§ LORD CHELMSFORDrose to call the Attention of the House to the Papers laid upon the table as to the Removal of the Two Ionian Judges of the Supreme Council of Justice of the Ionian Islands; and to put a Question to the Secretary of State for the Colonies upon the Subject 1742 of the Pensions to which Persons may have become entitled in those Islands. The noble and learned Lord said, that some time ago he called attention to the subject, and his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies made a statement in answer to him, which did not, however, convey the information which he required. The papers which had been laid on the table gave no insight into the reasons or motives for the course which had been adopted, and he felt that the public were entitled to the fullest information of the circumstances connected with the transaction. On the former occasion, exception was taken to his expression that these Judges were "removed" from their office, and it was said that it was not a removal, but only a non-re-appointment. But he pointed out at the time, that since the introduction of British Judges, and the maxims and principles of British jurisprudence, the necessity of keeping the Judges in dependency through a precarious tenure of office had ceased, and the practice had been virtually abolished. He stated then, and he now repeated it advisedly, that from the date of the Charter in 1817, down to the year 1862, there was only one instance of the removal of a Judge of the Supreme Council of Justice, and that was in the year 1834. On that occasion, the English Judge who was removed appealed to the Secretary of State, and was reinstated, and the two Ionian Judges did not appeal, they being both above the age of eighty and entitled to retiring pensions. Therefore, although the Judges were liable to be removed, they were regarded as practically irremovable. The two Judges whose case was before the House had been on the Bench, one twenty, and the other twelve years. One had been four times and the other twice re-appointed; they were men of great ability and unblemished character; yet, without any reason assigned, they first received intimation that they had ceased to be Judges by the official announcement of the appointment of their successors. This being so, he thought he was entitled to an explanation of the circumstances. On the former occasion when he brought forward the subject, the noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle) said he did not mean to insinuate anything against the character of these two Judges, but the Senate had formed a strong opinion that their removal would be conducive to the ends of justice, that the administration of justice was complained of, and 1743 that a change was necessary, with a view to create confidence in the minds of the people. The noble Duke went on to say that the Ionian Islands suffered from the action of demagogues, the worst of whom professed to be the fast friends of England and the protectorate, and that the two Judges were not the only persons removed on this occasion. If the noble Duke did not mean to insinuate anything against the character of these two gentlemen, he was singularly unhappy in his choice of language, for nothing could more seriously affect the character of a Judge than to have it said that his mode of administering justice was such as to destroy the confidence of the people. From the vague and ambiguous insinuations of the noble Duke, it might be assumed that there were two grounds upon which they were removed—firstly, faulty performance of their judicial duties; and secondly, having played the part of political demagogues. With regard to the first charge, he sincerely wished his noble Friend had reflected before, he adopted the suggestions which were made to him on the subject. The Court was composed of two British and two Ionian Judges. It was impossible that corruption of the two Ionian Judges could prevail unless it was participated in by the English Judges, and they both expressed themselves in the highest terms with regard to the character and conduct of their late colleagues. Only a month before the removal of these Judges the Lord High Commissioner expressed to the Chief Justice his satisfaction at the mode in which justice was administered in the court; and it would be derogatory to the high character of the Lord High Commissioner to suppose that he was dissembling his real sentiments for the purpose of concealing the blow which was intended. Mr. Gladstone, who was sent on a mission to the Islands in 1858, for the purpose of ascertaining what abuses prevailed, and who received complaints from all quarters, expressed a very strong opinion that this Court was one of the best and soundest of Ionian institutions, and reported that the British as well as the Ionian Judges had obtained the favour and confidence of the whole community. Was it possible, if this were the character given of the Court in 1859, that the same persons who composed it should in 1862 have so degenerated as to forfeit the confidence of the public; and that the Lord High Commissioner should have been so far deceived in these Judges 1744 as to declare, within a month of their removal, that he approved of the manner in which they had conducted their business? He thought he was entitled, therefore, to say that the charge of dereliction of duty was entirely without foundation. The next ground given was that they were political demagogues. Now, that was an epithet which was often used by an adversary without any meaning; but the noble Duke on this occasion probably meant that