made to him. He must say to the hon. Gentleman and the House, that he thought it would be most unjust towards these gentlemen, from whom perhaps Sir E. Wilmot asked an explanation, to leave them exposed for twelve months to the obloquy under which they would lie, on the presumption that they had given false information; when, though perhaps they might be able to give the information now required, they could not do so for a period of twelve months. That was the reason why he had come to the fixed determination that, being no longer charged with the official information connected with the subject, he could not make an announcement which might greatly prejudice those two gentlemen.

CASE OF MR. DREW.
SIR F. THESIGERtrusted that in presenting the case of Mr. Drew to the House, it would he unnecessary for him to do more than state shortly and simply the circumstances, in order to induce them to come to the conclusion that Mr. Drew had great cause of complaint. Had this been merely the complaint of an individual who had been disappointed in his reasonable expectations of obtaining some office or employment, he should not have felt justified in introducing the subject at all; but when the complaint was taken in connexion with the strongest and most direct pledges given while a particular measure was in progress through that House, and which had the effect of disarming opposition, he did feel that the subject was one which assumed a very different complexion—that it was not the case of an individual, but one in which the whole House had the deepest interest. Mr. Drew was for upwards of thirty years a solicitor of high standing and reputation, carrying on an extensive business in Southwark. For upwards of twenty years he held the office of clerk to the commissioners of the court of requests,

247
at a salary of 500 l. a year, which office he held for life. The commissioners of the court of requests being generally unprofessional persons, Mr. Drew was their legal adviser on all points; and in any question which involved any law, he was virtually judge of the court. It was necessary to say that the experience of Mr. Drew made him familiarly acquainted with the machinery and operation of a court of this description. In 1844 an Act was passed for the amendment of the laws of insolvency and bankruptcy; and in that Act a clause was introduced empowering commissioners of courts of requests to appoint assessors with the sanction of the Secretary of State, there being a provision that the appointment should not entitle the party appointed to any compensation, supposing a general Act was passed for the recovery of small debts. The commissioners of the court of requests then presented a memorial to the Privy Council, praying to have their jurisdiction increased from sums of 51. to 20 l.; and in consequence of that memorial having been presented, they delayed to make any appointment of an assessor. Another Act was passed in 1845 which gave the courts presided over by assessors the power of committing fraudulent debtors; and, in 1846, complaint was made by the tradesmen within the jurisdiction of the court that they were unable to receive the advantage of that Act, from no assessor having been appointed. The commissioners, therefore, felt it to be their duty to attend to suggestions made to them on this point; and having had twenty years' experience of Mr. Drew in the capacity of clerk, they unanimously agreed to give the office of assessor to that gentleman. Now, the House would bear in mind that Mr. Drew was in this situation, that he held the office of clerk for life, with salary of 500 l. a year; and that there was a clause which provided that the assessors should have no compensation if any general Act passed for the recovery of small debts. But it happened at that time that there was a Bill introduced into the House for this very purpose, and in that Bill there was a clause that the assessors of existing courts should be entitled to be the judges of the new courts to be appointed under the Act. Mr. Drew, therefore, feeling that he would not be giving up his certain situation for life for any uncertainty, and being perfectly satisfied that this clause would protect him from any injurious contingency, agreed to
248
accept the office. The Government had changed during the time that elapsed between the appointment of Mr. Drew and the sanction of that appointment; but the right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary of State for the Home Department, on application being made to him, at once sanctioned Mr. Drew's appointment. The Bill, however, for the recovery of small debts, in its progress through the House, met with some alterations, and the clause which he had just mentioned was removed. This created considerable alarm in the minds of the commissioners of the court of requests and the friends of Mr. Drew; and a deputation was appointed to obtain information on the subject, and the assurance was given that Mr. Drew would be confirmed in his appointment as judge of the court to which he had been elected under the circumstances he had already mentioned. Now, that was perfectly correct; and he was now speaking in the presence of those who heard the distinct assurances that were given by the present Secretary for the Home Department, and by the Attorney General, that persons who were filling existing offices as judges of the abolished courts should have the preference in the appointments that were to be made in the new courts established under the Act. The hon. and learned Gentleman read extracts from the speeches of the Home Secretary and the Attorney General in August, 1846, in support of this statement. He would ask the House whether the friends of Mr. Drew, supposing there was no objection to his qualifications, were not entitled to expect that he would have been most unquestionably appointed to an office in the new court? The moment after the Act passed, therefore, Mr. Drew addressed a petition to the Lord Chancellor, setting forth his claims and the circumstances of his case, and praying that his Lordship would appoint him to one of the new courts. No answer was given to his memorial, and he knew nothing of the disappointment of his hopes until he received from Mr. Clive an intimation that he (Mr, Clive) was appointed. Mr. Clive had been for some years a police magistrate, the duties of which office he had fulfilled with great ability, and to the satisfaction of every one; but Mr. Clive had had no experience whatever in a court of this description, and he could not be put in comparison with Mr. Drew, who had had twenty years 'experience. Mr. Clive, therefore, was taken from an office in which he

