Commons Sitting of 6 March 1855

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT for Portsmouth v. Viscount Monck, Commissioner of the Treasury.
NEW MEMBER SWORN for Halifax—Right Hon. Sir Charles Wood, bt.; for Northampton Borough, Right Hon. Robert Vernon Smith; for New Radnor, Right Hon. Sir George Cornewall Lewis, bt.
1° Lunacy Regulation Act Amendment.

PAUPER CHILDREN—QUESTION.
MR. MILESsaid he begged to ask the right hon. gentlemen the President of the Poor Law Board whether any communication had taken place between the President of the Privy Council and himself relative to the education of children receiving outdoor relief; and if so, whether there was any objection to lay such correspondence before the House?
MR. BAINESsaid he had no objection to lay the correspondence on the table.
MR. MILESsaid he could now ask the right hon. gentleman whether any communication had taken place between himself and the Emigration Commissioners relative to the Act passed by the New

189
South Wales Legislature (16 Vic., cap. 42, sec. 7 & 8), whereby the Emigration Commissioners are declared competent to engage any boy or girl of and above the age of thirteen, from any parish or board of guardians, the parents or guardians of whom shall be willing to contribute towards their passage to the colony, the colony paying a sum not exceeding 8l. sterling towards the passage money; such children, upon their arrival at the colony, to be apprenticed to proper employers under certain conditions.
MR. BAINESsaid that a correspondence had taken place on the subject referred to, and he had no objection to its production.

THE CRIMEAN MEDAL—QUESTION.
MR. OWEN STANLEYsaid he begged to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, or the hon. gentleman the Under Secretary for War, if it was intended that the Crimean medal shall confer two years' additional service, or any peculiar advantages similar to those conferred by the Waterloo medal in 1815?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid that, undoubtedly, the actions in the Crimea were actions in which the brave troops of this country displayed as much valour as ever was evinced on any former occasion; but, although a medal had been conferred, it was not intended to accompany it with the privilege of counting these actions as two years' service. The hon. Member must be aware that battles were fought in the Peninsula, in which the success was as great and complete as that obtained at Alma and Inkerman, but in respect to which no such privileges were conferred. The battle of Waterloo was an event of a totally different character. It put an end to a long war; it decided the fate of Europe; and was not a precedent for anything connected with the actions which have been fought in the Crimea.

ADMINISTRATION OF THE ARMY— QUESTION.
MR. HUTTsaid, that seeing, by official correspondence, that when the Duke of Newcastle found it necessary to recall Lord Lucan from the command of the British cavalry in the Crimea, he was compelled to obtain the interposition of Lord Hardinge for that purpose, he wished to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, among the improvements in the administration of the army which he pro-
190
mised to the House on his accession to office, he proposed to empower the Secretary for War to effect such changes without the intervention of the Horse Guards?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that no change was intended to be effected in the military subordination of the army, and therefore the Commander in Chief would be the authority whose orders and directions would either appoint or withdraw officers from the staff; but the actions of the Commander in Chief would necessarily be subjected to the decision of the Government on matters of sufficient importance to require that decision, and their decision would be communicated to the Commander in Chief by the Secretary of State for the War Department.

THE CITY OF LONDON CORPORATION COMMISSION—QUESTION.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the report of the Royal Commission on the subject of the corporation of the city of London had now been for some time in possession of the House and the country. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, whether he had had an opportunity of considering the report; and, if so, whether it was the intention of the Government to propose any measure during the present Session?
SIR GEORGE GREYreplied, that a Bill was in preparation founded on the recommendations contained in the Report of the Commissioners for the reform of the Corporation of London; but it was desirable that the House should, in the first place, consider the Bills relating to the metropolis generally, which had been introduced by his right hon. Friend (Sir B. Hall). He hoped, however, to be able to bring in a Bill for the reform of the corporation in the course of the present Session.

THE CAPE—THE KAFIRS—QUESTION.
MR. LIDDELLasked whether the Government had received any official information from British Kaffraria which was likely to cause the apprehension of another Kafir war?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that at the date of the last despatches from the Governor of the Cape of Good Hope, no act of hostility had taken place. Considerable uneasiness and alarm existed on the eastern frontier on account of the supposed hostile intentions of the Kafirs and

191
the Fingoes, who had combined together with no friendly intention towards the settlers. In the last dispatch, dated the 30th December, the Governor said, the latest accounts he had received were of a more satisfactory and cheering character, and he was on the point of going to the frontier to hold communication with the chiefs of the Kafirs and Fingoes, from which he hoped beneficial results would follow.