they had acted as factious leaders of the people; but for that charge also, if there were any truth in the statements which had reached him, there was not the slightest foundation. Let them speak for themselves. Sir A. Xidian said that from the earliest period of his life he had been in favour of constitutional progress and reform; that from 1843 to 1849 he was Attorney General under Lord Seaton and his successor, and was instrumental in bringing in the great measures for the freedom of the press and the trial by jury; and that from 1850, when he was raised to the bench of the Supreme Council of Justice, he had ceased to be a political man, unless so far as he was of the party of constitutional government. Again, Sir George Marcoran said he had never belonged to any political coterie or party, never harangued the people, never published any political pamphlets or inserted any political paragraphs in any journal, and that he had always observed the greatest reserve since he was raised to the bench. Let their Lordships look to the character given to them by Mr. Lushington, one of their colleagues. Mr. Lushington, who sat on the bench with them for many years, said he had always considered it to be an honour to sit on the same bench with them; and, with regard to Sir George Marcoran, he said that a more ingenuous, high-minded man, more exclusively devoted to his own proper duties, or more alien from any taint of political manœuvre, never sat on the English bench. But if they were political demagogues, how was it that they had been permitted to remain on the bench, one twenty, and the other twelve years? The true secret of their removal was to be found in the speeches of the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Newcastle) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the other House. The noble Duke said that the worst demagogues, and those who misled the people most, were those who professed to be fast friends of the British protectorate; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that Sir George 1745 Marcoran made no secret of his being in favour of the British protectorate. The only inference to be drawn from that language was that these two gentlemen, lovers of their country, and sincerely apprehensive that its separation from England would be productive of evil consequences, were removed from the bench because their opinions did not coincide with those of the Government of the day. If this principle were to be acted on, Judges who wished to retain their seats would find it very difficult to keep pace with the Government in its change of views. Their Lordships would perhaps recollect that in 1861 the noble Duke, in approving Sir Henry Storks's prorogation of the Ionian Assembly, which had declared the British protectorate to be at the root of all the evils under which they groaned, said, "I believe that before long the Ionian people will separate themselves from their demagogue theorists who have misled them so long." Who were the demagogues of 1861? Why, those who were hostile to the protectorate. And who were the demagogues of 1863? Those who were—[The Duke of NEWCASTLE: Professed to be]—professed to be the fast friends of the protectorate of England. A Judge, to preserve his seat under such a régime, must be a chamelion, and must change his opinions with every varying change of colour in the opinions of his Government. From one end of these papers to the other there was not a hint that those Judges had been corrupt, or had failed in the performance of their duties. But in Sir Henry Storks's letter to the Secretary of State there was a reason given for their removal which he could hardly approach with sufficient gravity. Sir Henry wrote that the Senate considered, that after forty-eight years of public service—twenty of which were in the lucrative post of member of the Supreme Court—after having reached the very advanced age of seventy, and after a longer enjoyment of public employment than any other citizen, it was time to make a change in the person of Sir George Marcoran. Their Lordships would remember that the abandonment of the protectorate was now the order of the day. The Senate was in the hands of the Lord High Commissioner. He appointed the President, who held office for two years and a half, and he appointed two members of the Supreme Court from the community at large, and two who must be taken from the Legislative Assembly. It was in the power of the Lord High Commissioner 1746 to prevent the removal of those gentlemen by refusing to appoint their successors; and therefore he must be held accountable for their removal. He was sorry to say that from a perusal of the papers one must come to the conclusion that the proceeding had also received the sanction of his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Office. He regretted this, because he believed a more fatal blow had never been struck at the independence of courts of justice. He trusted that their Lordships would not think lightly of this matter because it was possible that the tie which united us to the Ionian Islands might soon be severed. He trusted we should not act as careless and bad tenants were in the habit of doing when their lease was about to terminate, regardless of the obligations which we had undertaken, and of the waste that might be committed. He hoped we should think that our responsibilities increased more and more as the term of our protectorate drew to an end, and that we should feel the strongest anxiety to deliver up the trust that had been committed to our protection not only unimpaired, but improved.
§ THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, he was at a loss to see what object was to be effected by bringing this subject again before the House. Such a course was certain to do no good to those in whose behalf the noble and learned Lord had addressed their Lordships. His noble and learned Friend did not seem to aim at any particular result, for he had not concluded with a Motion or a Question. He regretted, too, the different tone in which his noble and learned Friend had treated the matter on the occasion from that which had characterized his speech on a former evening. The quibbles of the noble and learned Lord on words which he had used were such as might frequently be heard in Nisi Prius Courts, but such as their Lordships very seldom heard in that House. The noble and learned Lord said that in 1817, at the commencement of our protectorate, the tribunals in the Ionian Islands were so corrupt that the provision for the removal of the Judges might have been necessary, but that things had so changed since then there was no longer any occasion for it; and he repeated what he had said on a former occasion—namely, that though the law authorizing the removal of those Judges was in existence, it had been virtually repealed. He must tell the noble and learned Lord that there was no ground for this latter 1747 assertion. In the year 1834 three Judges were removed. [Lord CHELMSFORD: One of them was reinstated.] It was true that the English Judge, who appealed to the Secretary of State, had been reinstated—perhaps he had been improperly removed; but that did not show that the case was not one in point. The two Ionian Judges did not appeal, and they were not reinstated; and what made the case one in point was that those Judges were removed without their consent. On two recent occasions attempts were made to alter the law, and to render the Judges irremovable. In 1838 the Lord High Commissioner of the day made a proposition to that effect, and his proposal was met with a refusal by the Secretary of State. Again, in 1844, another Lord High Commissioner made a similar proposal, and he met with a refusal from the noble Lord opposite, who was then Colonial Secretary.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYHe did not apply to me in the first instance, but applied to the Senate.
§ THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEThat was true; but when the Bill to render the Judges irremovable was brought under the notice of the noble Earl, he did not sanction it; on the contrary, he gave the Lord High Commissioner orders to withdraw it; and therefore there was no pretence for saying that the law had been repealed. It was not correct to say that the Senate was in the hands of the Lord High Commissioner because he appointed those five officers. There were person in the Ionian Islands whose constant habit it was to make deceptive statements to others in this country. Thus a statement was made in the other House of Parliament, upon the authority of such persons, that the Senate had to attend every morning at the office of Sir Henry Storks; but he had the assurance of Sir Henry Storks that the statement was quite untrue, and further, that the idea of appointing two new Judges originated with the Senate, and that all the Lord High Commissioner did in that matter was, as the constitution prescribed, to approve and carry into effect the suggestion. Reverting to the argument of the noble and learned Lord, that the Act was virtually a dead letter, he would remark, that if that were so, then the constitution itself could not be maintained. The letter of the law was clear, and the question was calmly discussed upon a former occasion, when the principle 1748 was distinctly confirmed. It was complained that he had spoken harshly of these gentlemen, but what he had said was only true. What he desired was to see justice done, with as little pain as possible to the parties concerned. It was very well to quote Mr. Gladstone's Report, and to say it was altogether incorrect; but those who instructed the noble and learned Lord, and Mr. Lushington among them, had lost no opportunity of misrepresenting the right hon. Gentleman. However, it appeared that upon one point these Gentlemen agreed in the Report of Mr. Gladstone, and, from their constant reference to it, the public might be led to imagine that they regarded the right hon. Gentleman as the very greatest authority, It was possible that Mr. Gladstone might have been deceived as to the state of the Supreme Court, as those were who had longer experience and more intimate acquaintance with those Islands. It was insinuated that Sir Henry Storks was sent to carry out Mr. Gladstone's Report; but he was taken from a public office at home by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) and sent to the Ionian Islands to undertake a most arduous duty. He went out at a time when affairs were at a dead lock, and he was sent out because he was a man to be trusted. The admirable manner in which Sir Henry Storks had performed his duties, and the state into which he had brought those Islands, last year gave him a claim to the indulgent consideration of the party which had appointed him. Sir Henry Storks did not go to carry out Mr. Gladstone's report; but after two years' experience, and upon fully investigating the subject as regarded the Supreme Court, he came to the conclusion, that as far as the two gentlemen were in question and another appointment, Mr. Gladstone's views were correct. Complaint had been made that he had applied to the removed Judges the term "political demagogues;" but what he (the Duke of Newcastle) meant was, that the party to which they belonged, while they professed great affection for the protectorate, were in reality the worst political demagogues in the Islands; and he adhered to that opinion. That party was really friendly to the protectorate up to 1848, because until then the whole patronage of the Islands was in their hands, and they fattened upon it. In that year great changes were made, which deprived that party of power, and from that time they 1749 became what was termed reactionists, and combined with those who had always been opposed to the Protectorate, with a view to bring the