Sitting of 20 August 1846

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS. — 1°. Patent Commissions; Waste Lands (Australia).
2°. Ecclesiastical Patronage; Railway Commissioners.
Reported. Court of Exchequer (Ireland}.
3°. and passed. New Zealand Loan Act Amendment; Customs Duties (No. 2); New Zealand Government; Tithes Commutation; Marriages (Ireland).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. John Fielden, from Inhabitants of the Town of Abergele and its Vicinity, in the County of Denbigh, for the Adoption of Measures for Securing and Enforcing the Due Observance of the Lord's Day—By Mr. Charles Buller, from Inhabitants of the Settlements of Wellington, Nelson, Plymouth, and Wanganui, in the Colony of New Zealand, for Inquiry into the Affairs of that Colony.—From Chemists and Druggists residing at Bridgewater, against the Spirit Licenses and Duties Bill.—By Mr. John Fielden, from Inhabitants of Todmorden, for an Investigation into the Working of the Anatomy Act, with a View to its Repeal.—By Mr. D'Eyncourt, from Inhabitants of Peckham, and by Mr. Wakley, from Braintree, Booking, Kendal, and Newark, for the Abolition of the Punishment of Flogging in the Army and Navy.—By Mr. Cornwall Legh, from Inhabitants of Lymm, in the County of Chester, complaining of the Practice of putting Children to the Business of Fustian Cutting under the Age of Thirteen Years, and Working them longer than they are able to bear, and praying the House to adopt Measures for Effectually Remedying the Evil complained of.—By Captain Pechell, from Philip Herring, a Prisoner in the Queen's Prison, in the County of Surrey, under Attachments from the High Court of Chancery, praying for Inquiry into his Case.—By several hon. Members, from a great many Members of the Medical Profession, in favour of the Medical Practitioners Bill.—By Mr. Masterman, from Inhabitants of the Parish of Saint Matthew, Bethnal Green, and from Journeymen Pawnbrokers of the Parishes of St. Leonard, Shoreditch, and Christ Church, Spitalfields, in favour of the Pawnbrokers Bill.—By Lord Courtenay, from Board of Guardians of the Kingsbridge Union, County of Devon, for Alteration of the Poor Law—By Mr. Antrobus, from Shopkeepers, Ratepayers, and Inhabitants of and in the Vicinity of the South District of the Borough of Lambeth; by Mr. D'Eyncourt, from Wholesale and Retail Dealers, Householders, and Inhabitants of and in the Vicinity of Grosvenor Square, Hyde Park; by Sir De Lacy Evans, from Householders, Workmen, and Inhabitants of Chelsea; and by Mr. Muntz, from Inhabitant Householders, Traders, and Inhabitants of Bedford Square, for the Adoption of Measures for Redeeming and Extintinguishing the Tolls upon Waterloo, Southwark, and Vauxhall Bridges.

CUSTOMS DUTIES.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERmoved the Third Reading of the Customs Duties Bill.
MR. HUMEwished to make one remark in reference to this subject. Up to the present time, 640 articles had been struck out of the Tariff, including those of the present Bill, many of which required to be weighed by the custom-house officers, and occasioned great delay, expense, and inconvenience. Now he hoped that during the recess, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would inquire into the duty of every custom-house officer, and that he would be able by next Session to show a reduction of the expense of that establishment to

909
a large amount; for it was impossible that the duties could have been carried on formerly with anything like propriety, if, after dispensing with the entries on so many articles, they could not dispense with a large part of the expense. He would also like to see a reduction of the number of commissioners. There were at present eleven commissioners; and he believed that the duty would be better done with three, provided they were men suited for the situations. He hoped also that in future the appointments to the Boards of Customs and Excise would not be made political appointments; he trusted that men would be appointed because they were fitted for the business, and not because the Government could do nothing else with them. He would mention no names, but it was perfectly well known that individuals had been put in the Customs and Excise because they were good for nothing else. He hoped however, that in future the appointments would be conferred because the parties were efficient men; that responsibility would be created by reducing the number of commissioners; that all the necessary forms connected with the collection of the public revenue would be simplified, and the number of officers reduced as much as possible. If the Government did not do this during the recess, he hoped some Member would early next Session move for a Committee to take the matter into consideration; but it would come much better from the Government, and he hoped they would do it. He wished likewise to see the hours of business extended at the Custom-house. There was great inconvenience experienced in consequence of the Custom-house closing at 4 o'clock. He would have every custom-house in the country kept open from 9 o'clock in the morning until sunset. If it was necessary to advance the salaries of the officers, do it; but by all means he wished to see facilities given for the transaction of business.