THE RECORDERSHIP OF BRIGHTON.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he rose to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to take into consideration the case of the appointment of Edwin James, Q.C., to the office of Recorder of Brighton, the said Edwin James having been refused admittance to the Bench of the Inner Temple on account of his conduct in respect of certain transactions connected with the election for the borough of Horsham in 1847. He felt that, in undertaking to bring forward this question, he had entered upon a task of serious moment and of a very painful nature. It was not the less painful that Mr. James was a member of the same profession as himself, of the same inn, and of the same circuit. He was not actuated, however, by any personal motives. He had no acquaintance with Mr. James beyond the casual intercourse incidental to their meeting on circuit. He could bear testimony to that gentleman's eminent abilities, high legal attainments, and forensic talent, having often witnessed the ingenuity and skill with which he conducted the cases of his clients. But this appointment was of a judicial character, the holder of which should be above the slightest breath of suspicion. The question which he was about to bring under the notice of the House was one which ought not to be introduced on light grounds, but he felt satisfied, from the information in his possession, that if the House would grant him a Committee he should be able fully to prove his case. About a fortnight ago he asked the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether the new recordership of Brighton had been conferred upon a Queen's counsel who had been refused admittance to the bench of his inn? The noble Lord said it was not true that a gentleman had been appointed to the office referred to who had been refused admittance in the way stated. The learned person whom he had appointed had not been so refused. He had selected from amongst the candidates who had been
192
presented to him the individual who, according to the testimony of high legal authorities, appeared to him to be the best qualified. He had no personal knowledge of any of the candidates, but selected the one who brought the highest testimony from legal authorities of professional competency, and he had no reason to think he had erred in making the appointment. The noble Lord qualified his answer, and said that Mr. James had not been refused in the manner he (Mr. Craufurd) had stated, that he had not been "so" refused. It might, perhaps, be argued, in the strict sense of the word, that the learned gentleman was not refused, inasmuch as he was not proposed; but that amounted to a mere quibble, for in point of practice he had been refused admittance. Complaints were made to the benchers against him; he was called upon to explain, and, after explaining, was not admitted to the bench of his inn, as was usual in the case of counsel receiving a silk gown. The case he had to submit to the House had reference to the Horsham election in 1847. The successful candidate at that election was the son of the then Attorney General (Mr. Jervis). Mr. James, having property in the neighbourhood, took a very active part in the election. A petition was presented against the return of Mr. John Jervis, on the grounds of treating and bribery. When the Committee appointed to try the petition assembled, the counsel for Mr. Jervis admitted the treating, and at the same time submitted to a Resolution declaring the election void, and suggested that the petitioner ought to be satisfied and withdraw the charge of bribery. Perhaps the Committee shrank from going into evidence which would have proved a distinguished Whig Attorney General to have been guilty of gross bribery. The Committee, however, required some proof of the treating—some explanation to satisfy their consciences that they might abstain from reporting on the extraordinary conduct of withdrawing the charges of bribery when they were so notorious. If the Committee had gone a step further, they would have ascertained that by some collusion the charges had been withdrawn on condition that the election should be void. One gentleman who was examined stated his readiness to give the names of certain parties, but the Committee decided that they would not call upon him to do so, and they reported that the circumstances did not call for a special Report. If the