249
had been employed usefully to the public, and put into' an office for which he was not qualified, and the public were deprived of the services of a person well qualified for it. The commissioners of the court of requests, feeling that great injustice had been done, thought it right to appoint a deputation to wait upon the Lord Chancellor, and state Mr. Drewe's case. The Lord Chancellor, upon hearing that Mr. Drew had given up his office, said, "Why did he run the risk?" Did any one in the House re-echo that observation? Could Mr. Drew have supposed he ran any risk in trusting to the good faith of the Government? When pressed, the Lord Chancellor's observation was, "It is a very hard case;" and he asked whether Mr. Drew would like to fall back upon his original appointment of one of the joint clerks of the court? This suggestion of the Lord Chancellor was repeated by Mr. Clive in a letter to Mr. Drew, of the 14th of March, which led to a correspondence between them, and he would read to the House a letter from Mr. Drew, declining such an appointment. [The hon. and learned Gentleman read the letter, which stated that his friends concurred with him in thinking that he should not accept the offer, since it would be a retrogression in rank.] He (Sir F. Thesiger) remembered that, when his right hon. Friend, the head of the late Government, for the purpose of securing to the public the eminent judicial talents of the present Lord Chancellor, proposed that he should accept the office of one of the Vice-Chancellors, then recently appointed; the noble Lord now at the head of the Government laughed the proposition to scorn, as if he thought it absurd to suppose that the Lord Chancellor should condescend to accept an inferior judicial situation; and yet almost the very same sort of proposition emanated from that source. Nay, it was not that Mr. Drew should accept a lower judicial appointment, but that he should drop from the office of judge to become a clerk, to register the decrees of the judge. He would ask any Gentleman if Mr. Drew would not, in some degree, have compromised his character by consenting to accept the lower situation? It might be said, that there was a well-founded objection on the part of the Lord Chancellor to the appointment of Mr. Drew, as he was a solicitor; and the Lord Chancellor considered that only barristers ought to be appointed to the new judgeships. That observation would come rather too late. The
250
claims of the judges of the old courts, whether barristers or attorneys, were before the House when the Bill passed, and the Act contained a clause which gave to the judges of the old local courts a prior right to appointments in the new courts. But, if he did not mistake, the Lord Chancellor had, in several instances, appointed attorneys to be judges of the new courts. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been present, he would have asked that right hon. Baronet whether Mr. Stanley, a solicitor, had not been appointed to the Halifax county court; and he would appeal to the hon. Member for Brighton whether Mr. Turner, a solicitor, had not been appointed judge of the Brighton court. After the pledge of the Government, given to Mr. Drew and all other persons similarly situated, no available objection could be made to his appointment to a judgeship, but that he was not qualified. Would it be said that the appointment of Mr. Drew to be assessor had been made so shortly before the Small Debts Act had passed, that he had no right to be appointed one of the judges of the new courts? He apprehended that Mr. Drew was as perfectly entitled as other judges under the pledge. Mr. Drew had, for the purpose of taking upon himself the office of assessor, given up the office he held from the commissioners, as well as his professional practice; and he wished to elicit some explanation of the reasons, which amounted to a justification, why he was not appointed to the judgeship. If no explanation was given, and no satisfactory reason was stated, why Mr. Drew was passed over, he confessed it would appear to him (Sir F. Thesiger) one of the most cruel cases, and one of the grossest acts of injustice, which ever came before the House. Under these circumstances, he moved—
"That a Copy of a Letter from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, approving of the appointment of Mr. Drew to be the Assessor of the Southwark and Brixton Court of Requests, under the Act 8 and 9 Victoria, cap. 127, he laid upon the Table of the House."
SIR G. GREYhad not the slightest objection to the document moved for being laid upon the Table. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated circumstances from which the hon. and learned Gentleman wished the House to infer that great injustice had been done to Mr. Drew. Upon referring to Mr. Drew's petition he was surprised at the loose way in which it was worded. The petitioner stated that—