Bill read a Third Time and passed.

SMALL DEBTS BILL.
On the Question that the House go into Committee on the Small Debts Bill,
LORD G. BENTINCKsaid: I think, Sir, this is a Bill of too much importance for us to go into Committee upon, and just now, without hearing some further statements as to its principles and operations, from the promoters of the measure. I am well aware this measure originated with
910
the late Government, and that Her Majesty's present Ministers have, as it were, received it from them as a sort of inheritance. At the same time it is a measure which will, if passed into law, confer more patronage on Her Majesty's Government than any other measure which for many years has been introduced into this House. I think, also, at this late period of the Session, when so few Members are present, we are entitled to a full and complete explanation as to the extent of patronage which the contemplated measure will bestow, and the whole extent of the expense which will be brought on the country by its operation. There is a power given in the second clause of the Bill, to divide every county into as many districts as may seem fit to Her Majesty's Privy Council. We ought then to know the aggregate number of districts into which the counties of England may be divided, for it appears, as the Bill at present stands, each district is to have a separate judge, and each judge is to have a salary of 1,200 l. a year. That is, however, at the discretion of the Lord Chancellor of England. Each court is also to have a clerk with a salary of 600 l. a year. Each court is also to have a treasurer, but for whom no amount of salary has been as yet defined, that being left to the discretion of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to decide—that is, they are to decide how many treasurers there shall be, and the amount of salary appropriated for the services of each. It has been commonly supposed out of doors that the number of districts will in all probability be not less than 100. I have, however, learned since I entered the House, from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor for the Crown, that the estimated number of courts will not exceed sixty-five. I take sixty-five as the number of courts. Here we have sixty-five judges, with a salary of 1,200 l. each, amounting to 78,000 l.; we have sixty-five clerks, one for each judge, at a salary of 600 l. a year, 39,000 l.; these sums make 117,000 l.—the amount of patronage which can be bestowed by a Minister of the Crown—and that large sum is totally irrespective of the salaries which will have to be paid to the treasurers, which is entirely left to the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury. There is no other limit; so that taking all these things into consideration, I think we ought to hear, at least, the limit which is intended to be put to the salaries of those treasurers, the power of whose appointment

911
rests with Her Majesty's Ministers. But there are other considerations which will arise out of the proposed measure, and which ought not to be omitted. Many of those officers will be paid by fees in addition to the salaries named; and some of those will have to be paid to the prejudice of those fees which are now paid and brought to the account of the Consolidated Fund, to meet in part the expenses of the High Court of Chancery. And it is one of the provisions of this Bill that the judges of those new courts are to perform many of the duties which now belong to the High Court of Chancery; for, from anything which distinctly appears to the contrary, those judges will have the power to act in the country as masters of Chancery; and for all these services they are to be paid by fees in addition to their regular salaries; and those fees will be paid to the diminishing of the fees—with the exception of about 5,000 l. a year to counterbalance the expense of the Court of Chancery—which constitute those sums now paid into the Consolidated Fund. The annual expense of the Court of Chancery now is, in round numbers, say 139,000 l.; 134,000 l., of this 139,000 l. is made up to the Consolidated Fund by fees which it was the practice formerly to have paid to the officers of the Court of Chancery. But this sum arising from fees will be diminished in a very large degree, by the fees which shall hereafter be paid in the country to those officers to whom I have referred. It is right, therefore, that we should know how much those funds from which formerly the officers of the High Court of Chancery were paid, will be lessened by the new arrangement; and how it is proposed to make up that deficiency to the Consolidated Fund? Then, again, there is compensation to be given to the officers of all those courts who may happen to be superseded by the new courts about to be instituted. There are at this moment, I believe, in England, 450 courts of different descriptions, presided over by the respective officers; and for anything we know to the contary, they may all be superseded by the new courts which are to be established under the present Bill. If these 450 courts are abolished, all the officers of those courts who do not choose to undertake the duties of the new courts, or to whom that option may not be given, will be entitled to compensation at the discretion of the Treasury. We ought to hear from the Ministers what the amount of all