193
Committee had examined into the matter, they would have found that one of the parties engaged in the compromise had rendered himself liable to the payment of 1,500 l., and Mr. James undertook to pay that sum if the other party failed to do so, towards the costs of the petition if the bribery charges were withdrawn. Those charges were withdrawn, but the money had never been paid. It was an illegal contract, and consequently could not be enforced, but it was, nevertheless, an honourable engagement which Mr. James had never fulfilled. A complaint to the benchers against Mr. James for having failed to pay that money was not entertained, because Mr. James had not acted in his professional capacity, either for the member or the petitioner. Actions were, however, tried at the assizes at Lewes, both against Mr. James and the Attorney General, Sir John Jervis. The action against Mr. James resulted in a verdict for the defendant, owing to the exclusion of some evidence by a ruling of the Judge, to which a bill of exceptions was tendered. That bill of exceptions was never argued. As to the reasons of that, hon. Members could form their own surmises. The other action was, after the examination of some witnesses, abandoned. When the House was professing to be in earnest in suppressing bribery, and when Her Majesty's Government were bringing forward Bills to effect that suppression, and to punish those who were guilty of bribery, it behoved the House to be particularly careful in seeing that the offence was not connived at when committed by persons holding high stations in society. He thought the House was not in earnest, or they would not object to the assertions he made, and which were capable of proof. He believed it could be shown that there had been gross bribery on the one hand, and protection of bribery on the other. Subsequently to those transactions, Mr. James was promoted by being called within the bar, and the then Attorney General—Sir John Jervis—was advanced to the bench. When Mr. James applied to be made a bencher, he was called upon to explain the circumstances as to his having contracted the obligation to pay the sum of 1,500 l. provided the charge of bribery were withdrawn, and why, having entered into that arrangement, he had not performed it? But up to this moment he had not explained it. He (Mr. Craufurd) had precedents in favour of the course he
194
was now pursuing. There was the case of Mr. Stonor, in which unparalleled cruelty was practised upon a professional man. That gentleman, after having left this country, on being appointed to a Judgeship in one of our colonies, was abandoned by the Government who had appointed him, although he had produced the highest possible testimonies in answer to the charges that were made against him. He admitted that that was a case of extreme hardship, but he could not understand in what way the Government could defend the appointment of Mr. James after having treated Mr. Stonor in the way they had done, and which, he believed, had been his complete ruin for life. Well, Mr. James applied to be admitted a bencher of the Inner Temple. Now, he had always understood that the benchers were the custodes of the character of the bar. If, therefore, those hon. Members who were benchers wished to uphold that doctrine, they would support the principle for which he was contending. In the case of Mr. Whittle Harvey, the question was raised whether the benchers had the power of refusing admission to the bar; and it was, in that case, stated that the question rested wholly with them, and that they had the right to refuse admission to the bar to whomsoever they might think unworthy. If this were so, then still more ought they to exercise that right in regard to the admission of a member of their own body. He had himself frequently complained, both in writing and in public, that the benchers had not acted fairly towards the public in neglecting to exercise their powers of rejection. If they were justly open to that charge, it made his argument the stronger when a case occurred in which they did exercise their jurisdiction, and it afforded a greater reason for supporting them in their decision. This was not the first case in which he had tried the experiment as to whether there was any sincerity on the part of the Government to put down bribery and corruption at elections. In 1853 he moved for the production of papers in the case of the Canterbury election, when an attorney was accused of having been guilty of subornation of perjury, and those papers were refused upon the usual excuse that, as the Commissioners of inquiry into that case had not chosen to take notice of the fact, the House was not called upon to interfere. In bringing forward this Motion he had not sought to attack any one individual, but he felt it his duty, in a case in-