251
"In August, 1846, a Bill was pending in Parliament for the bettor recovery of small debts, in which provision was made that persons holding the appointment of assessor should be the first judges of the new courts; but such Bill was afterwards altered, and the clause confirming the assessors as the first judges of the new courts was omitted."
Then, in a subsequent part, he stated—
" That relying implicitly upon the arrangement proposed in the Small Debts' Bill, when first brought in, he resigned his office of clerk," &c.
The hon. and learned Gentleman's statement was in accordance with this petition, and proceeded upon the supposition that the Bill conferred an absolute right in the existing holders of the office of assessor to be appointed judges; and that Mr. Drew, being an existing holder of the office of assessor in the court of requests, was entitled to the appointment as judge; that a pledge, on the part of the Government was given, and that pledge had been forfeited. He would prove to the House that Mr. Drew had not a shadow of right under the Bill; that he was not the holder of an office respecting which the Bill conferred any such absolute right. By a clause in the Bill, the late Government provided against such claims as that set up by Mr. Drew. By the eighth clause, the qualification of assessor for the appointment of judge in the new courts was confined to those who held the office on the 1st day of June, expressly excluding those who did not hold the office on that day. By a subsequent clause, the Act gave power to the Government to fill up vacancies by barristers-at-law, commissioners of local courts, or persons holding the office of assessor on the 1st day of June. Mr. Drew was not a barrister, nor a commissioner, nor did he hold the office of assessor on the 1st day of June. [Sir F. THESIGER: The Bill was altered in Committee.] Mr. Drew acted on the faith of the Bill as it stood. The Bill was introduced by the Duke of Buccleuch on the 15th of June, 1846, when the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) was in office. On the 25th of Juno a circular issued from the Southwark Court of Requests for a general meeting on the 2nd of July, 1846, to appoint a fit person to fill the office of assessor; and this circular was signed "Meymott and Drew, clerks;" so that Mr. Drew was one of the clerks of the court at that time; and at the meeting so convened Mr. Drew was appointed assessor. Upon the 28th of July a memorial was addressed to him as Secretary of State, to confirm the appointment of assessor;
252
and the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think that, by this confirmation, he had given Mr. Drew some right to a future appointment. But that was a mere Ministerial act; and Mr. Drew being, as he admitted, a gentleman of unexceptionable character, he confirmed the appointment. Mr. Drew had not been excluded from the judgeship because he was an attorney, or because he was disqualified for the appointment of a judge in the new courts; but Mr. Drew, either under the Bill as it was originally introduced, or by the Act as it subsequently passed, had no shadow of a claim to a prior right of appointment. But it had been said, that there had been a pledge given to the House that the holders of existing offices should be the judges in the new courts. He positively denied any such pledge. The Lord Chancellor had said in the other House, and he had said in this, that the Government thought it inexpedient that there should be any absolute right; that there should be an unfettered discretion in the Lord Chancellor to select proper persons to fill the judgeships; at the same time, where claims and qualifications were equal, the existing judges would be considered to have a prior claim; and, out of the sixty judges appointed, thirty-two had held the situation in the former courts. But Mr. Drew was not in such a position; he was not the holder of the office of assessor till July, and therefore he had not the shadow of a claim to a future appointment. It had been anticipated that he would have been objected to because he was an attorney; but that was not so. And when the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the experience of Mr. Drew qualifying him for the appointment, it was to be recollected that, when the alteration took place, he was assessor in a court (the court of requests) the jurisdiction of which was limited to 51., whereas the new courts took cognizance of suits under 20 1., the duties of which were consequently more onerous. Under these circumstances, he must say, that so far from the hon. and learned Gentleman having shown that any injustice had been done to Mr. Drew, he thought that he had been treated very kindly by Mr. Clive, in the offer which that gentleman made him to restore him to the office he had so long filled. Mr. Drew seemed to have acted under a very mistaken apprehension of the intention of the framers of the Bill; and certainly the question put by the Lord Chancellor with respect to the course that