912
this compensation will be, that we may have some sort of notion of what the expense really will be to carry into effect the provisions of this Bill. I have no charge to make against Her Majesty's Ministers; they came by the Bill and all its advantages in the course of inheritance. There is, to be sure, this difference—that formerly the patronage as to the appointment of those judges was in the hands of the Custos Rotulorum in each county; but that patronage, for which the former Bill provided, is now transferred to the Lord Chancellor, which greatly augments the patronage of the present Government. I am aware that much has been said on this point; and it may now be alleged that the Custos Rotulorum in each county may not be so fit a person to decide on appointment of a legal character as the Lord Chancellor. I must, however, say, that it is a matter for grave consideration, whether or not there should be placed in the hands of any Government patronage amounting to 117,000 l. a-year, to be held out as prizes to the legal profession. Why, of itself, it is sufficient to purchase half the boroughs of England. I think that this patronage is too much to be placed in the bands of any Government. I object to going at all into the measure at this period of the Session, when the most of the Members of this House are out of town. We ought therefore to pause—before we consent to pass a measure which will make the Government of the day almost despotic at the next election. There are many other matters in the Bill which require amendment; but to which, perhaps, it will be more fit that attention shall be called when in Committee. I am bound to say, that I do not think that the measure will have the desired effect, of bringing justice home, as it is stated, to every man's door. There are also other points to which I shall refer in Committee the despotic power which the Bill will give to the judges of those courts, as from their decisions there will be no redress except in their own courts. Of this principle I cannot approve; but it maybe better to defer details for the Committee. My object in rising was, to endeavour to elicit from Her Majesty's Ministers a full and distinct declaration of the whole extent of the power and patronage which the Bill will confer; at the same time I cannot refrain from expressing my strong opinion, that it is a measure of too great importance to be hurried through this House now in the

913
latter part of August. Whether we look at the patronage which the measure confers on the Government, or at the great revolution which it effects in our system of jurisprudence, it ought to be deferred until the majority of this House are present next year, when the whole subject can be entered into in all its details, with that energy and discrimination which it really demands.
SIR G. GREYsaid, that when the Bill was read a second time, he had been prepared to enter more fully into a statement of the details and objects of it, but that he had been prevented by the fact of there being no objection raised to the principle of the Bill; that it had not been presented to Parliament then for the first time, but had been discussed in three or four different Sessions. The noble Lord said the Bill came to Her Majesty's present Ministers as an inheritance from their predecessors. But though the Bill had been left to them by the late Government, and some alterations had been made in it in its progress through the other House of Parliament—alterations which did not affect the principle or important details of the measure—still it was the same identical Bill that had been brought into Parliament by the Government with which he (Sir G. Grey) had himself been connected previously, in 1841. It had been presented to Parliament in succeeding years during the existence of the late Government; and he remembered that a Select Committee, to whom the subject had been referred, had confirmed all its most important provisions; and of that Committee the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for the Home Department had been a Member, and it was only owing to the late period of the Session at which it came before the House that it had not been passed into law. The present Bill had undergone the fullest consideration in the country, particularly in those parts which were most likely to be affected by its operations; and of the numerous suggestions and representations which had been received with regard to the Bill, he must say that as far as his knowledge went, not one single representation had reached the Government asking them to postpone it. Then all those representations with respect to its details had been entertained; and in every case where any suggestion seemed entitled to consideration, and where any objection appeared reasonable, and the alteration recommended could be made without departing from
914