195
volving bribery and a breach of the privileges of the House, not to suffer it to pass unnoticed. However painful and distressing it might be to have even the suspicion of personal motives entertained against him, still the duty he owed to the public interest was paramount to all other considerations; and if there existed any sincere desire to put down bribery, the case of the appointment to a newly-created recordership of a gentleman who was believed to have participated in a gross instance of bribery ought to command the deliberation of the House. It was most important to bring matters of this nature before the House, so as to ascertain whether judicial appointments were to be the reward of honourable and straightforward conduct in the profession, or whether mere ability and forensic talent, combined with a political connection with the Government, were to carry the day. One would suppose that a newly-appointed recorder would have been most anxious to study the convenience of the public and of the court over which he presided; but what was the case in this instance? The Brighton sessions, which commenced last week, were exceedingly heavy, lasting beyond the first day—but on the assembling of the court on the second morning, much to the astonishment of every one, a Deputy appeared in place of the Recorder, who had returned to town to attend the Cambridge Election Committee. Now, although recorders were undoubtedly empowered to appoint a Deputy in the case of illness or unavoidable absence, he put it to the House whether this was such a case of unavoidable absence as would justify the proceeding? The noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) in answering his (Mr. Craufurd's) question on this subject the other day, left the impression that he had made a wanton attack, and that he was not correct in stating that Mr. James had been refused admittance as a bencher. But the noble Lord inserted a qualification in his reply, which made it incumbent that he (Mr. Craufurd) should proceed with the case; and, if the House thought proper to grant a Committee, he should be prepared to prove statements involving the bona fides of the Government in reference to questions of bribery, and with regard to appointments to judicial offices.
SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEYseconded the Motion.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that he trusted the House would not re-
196
quire many observations from him to satisfy it that this Motion ought to be rejected. He was bound to assume, and did assume, that the hon. and learned Gentleman who had made it, had brought forward this proposition from the purest and loftiest motives; but he could not help noticing what he considered the want of taste shown in the manner in which the hon. and learned Gentleman had brought forward his proposition. He had thought right to travel out of the record, and, not content with attacking Mr. James, he had seized the opportunity while alluding to transactions which took place some time since, to direct his attack also against another. He had told the House that if certain proceedings had been carried to the extent they ought to have been, the effect might have been to criminate a Gentleman whom he termed "a distinguished Whig Attorney General." That distinguished individual was now a Member of the judicial bench in one of its highest positions, and was not there to answer for himself. Eight years had passed since the transactions in question, and the hon. and learned Gentleman had thought fit to attack that eminent and distinguished individual at the time when he perfectly well knew that he could not defend himself. Not only this, but besides attempting to make out a case against Mr. James, he went further, and referred to the accidental absence of that Gentleman last week from Brighton, as if that, except to create a prejudice, had anything to do with the matter before the House. He would ask any hon. Gentleman who had heard this statement whether the case against Mr. James was worthy of a moment's consideration. Now, what were the real facts of the case. It appeared that in 1847 Mr. James, being a resident in the neighbourhood of Horsham, took an interest in an election for that place, and having been active on behalf of an hon. Gentleman who was returned, he was a party to some compromise in an Election Committee. In that, of course, the House would at once perceive, he acted in his private, not in his professional, capacity. If in doing so he did anything which made him amenable to the House, there were abundant means of investigating the matter long ago, and he (the Attorney General) did not know why the hon. and learned Gentleman, who had for some time been a Member of that House, waited until Mr. James was appointed Recorder of Brighton, and then raked up this stale

197
story for the purpose of prejudicing him. It appeared that Mr. James entered into some arrangement, which the party principally interested did not think proper to ratify, alleging that Mr. James had gone beyond the limits of the discretion vested in him, Mr. James having acted, as he had always alleged, bonâ fide in the belief that he was only carrying out that which he was authorised to do. There was a third party, who alleged that he had a grievance against Mr. James, and called upon him to fulfil the conditions. Mr. James replied, "You knew all the time that I was acting only on the part of another person, and you have no right to look to me personally for the fulfilment of the agreement." This person, it was, who brought the matter before the benchers of the Inner Temple. The benchers were of opinion that it was not a case in which they were called upon to adjudicate, and they let the matter remain where it was. Afterwards Mr. James was made a Queen's Counsel, and it was said that he was rejected by the benchers on account of what took place with reference to the election at Horsham. Now, he never was rejected at all, and if he had been it would have been nothing to the present purpose. When a Gentleman, having become one of Her Majesty's Counsel, offered himself for election as a member of the bench, it was not a matter in which his personal conduct was made a subject of question, or upon which a division took place in which the majority bound the minority. The benchers of the Inner Temple maintained their indisputable right to exercise a power of selection without being accountable to any one, and in this the Judges had held them to be right. Instead of being a question of the majority binding the minority they proceeded on the principle of a club, and, there being about forty benchers, four black balls excluded. Was he to be told that, because a gentleman found that he was objected to by three or four individuals, and chose to withdraw, that was to be a bar to his professional advancement under any circumstances? The proposition was monstrous. He thought it was in point of fairness and honour incumbent upon the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Craufurd) to have informed the House how the benchers of the Inner Temple proceeded in cases like the present. Now, he would ask was it either fair or just that a man's character and chance of professional advancement were to be blasted by a Motion
198
of this description, and that the House should not be told under what circumstances the election really took place? If the hon. and learned Gentleman thought it necessary, under his deep sense of public duty, to make an attack upon an individual, which, to say the least, did not savour much of liberality and generosity, he was at least bound to state all the circumstances, and keep nothing back. Under these circumstances, the fact of Mr. James not having been elected a bencher might be a subject of regret to himself and to his friends, but it afforded no reason why he should be excluded from his fair chance of advancement in his profession. He (the Attorney General) knew at that moment two or three gentlemen who had been raised to the dignity of Queen's counsel, but had not been elected benchers of the Inner Temple, although no charge whatever could be adduced against their personal characters. It would merely appear that they did not happen to be popular men, and it was perhaps considered that they might be obnoxious to other gentlemen who were already benchers. Every Queen's counsel took his chance of the ballot on those occasions, just as gentlemen did when they sought admission to a club. That was the case with Mr. James, and let the House remember that there had been no adjudication and no decision affecting him. When the hon. Gentleman said that the benchers of the Inner Temple were the custodes morum of the profession, he failed to distinguish between cases in which they acted in that capacity, and when they acted as members of a society, admitting or excluding whom they pleased. The charge was made, but the benchers decided that it was not a proper one for them to decide. If there had been a public decision, excluding Mr. James upon the ground that there was anything affecting his personal honour, that would have been a serious objection to his appointment. But these proceedings were no more made known to the world and to the Government than were the elections and decisions of private clubs, and it was utterly unknown to the Government that Mr. James had been rejected by the benchers of the Inner Temple, still less that he had been rejected for a particular reason now specified. How the hon. and learned Gentleman had obtained that information, he (the Attorney General) did not know; but he now made it a charge against the Government that they had appointed Mr.