253
gentleman took was not a very inappropriate one—"Why did he run that risk?" The right hon. Gentleman concluded by saying, he had no objection to produce the letter moved for by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
MR.GOULBURNconsidered the case of Mr. Drew to be one of peculiar hardship. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that it was clear Mr. Drew had no legitimate claim upon the Lord Chancellor to be appointed to be the judge of this now court. If that was true, let him ask, when Mr. Drew presented his memorial expressing his anxiety to know upon what grounds the appointment was not conferred upon him, why was no answer returned? Would it not have been the most satisfactory way of treating Mr. Drew, to have told him that by law he was not entitled to the appointment? By not telling him so, he was left under an implied imputation of not having been appointed on account of some inefficiency, or of some disqualifying conduct.
SIR F. THESIGERobserved, that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Grey) with very great ingenuity had contrived to avoid the most important part of the case, namely, that a pledge had been distinctly given, and repeated that the existing judges should be entitled to preference in the now appointments. He had correctly stated the expressions said to have been used on a former occasion by the right hon. Baronet; and he (Sir F. Thesiger) appealed to the House whether the language he had quoted did not amount to a pledge, that if there were no objections to any existing judge, he was the person who would be entitled to priority? The right hon. Baronet admitted the pledge, but had endeavoured to show that Mr. Drew had placed his case upon a wrong ground, by saying that the Bill originally introduced by the late Government contained a clause which protected his right.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that his hon. and learned Friend had thought proper to repeat that a pledge was given by his right hon. Friend (Sir G. Grey), although his right hon. Friend had denied having given any pledge. He (the Attorney General) would state what did occur, an account of which might be seen in the Parliamentary reports; and if his hon. and learned Friend had been present on that occasion, he would not now have persisted in his statement. His hon. and learned Friend had taken only an extract of what was said by the right hon. Baronet;
254
if he had taken the whole speech, his hon. and learned Friend would have been aware that no distinct and positive pledge was given that these parties should be appointed judges in the new courts, but that their claims should be considered, and that they should have the preference. This statement was followed by an observation from himself (the Attorney General), that it was utterly impossible all the existing judges could have claims, for there were about eighty persons then holding office, and there would be only about sixty new judges appointed. It never could have been sup-posed by anybody that it was intended to give these gentlemen what was considered a vested right, such as to authorize his hon. and learned Friend to persist in his statement. [Sir F. THESIGER never stated that the Bill gave them a vested right, but a pledge was given that they should have the preference to others.] True; but his hon. and learned Friend considered that Mr. Drew had sustained a great grievance, and that he and others in a similar situation had, by reason of what had passed last Session, been lulled into a state of fancied security. Mr. Drew was appointed assessor to the Southwark Court of Requests in July, 1846; and he stated in his petition that at that time, he had reason to expect that he should have been continued in his office, because (as he alleged) in the Bill which was then pending respecting the establishing of new courts for the recovery of small debts, there was a clause which preserved to him that right. But was that so? It was not; for by the Bill to which Mr. Drew referred, it was expressly provided that no person should have the right of being appointed a judge of these new courts who had not been a judge of the then existing courts of limited jurisdiction on the 1st of June, 1846. Now, Mr. Drew was not appointed assessor until July, 1846. And for what purpose was this clause inserted? Why, in order that the introduction of the Bill should not he the signal for old and incompetent persons to retire from the office of judge, that younger persons might get the appointments, and thus obtain a vested right to the now judgeships. With respect to Mr. Drew not having received any answer from the Lord Chancellor, he believed that the uniform practice was, when applications were made of that nature to the Lord Chancellor, for that learned person not to return any answer. He certainly knew that there were persons who were quite as high in station as Mr. Drew

255
—men of rank, of high standing, and of undoubted merit in their profession, and who had made applications to the Lord Chancellor, and who did not consider it derogatory to their dignity not to have received an answer from that noble and learned person. No doubt the case of Mr. Drew was a hard one; but the Lord Chancellor was not to be blamed for it. Mr. Drew gave up his appointment as clerk to become assessor, for the sake of the chance of being appointed judge under the new law. That chance had failed him; but, was the Lord Chancellor answerable for that? It was a hard case, but it must also be considered a strange ease. His former office of clerk still remained open, and to which Mr. Drew might even now be appointed; but he considered it beneath his dignity to become a clerk in the very court in which he had sat as judge, although it was a more lucrative appointment than that of assessor.
MR. NEWDEGATEwas not surprised that Mr. Drew had been disappointed, for he who had been listening to what had occurred on the subject, had expected that a different course would have been taken. The right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General said, that his answer on a former occasion was so plain, that it was impossible he could he mistaken. He was in the House at the time, and had heard that answer. [The hon. Gentleman read from Hansard the report of the Attorney General's observations on the occasion referred to,* from which it appeared that the right hon. Gentleman gave the House to understand that the sixty new judgeships would be filled out of the eighty existing assessors.] The impression produced on his mind was that the new judges would be selected from the eighty existing judges; yet Mr. Clive had been appointed who was not one of the assessors. He put a distinct question to the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Homo Department, who gave him distinctly to understand that the former judges would have a preference in the new appointments. He therefore sat down, satisfied that his Friend Mr. Guest, of Birmingham, whose interest he wished to promote, would be appointed; but Mr. Guest had been disappointed, and accepted the alternative of a clerkship. Upon the whole, he was not at all surprised that Mr. Guest should consider himself disappointed,
* See Hansard, Vol. lxxxviii. Third Series, p. 916,
256
and that Mr. Drew should think himself an ill-used man.
Motion agreed to.

BONDING OF BRITISH SPIRIT.
MR. MOFFATTthen rose to move the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the existing regulations in reference to the bonding of British spirits in the United Kingdom, and to the rectification of British spirits for exportation. The hon. Gentleman was proceeding with his statement when the House was counted out.
Adjourned at a quarter to Nine o'clock.