the principle of the measure the Government had adopted the suggestion. He had received numerous representations from parties who thought that important benefits were likely to be conferred upon the country by the passing of the Bill, earnestly praying that it might not be postponed beyond the present Session. Petitions had been presented to the House to the same effect. When the present Government had come first into office, this Bill was considered amongst others at the time pending before Parliament respecting which there was an impression that, considering their importance, it would be impossible to obtain full consideration for them at the present time. But finding a strong opinion in the House in favour of this measure, and having the best evidence that it was perfectly known in the country, and could take no one by surprise, the Government had yielded to the representations made to them, asking them to proceed with it; and in consequence he now asked the House to go on with the Bill. The noble Lord would recollect that during the present Session a great many local courts Bills had been stopped at the instance of the Government, because this Bill was before Parliament, on the distinct assurance to the House that a general measure having the same object in view would be passed, if possible, during the present Session. The noble Lord had asked for some distinct statement as to the expense the Bill would create, the number of districts into which the country would be divided by it, and the amount of patronage which it placed in the hands of the Government. With regard to the expense, it was impossible for him to say what amount of expense would be thrown on the Consolidated Fund by the Bill; because it was proposed that, according to a table contained in the schedule of the Bill, moderate fees would be taken for all the proceedings under and in it; and those fees would go to defray the expenses. Then there was a provision that, after a time, the Queen in Council should convert payment by fees into payment of salaries; and when that would take effect, the fees would be carried to the Consolidated Fund, and the salaries be paid out of that fund. The whole amount of expenditure would depend entirely upon the amount of business in the county, the business producing the fees. It was only then, after some experience with respect to the business, that the expense could be correctly estimated, and that the amount

915
of the judges' salaries was to be fixed; whereas the noble Lord had assumed that each judge was to have a salary of 1,200 l. a year. With respect to the districts, they might be of great extent. It was not necessary to divide the counties into districts in every instance. But in Middlesex or Lancashire, for instance, it would be necessary to divide the county into districts, for it would be impossible for one judge to get through all the business that would be thrown upon him in such counties. But there were parts of England where two or three counties might be thrown into one district; and there was a distinct power given in the Bill to include any part of a neighbouring county in the adjoining district; and if there were not enough of business to occupy the judge, it was provided this district might be consolidated so as to occupy the judges. With regard to the salaries, it was impossible to say now what precise number of judges were necessary, or what salaries the judges should receive; and the present proposal was that the judges should receive fees in the first instance, and if the amount of those fees should be excessive, there was a power given to the Secretary of State to diminish that amount, and fix the maximum beyond which they should not go to the judge, but should be carried to the Consolidated Fund. The maximum would be fixed at 1,200 l.; but it by no means followed, as some of the judges would have more business than others, that the intention was that each judge should receive 1,200 l. That was only the maximum, beyond which the Government could not go. As to the patronage, the question had been discussed in the Select Committee to which he had alluded, and it was a question which more than any other embarrassed those Bills. But if the placing of the patronage in the hands of the Government was to be a bar to the passing of the Bill, the public would forfeit the great advantages that must be derived from the measure; for after the fullest consideration the Ministers of the Crown had come to the conclusion, that in order to obtain efficient men the patronage should be placed, subject to the control of public opinion and the responsibility which attached to a Minister, in the hands of the Lord Chancellor. Besides, from the very nature of the business to be transacted in those courts, it must be evident that the lieutenants of counties could not be the best judges of the legal qualities of the parties who were to preside in them. The
916
noble Lord had, however, admitted that it was better to discuss those matters in Committee; and when the House had resolved itself into Committee, he (Sir G. Grey) should be prepared to give any explanation to hon. Members which they might demand. With respect to the patronage, he might observe that, by a return which he held in his hand, of the course of legislation with regard to local Bills for the establishment of small debts courts, which would be merged in those under the present Bill, it appeared that of forty-two courts recently established, with the exception of two, the Lord Chancellor had the patronage of all. He might add that the gentlemen who held the office of judge in the present local courts would be eligible under the Bill; and with regard to compensation, the matter would be placed in the hands of the Treasury, according to the usual rule in such cases.