199
James after he had been rejected by the bench of the Inner Temple because he was mixed up in this election case, and he then called upon the House to assist him in a personal attack upon Mr. James, which, if carried, would be fatal to that Gentleman's professional prospects, on the ground that the House was anxious to put down bribery. Was that fair, or was it honourable? The hon. and learned Gentleman did not prefer it as a charge, but, feeling how rotten was his case, he introduced this matter of bribery. Then he told the House that certain actions were tried, that one failed because certain evidence was rejected by the Judge, and that a Bill of exceptions was tendered but was not gone on with. Then said the hon. and learned Gentleman, "We can form our own private surmises how the Bill of exceptions came not to be proceeded with." He (the Attorney General) could form a surmise, and, he trusted, a more charitable one than that of the hon. and learned Gentleman. His surmise was that it was not gone on with because it was found not to be tenable. Then there was the other action, in which one of our highest judicial functionaries was concerned. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not care for a person being absent. He scattered imputations broadcast, and then told the House that he was actuated by the highest and purest motives. He (the Attorney General) was perfectly satisfied that the House would feel that this was a matter which ought not to be further entertained. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Craufurd) did not appear to be anxious to do justice to absent men; but he (the Attorney General) was. One of the competitors for this office, and one whose claims were well worthy to be taken into consideration, was Mr. Clarkson. As soon as Mr. Clarkson heard of this proceeding of the hon. and learned Member for Ayr, he came to him (the Attorney General) and said:—"You have known me a great many years, and were good enough to give me a testimonial for this office. You know me too well to suppose I have anything to do with this Motion." He (the Attorney General) was afraid that it would not be cautious in him to mention the reply which he made. He hoped the House, however, would mark its sense of this proposition by unanimously rejecting it; and he even trusted the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion would not go into the lobby with the hon. and learned Gentleman.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ayr had thought fit to declare that the House had rejected his Motion for papers, which, if produced, would have established a charge of subornation of perjury against a respectable solicitor. The candidate for Canterbury, on behalf of whom that solicitor had acted, was his (Mr. Butt's) intimate friend, and, when the hon. and learned Gentleman made that charge on a former occasion, he (Mr. Butt) replied to it, and he was now surprised that the imputation should be repeated after the House had decided that an ample vindication of the accused party had been given.
MR. ATHERTONsaid, he thought that it was only justice to Mr. James that some other member of the profession, and one upon the bench of the Inner Temple, should confirm the statement of the hon. and learned Attorney General as to the qualifications and character of Mr. James, and also as to the practice of the bench of the Inner Temple. Although the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Craufurd) referred in his Motion to the transactions at Horsham, it was not, either by its terms or upon any fair construction, a Motion asking the House to grant a Committee, on the ground of Mr. James having been concerned in those proceedings. On the contrary, the only meaning which any one could arrive at from the speech of the hon. and learned Member was, that the hon. and learned Member asked for the Committee on the ground that certain transactions occurred some years ago at Horsham, upon which a competent tribunal of forensic morals—the bench of the Inner Temple—had pronounced a judgment adverse to and damnatory of Mr. James. The hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) had stated most correctly that it was no imputation at all—that it was not the slightest censure, by implication the most remote and shadowy, upon any gentleman, a member of the Inner Temple, who might receive a silk gown, that he was not forthwith elected a member of the bench. Of late years there had been many instances of gentlemen upon whose character, private and professional, not the slightest imputation could be cast, who had become Queen's counsel, but whom, for some reason, the benchers, exercising their absolute discretion, had declined to take into the bench. Upon this matter the bench, though a complaint was made, had pronounced no