Government to a dead lock. In that object they nearly succeeded upon more than one occasion, and the first two years of Sir Henry Storks's administration were occupied with a series of struggles with that party. His experience led him to perceive that great changes must be made, and that it was necessary to get rid of these gentlemen. The noble and learned Lord had quoted the statements of those gentlemen, as he had a right to do; but he had no right to argue that every other evidence which differed from their statements was therefore false. There was the opinion of the Lord High Commissioner, and the general belief throughout the Islands that the administration of justice by the two gentlemen whose cases were under discussion had been such as to create an entire want of confidence. Under these circumstances, was it not right to exercise the powers given by the constitution? He did not think that anything would be gained, either in the interests of the public or of those individuals, by stirring the mud in this case. Sir George Marcoran was, he believed, personally a man of high honour; but he had allowed himself to be drawn into political intrigues, which made it certain that as a Judge on the bench he would lose his character in public estimation. To Sir A. Xidian he was willing to give credit for no evil intention, and for innocence of the corruption with which he had been charged by many persons in the Ionian Islands. But he had placed himself before the public in a position which was sure to lead to such imputations. On a former occasion he (the Duke of Newcastle) had avoided going into this question, but he had now been forced to speak more plainly. The noble and learned Lord probably meant to base upon his present statement a demand for further papers; but, though the boxes before him were full of papers, he should certainly, in justice to the public service, decline to produce any others than those which had been placed on the table. What he had now said had been extorted from him by the imprudence of his noble and learned Friend, and he had been compelled to make this statement in justice to others; but the same conditions made it impossible to produce other papers. The noble and learned Lord alleged that there could be no charge of corruption without impugning the two English Judges. But 1750 that was not the case. He had never heard of any charge affecting the character of those gentlemen; but he had heard it frequently stated that for two English gentlemen to be associated with Ionian Judges, in courts with the practice of which they were totally unacquainted—never, probably, having before heard the language—and being brought into contact with individuals of a totally different character from that to which they had been accustomed, was a great inconvenience, the result being that they were necessarily under the influence and control of the native Judges. The noble and learned Lord said he had discovered the real secret of the whole proceedings, which was, according to him, that the English Government, having determined to abandon the protectorate of the Ionian Islands, were anxious to get rid of the functionaries who were attached to the protectorate. Now, so unfair and so utterly unfounded a charge he had never hoard. If he could use stronger words to convey his meaning, he would do so, for it was an unfair and uncandid charge; and was not only unsupported by, but was entirely contrary to the fact. What he had said was that the professed friends of the protectorate, by which he meant those who falsely professed to be its friends, were in reality the worst political demagogues of the day, for they encouraged the demagogues. In contradicting his statement, that the dismissal of the Judges met with approbation in the Ionian Islands, Sir A. Xidian had instanced the election of his son as being a compliment to himself, and as showing the feeling of the people. The fact, however, was that the son had been for years a municipal officer, and he was not re-elected in compliment to Sir A. Xidian, who held himself out to be the friend of the British protectorate, for the son had always been an avowed enemy of the protectorate. The fact was, that these gentlemen had fallen into their present dilemma because they were enemies of the protectorate. Reverting now to the assertion of the noble and learned Lord, that the Government wished to get rid of the protectorate, and therefore removed these Judges, was his noble Friend so ignorant of the facts, as not to know that at the time when this took place, it was the object of the Government, and especially of Sir Henry Storks to preserve the protectorate? The annexation with Greece was never mooted by the Government until the Revolution took place, which was late in the 1751 autumn, while this decision was come to in July. It was not fair, then, to unite the two things together. He denied that this was, as the noble and learned Lord said, the real secret, and the charge was an unfair and uncandid one, unsupported by evidence, and contradicted by facts. With regard to Sir Henry Storks, that officer had done his duty, and it would be unjust if, at this or at any future time, the House of Lords ignored his great services, and, with a view of supporting any private friends, condemned him or reflected upon him for a course which he had pursued with the best intentions.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he would be the last man to say anything derogatory to Sir Henry Storks, for he knew the sacrifices which that officer had made in accepting his present appointment, and believed that his intention was to discharge his duty honestly and faithfully, and he thought that he had done so for the most part with considerable skill. At the same time, he thought that in the removal of these Judges Sir Henry Storks had acted under influences which had overpowered his better judgment. The noble Duke had, he thought, misapprehended the statement of his noble and learned Friend as to the reasons which had influenced the Government in desiring to get rid of these Judges; though, if his noble and learned Friend had intended to make use of the expression attributed to him, it would not have been far from the mark in point of date.
§ THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, that the Greek revolution occurred in September, and the actual removal of the Judges took place in August, but that removal was decided on some time before.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, because those Judges were known to be friends of the British protectorate, the party in power in the Islands were desirous of obtaining their removal; and, acting under the influence of this party, Sir Henry Storks was induced to lend his authority to an act which rested on no satisfactory basis. His noble and learned Friend was justified in bringing this question forward again, because, on the last occasion, grave insinuations were made against the characters of these Judges, as if they had been removed for causes so discreditable that they had been concealed. The Judges wished to know for what cause they were removed, and were ready to meet and confront any charge of malversation or corruption, of political intrigue or misconduct 1752 in office, which would justify their removal. The course which the noble Duke pursued was unfair and unjust. He repeated the charge with increased strength, and then he said that he had a box full of papers; but that if they asked for the evidence on which he founded the charges, they should not have it. Was that acting fairly to public servants, who had done their best to discharge their duty, and whose main offence had been that they had honestly endeavoured to support and maintain the existing Government and the protectorate of this country. The noble Duke said that the Senate had acted only from honest, conscientious, and patriotic motives, and from a desire that no one should sit on the bench who was a person of strong political feelings. If that was so, would it not have been better that they should not have elected one of their own body who had never sat on the bench before, and who had for many years been a prominent leader of a political party? It would have been all very well if the noble Duke had said that this matter rested altogether with the discretion of the Lord High Commissioner—though that would have been a strange perversion of the practice, if not of the law; but when he said that he did not remove the Judges without cause, but that they were active, meddling, political intriguers, and that one, at all events, laboured under suspicion of corruption, that was at variance with all the evidence which their Lordships possessed. The noble Duke had not produced—he ventured to think that he could not produce—a tittle of evidence to establish those charges. If he could, it was due to the Judges that he should do so. He was sure that the noble Duke would, on reflection, see that he could not maintain the ground which he had taken up. The noble Duke said that the dismissal of these gentlemen had long been determined upon. [The Duke of NEWCASTLE: I said, it had been determined on before August.] If it was determined upon some time before, how was it that within a very short period Sir Henry Storks addressed to one of these Judges language of the higest approbation for the manner in which he had performed his judicial duties, and, in giving him leave of absence, expressed a hope that he would speedily return to carry on the business of the judicial bench in the same admirable manner in which he had previously fulfilled his functions.
§ THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, that he had, since the last debate, communicated 1753 with Sir Henry Storks upon this subject, and he was informed by him that the letter addressed to Sir Anastasio Xidian was the ordinary stereotyped answer which was given to every one who applied for leave. It contained no expression of satisfaction. He only gave him leave, and hoped that he would be ready to come back at its expiration.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that it might be the stereotyped answer which was given to persons who were to return to their duties; but it was not a proper letter to be addressed to a Judge whom the Government had at that moment made up their mind to dismiss. Again, if there were charges against these Judges, why was not notice given to them before they were removed, and why were they not heard in their own defence? Why did not Sir Henry Storks send to the Judges and inform them that he regretted to find that they were taking so active a part in political matters, that such a course was inconsistent with the dignity and independence of their position on the bench; and, that if they did not abandon it, it would be necessary for him to adopt strong measures? That would have given them an opportunity of vindicating themselves. Where did Sir Henry Storks obtain evidence of the misconduct, and still more, of the corruption? Was there ever such a thing heard of as that charges of this description being entertained in the mind of the Lord High Commissioner against two important functionaries, they should be withdrawn from their offices for political convenience—and the truth was they were removed for political convenience and nothing else—and that afterwards when they complained of the extraordinary manner of the removal, fresh charges should be insinuated against them; and then the Secretary of State should say that he believed these charges, but at the same time he would not produce the evidence on which they were founded? It was impossible that the case could rest here. No honourable man could expect that these Judges would be satisfied with what had occurred; he hoped that no Parliament would sanction such a proceeding. If these gentlemen were dismissed for misconduct, they ought to have been informed of the charges before they were dismissed; and if after their dismissal charges were made in that House, they ought to be and they must be substantiated or retracted.
THE LORD CHANCELLORregretted 1754 to learn, that some observations which he made in that House on a former occasion on this subject had been misunderstood, and had given pain to gentlemen who were entitled to great respect. While deprecating the making of that House a court of appeal, he said or intended to say, hypothetically, that a case might arise in which charges might be brought forward which could not be met or adequately discussed in that House. It had been assumed that in making that observation he had referred to actual cases, That certainly was not so—he could scarcely have been apprehended as insinuating a charge, because he spoke with great sympathy for these Judges; than one of whom, Sir George Marcoran, he had been assured by friends who were acquainted with the Ionian Islands, there was not a more upright or honourable man in the world. He was afraid that the discussion of that evening, which he was sure had been raised from the best of motives, would be attended with nothing but unfortunate results to these gentlemen. He regretted the position in which they were placed, and he was extremely sorry that any words which had fallen from him should have given them one minute's pain.