MR. M. SUTTONsaid, that the late Government had hesitated with respect to taking into their hands appointments which would give so large an amount of patronage to the Government of the day. He admitted the general abstract principle that the patronage in such cases should be placed in the hands of the Crown; but the practical difficulty in this case lay in the circumstance of so great a number of appointments to be made at once; and he therefore thought that, in this particular case, there was some danger in placing the patronage in the Crown. According to the plan of the late Government, the appointments in the first instance were placed in the hands of the lieutenants of counties, the Government reserving to itself the right of filling up vacancies as they subsequently occurred. To the change now introduced in the Bill he objected, as also to the alteration in that provision of the Bill which declared that the judges of existing courts should be first judges in the new courts. He must say that on the questions of patronage and compensation, he much preferred the Bill as it had been brought in by the late Government. However, he did not feel justified in impeding its progress, as he believed it was earnestly sought for by the country.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it seemed to him the questions of patronage and compensation would be better argued upon the clauses relating to them respectively. But in reference to what had fallen from the noble Lord and the hon. Gentleman who had spoken last he

917
would offer a few words in explanation of the alterations that had been made in the Bill. He might observe, in the first place, that the alteration giving the patronage to the Lord Chancellor, had met with the entire concurrence of the late Solicitor General (Sir F. Kelly). It had been said that the Bill as it originally stood had vested the patronage in the lieutenants of counties. It certainly professed to do so, but in reality it did no such thing. There were at present eighty judges of local courts, and the Bill gave a right to those eighty judges to take office under the new Bill if they choose. But there were to be only sixty courts established under the Bill, so that there were to be eighty persons who would have a right to sixty places. Then the lieutenants of counties were to appoint to the vacancies; but there would be no vacancies whatever, there being twenty persons more than there were offices. The present Government then had done nothing to take the matter into their own hands; they only placed in plain language that which had been mystified by the late Government, and did in a straightforward manner that which would have been done indirectly by that Government. Every one of the offices touched by this Bill were constituted under Acts of Parliament, which provided that if there should be a general measure passed, their rights under the local courts should cease. Those parties then having taken office on the understanding that they were to have no vested rights, all they could fairly expect was, that if they were qualified for office they should be considered as eligible. There was no cause of complaint then on that score; nor was there on the ground of compensation. Those judges had no claim to compensation, because they had no vested interest. With respect to the new courts, it was expected the business would be so large as to give fees sufficient to defray the expenses of salaries, and also leave a large margin for compensation.
MR. S. WORTLEYwished to ask why, if the Lord Chancellor intended to appoint those now in office to be judges in the new courts, a provision to that effect was not introduced into the Bill? The late Government had voluntarily deprived themselves of the patronage; and when so many of the appointments of the existing courts had been made by the Lord Chancellor, or under special Acts of Parliament, the best course appeared to be to give the first appointments
918
to those who had been nominated under such circumstances.
MR. ROMILLYbore testimony to the importance of the Bill. He wished the Government would take into consideration the propriety of extending the jurisdiction of the courts established by this Bill to other matters, and of combining a variety of duties, ministerial as well as judicial, now performed by a number of different officers. He thought payment by salary preferable to payment by foes.
MR. H. BERKELEYobserved, that this measure was looked upon with the deepest interest throughout the country. From communications he had received from Bath as well as from Bristol, he learned that the measure was regarded as perfectly satisfactory.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that if the Government had proposed to pass the Bill with such views and for such purposes as the hon. Member for Bridport had indicated, he (Mr. Newdegate) should have felt bound to oppose it, instead of supporting it, as he intended. The questions the hon. Member had raised were matters of the deepest importance, which the House ought not to be called upon to consider for the first time in the last days of a Session; but he (Mr. Newdegate) did not consider them involved in the Bill before the House. He certainly was not prepared to vote for or promote a series of extensive changes in our system of criminal jurisprudence, because an Act for the recovery of small debts was required. The appointment of an officer of justice to superintend all criminal proceedings, as proposed by the hon. Member, involved a departure from the system and practice of the English Constitution, and an assimilation to those of foreign countries, for which he (Mr. Newdegate) was not prepared. With respect to the other proposal of the hon. Member, namely, the entrusting the revision of the electoral registers to the judges to be appointed over the courts which were to be established under the Bill before the House, he would only observe, that there was abundant evidence appended to the Report on Votes of Electors, lately laid before the House by the Committee, for which he (Mr. Newdegate) had moved, that amply proved how little advisable it would be to place the revision of the electoral registers in the hands of local authorities. He would conclude by saying, that the trade and inhabitants of Birmingham, and those of other large towns, stood much in need of some better means than at

919
present existed for the recovery of small debts; a necessity which had been aggravated by the abolition of imprisonment for debt. The hon. Member for Birmingham was unavoidably prevented attending in his place by the death of his brother-in-law, Sir Charles Wetherell, or he would have supported the Bill, as he (Mr. Newdegate) intended to do, for the purposes specified in its title.
MR. HENLEYconsidered the question of patronage involved in this Bill as a very serious one. He was one of those who did not think that had the patronage been entrusted to the lord lieutenants it would have been in good hands. But it was not quite clear that it was wise to place so large an amount of patronage at once in the hands of the Crown. A very large proportion of the existing judges were attorneys, who if they retained their appointments must give up their practice. As they might be expected to prefer continuing their practice, a vast number of appointments would necessarily fall to the Crown under the operation of the Bill. He believed that if this Bill were confined to its professed object—the recovery of small debts, without any reference to damages and wrongs—it might be a very beneficial measure.