201
decision. If this Motion were entertained, the House would, in addition to the enormous amount of public and private business they had to despatch, be setting themselves up by their Select Committees as inquisitors and censors into the substance or shadow of every supposition which might result either from the idleness or malice of any individual.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he wished to repeat what he had stated on a former occasion that, when he was called upon to fill up the appointment in question, a great many applications were made, and he felt it his duty to ascertain which of the candidates, from professional standing and legal attainments, was best qualified for the office. He accordingly made inquiries, the result of which was that he arrived at the conclusion that Mr. James was, on the whole, from his position at the bar, and from the testimonials of his legal acquirements, the most competent person for the position. That gentleman had further in his favour the fact that a large number of the town-council of Brighton had signed a paper expressing a desire that Mr. James should be appointed the Recorder of that town. He (Lord Palmerston) had no personal knowledge of any of the candidates—had never seen any of them, and had no other motive in selecting Mr. James than to perform his duty to the best of his ability. As to the particular circumstances connected with the admission or non-admission of the learned Gentleman to the bench of the Inner Temple, he (Lord Palmerston) never heard of it until the hon. and learned Member gave notice of his question. Upon seeing that notice, he inquired and found what he stated in reply to the question, that Mr. James had not been rejected as a bencher because he had never been proposed.
SIR JAMES DUKEsaid, he willingly bore testimony, as a friend of Mr. James, to that gentleman's high character.
MR. CRAUFURDin reply, said he could not reconcile the sneers of the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) with his professed defence of Mr. James. The hon. and learned Gentleman had sneered at his having felt it to be a public duty to bring forward this Motion, and insinuated that he was actuated by private motives, and more, that he was the mouthpiece of some disappointed candidate.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I never insinuated any such thing; on the con-
202
trary, I attributed to the hon. and learned Gentleman none but the highest and purest motives, and I also stated that there was not one of the candidates who did not repudiate the Motion.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he had understood the hon. and learned Attorney General to maintain that the benchers of the Inner Temple, who acted upon some occasions as custodes morum, had an arbitrary power of electing whom they pleased, as a mere private club; and that was very different from his notion of their position. But if the charges which he (Mr. Craufurd) had brought forward were unfounded, he trusted the House would at least believe that he had acted from a conscientious conviction; and, at any rate, the objectionable circumstances having been explained away, and the charges not being sustained, the result would be all that the friends of Mr. James could desire. But the Attorney General had not denied that the Recorder of Brighton was called upon to explain the charges against him, and it was notorious in the profession that such an inquiry did take place before the benchers. He (Mr. Craufurd) considered that the case he had made out was not yet answered, except by the sneers of the hon. and learned Attorney General.
SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEYsaid, he wished to explain, at the same time, the reason why he had seconded this Motion. He had reason to think that the House, and especially the person who had been accused of improper practices, would rejoice that he had done so, because it had given the Attorney General and other persons an opportunity of vindicating that gentleman, whom he (Sir J. Walmsley) believed to have been injured by the statements which had been made. He had seconded the Motion upon the impulse of the moment, and at the request of the hon. and learned Member for Ayr; but, after the statements which he had heard, he certainly could not feel it consistent with his duty to vote for the Motion.
Motion negatived.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, that no division having taken place, he should move that everything connected with this matter be expunged from the Journals of the House. There was a precedent for doing so in 1832, when the late Mr. Cobbett brought certain charges against Sir Robert Peel. Immediately after they had been negatived by the House, the House passed such a Resolution as he (Mr. Butt) now proposed;

203
and if ever there was an occasion on which the House ought to teach the lesson that its proceedings were not to be used as the vehicle of imputations on private character, this was such an occasion. He rested this proposition upon the wording of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Resolution. If the hon. and learned. Gentleman (Mr. Craufurd) had contented himself with moving that an inquiry be instituted into the circumstances of Mr. Edwin James's appointment, it would be different; but his Resolution was worded thus: "The said Edwin James having been refused admission to the bench of the Inner Temple on account of his conduct in respect of certain transactions connected with the election for the borough of Horsham in 1847." He, therefore, asked the House not to allow their Journals to be referred to twenty years hence as a proof that there were circumstances in the conduct of Mr. James which the House of Commons thought it necessary to inquire into.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he objected to the Motion. What he had stated was, that if a Committee were granted he should be prepared to prove the statements he had made; but when he found that even the hon. Gentleman left him who had seconded his Motion, he could not put the House to the trouble of dividing. The House having refused to grant an inquiry—a refusal equally unjust to himself and to the learned Gentleman whose name was involved in it—he (Mr. Craufurd) must still object to any such Motion as that his Resolution should not be placed on the Journals.
Motion agreed to.

MASTERS AND OPERATIVES.
MR. MACKINNONsaid, he wished to call the attention of the House to the inconvenience now felt in this country from the want of equitable tribunals by means of which any differences between masters and operatives might be satisfactorily adjusted, and from which other advantages might be gained in disputed claims. He begged to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the necessary information as to the Conseils des Prud'hommes in France, might be obtained by a Commission or otherwise. The subject was one which, in his opinion, was of the utmost importance, and a very strong feeling existed throughout the country in
204
favour of the establishment of councils of arbitration. There was one club in London alone, consisting of, he believed, 16,000 members, and there were other clubs in various parts of the country which had been established for the purpose of advocating the establishment of equitable tribunals, by means of which disputes might be adjusted without incurring legal expenses. It might be said that the principle of such tribunals was not recognised by the law, but he could not admit such assertion, for by the 39 & 40 Geo. III. power was given to settle certain cases by arbitration, and to make the decision thus arrived at legal. About thirty years back a Committee, consisting of some of the most influential Members of that House, had agreed to a Resolution, that "the principle of settling disputes by arbitration was not against the law of the land, and that it was attended with good results to the parties concerned." It appeared, therefore, that there was nothing in the establishment of councils of arbitration opposed to any principle of law, and, in his opinion, such tribunals would be highly beneficial generally, and more particularly so in two instances. They would, in the first place, be of the greatest benefit in settling disputes concerning patents and designs, but, what was of still more importance, they might conduce to the prevention of such strikes as had lately occurred at Preston, Leeds, and other manufacturing districts, and which might at some period be productive of great danger. He would adduce one instance in the case of a disputed patent which would explain to the House the advantage of these councils of arbitration. He would take the case of a person in poor circumstances who, by his industry and ingenuity, had succeeded in perfecting a valuable invention. To secure the advantages of his own skill he was obliged to take out a patent, and the expense of so doing might, perhaps, consume all his means. When, however, he was beginning to reap the reward of his ingenuity, another person might make some slight alteration in the invention, take out a new patent, and the original inventor, not having the means of defraying law expenses, might be deprived of the just reward a his skill. He should wish to see established councils of arbitration, consisting of masters and workpeople, the masters to be elected by the workpeople, and the workpeople to be elected by the masters, for he thought that a body so

205
constituted would be better adapted to settle disputes concerning patents than the ordinary courts of law, and it would at the same time be of great advantage in settling disputes which might occur between masters and workpeople, which, if not settled, might lead to strikes similar to those which had lately taken place. He had had the opportunity of observing in France the working of the Conseils des Prud' hommes, and he was satisfied in his own mind, that those tribunals had greatly conduced to the prosperity of that country. Those tribunals were first established in the year 1806. At that period the Emperor Napoleon, on his way to Milan, passed through Lyons, and the manufacturing population of that town waited upon him, and requested him to establish a tribunal of that description for the adjustment of disputes between masters and workmen. Napoleon took the matter into consideration, and issued a decree establishing a Conseils des Prud' hommes. This tribunal worked perfectly well in France; it had kept up a good feeling between the master and the workmen, and had fully answered the object for which it was established. Now, there might be objections to the establishment of such a tribunal in this country, though he did not think there were; but what he would ask the Government to agree to was, the appointment of a Committee of the House to investigate the subject. As it was worded upon the notice paper, his Motion was for the appointment of a Commission, but he thought the best course would be for him to conclude by moving for a Select Committee to see how far the establishment in this country of Conseils des Prud' hommes, or councils of arbitration, would be attended with benefit to the people of this country.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Select Committee be appointed, to inquire into the operations of the 'Conseils des Prud' hommes' in France."
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, there could be no doubt as to the importance of any measure which could be adopted by which differences between masters and men could be satisfactorily arranged. He did not, however, think that there was any necessity for the appointment of a Committee or Commission to inquire into the subject referred to by the hon. Member, as the fullest and most complete information existed with reference to these institutions in an official edition of the French laws, which he should be happy to place at the
206
disposal of the hon. Member, if he had not already seen it. With respect to any further information which might be required, it could be easily obtained through his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who would make application to the French Government, if such a course were considered necessary. Looking to the jurisdiction exercised by these bodies, he thought that they would be ill suited to the manufacturing and trading population of this country. He was perfectly willing to lay before the House all the information the Government possessed upon the subject, and he trusted that that would satisfy the hon. Member.
MR. INGHAMsaid, he wished to refer to a court of arbitration of this kind which had been established in Sunderland and had worked very satisfactorily. He thought it would be very desirable if the Secretary of State for the Home Department would endeavour to give something like a legal constitution to those courts which had been voluntarily established in various places, so as to give authority to their judgments.
MR. WILKINSONsaid, he had no objection to voluntary arbitration, but he objected to giving such tribunals any legal power to arbitrate on the rate of wages, or anything of that sort. Unless a court of arbitration had legal jurisdiction it would be inoperative, and if such powers were given it, there might be injurious interference in matters that should find their level in the market.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, that, at a very large meeting held last year in the manufacturing districts, the establishment of some court of this nature was approved of almost unanimously. He did not believe the courts in France, which had been alluded to, had any arbitrary power to settle the wages of any particular trade in any given district; they had only power over such things as were specially referred to them. He hoped the subject would not be lost sight of. They must not suppose, because a strike commenced in November, and was over in December, that it was all done with. It was put an end to then only to be renewed on a more favourable occasion, and left much ill-feeling. He thought the subject well deserved the attention of the Government, and he hoped that at all events the hon. Member (Mr Mackinnon) would not let it rest, but when he got the information would bring in a Bill on the subject.
MR. MACKINNONsaid, he wished to understand the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department aright, and to know what he was to expect if he withdrew his Motion. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to ask him to wait until he could procure the information he had stated, and that then the Government would grant him a Committee if he (Mr. Mackinnon) thought it necessary. There would be no great probability of the House passing a Bill unless the matter were first referred to a Select Committee.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he had not made any promise that a Committee would be granted. The object of this Motion was to ascertain the state of the law of France, and the operation of that law. He doubted whether a Commitee would afford the best means of obtaining information, which must all come from France. When the hon. Member obtained the information he desired he would be competent to move for the appointment of a Committee if he thought it necessary, but he (Sir G. Grey) could not at present pledge himself to support the appointment of a Select Committee.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BURIAL GROUNDS.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTsaid, he rose to move for a Select Committee, to inquire into the operation of the Acts regulating interments in parochial burial-grounds and proprietary and other cemeteries. The operation of recent legislation on this subject, in the metropolis, had been to compel the poorer classes to pay advanced burial fees, so that they were obliged to go to parochial boards for assistance.
Notice taken that forty Members were not present; House counted; and forty Members not being present,
The House adjourned at seven o'clock.