House went into Committee.
On Clause 9,
MR. NEWDEGATEobserved that he understood, from the statements which had been made by Members of the Government, that they were disposed to give legal gentlemen who filled existing judicial offices a preference in the appointments under this measure; and he wished to know whether there would be any objection to insert words in the Bill for carrying out that object?
SIR G. GREYcould not assent to the suggestion of the hon. Member; but, without giving a pledge that existing officers would in all cases be appointed to judicial offices under this Bill, he might state that a preference would be given to those existing officers who were considered competent for the situations.
MR. WAKLEYwished to know why the appointments to judicial offices under this Bill should be confined to one branch of the legal profession—why the judges should be selected from members of the bar only, to the exclusion of attorneys? It might not be very agreeable to gentlemen at the bar to hear it said that attorneys were quite as competent as they were for
920
these situations; but he considered it most unjust that gentlemen in that department of the profession should be debarred from these judicial appointments. The attorneys had just as much capacity, as much legal knowledge, and possessed as much love of justice as any gentleman at the bar; and in his opinion their exclusion from these offices was in principle most unjust, and in practice most injurious. If they left to the Lord Chancellor the discretion of appointing fit persons from the bar, why could not they also entrust him with the direction of appointing fit persons from the attorneys? He considered that great injustice was done to a most respectable and honourable branch of the legal profession by excluding them from these appointments; and he would hereafter move an Amendment which would have the effect of rendering them eligible for such offices.
LORD G. SOMERSETconsidered that the discretion of making these appointments ought to be entrusted to the Lord Chancellor, who would, no doubt, take care to appoint properly-qualified persons. With regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley), he certainly thought that that class of the legal profession commonly called solicitors were rather hardly used by this Bill. This measure, he understood, contained a provision which rendered the present holders of judicial offices eligible for appointment as judges of county courts under this Bill; but if any of the existing officers should cease to hold their appointments, they could not hereafter be succeeded by solicitors. He must say that, under these circumstances, he thought their fair share in these appointments was withheld from the attorneys. He saw no reason why eminent solicitors, who had acquitted themselves creditably in their profession, should not be eligible as judges of these courts, and he thought the appointments ought to be open to them. At the same time, he did not mean to assume that the education of a solicitor was generally such as to render him equally well fitted for judicial office with a barrister. He thought that all persons who now held judicial offices in courts of this kind had a strong claim upon the Government for reappointment under the present Bill, unless some good reason to the contrary could be shown; and he understood that the right hon. Home Secretary concurred in this opinion.
Sir G. GREYsaid, that the words "barristers of seven years' standing," though

921
they scarcely gave any adequate security for the appointment of efficient persons, still afforded some check, as they prevented the appointment of a man as judge to-day who had only been called to the bar yesterday. With regard to the fitness of attorneys to occupy judicial situations in these courts, he was quite ready to admit that there were some most learned men in that branch of the profession, who possessed very high qualifications for many important offices. But he wished it to be understood that no new provision had been introduced into this Bill. Indeed, if the attorneys were treated with hardship by this Bill, they were treated with equal hardship under a measure which had been introduced by the noble Lord opposite. He could assure the House, that there was not the least intention to throw any slight upon the attorneys; but, if the argument of the hon. Member for Finsbury were carried out, why should not attorneys be allowed to plead as advocates? and why should they not be eligible for seats on the bench in Westminster-hall? He considered that the best course was to adhere to the distinction which had been held between the two branches of the profession for a very long period; but he hoped it would not be supposed that there was any intention to slight that branch to which the hon. Member for Finsbury had referred—the attorneys.
MR. HENLEYthought it would be much better if there were no definition with respect to the judges in the Bill, and that it should be left to the Lord Chancellor to appoint, on his responsibility, fit and proper persons. With respect to attorneys, they were either fit or unfit to be judges under this Bill. Now there was a provision in the Bill, that all attorneys who were at present judges in certain named courts for the recovery of small debts might be judges under the present Bill; and yet, in the same breath, the Bill declared that all future attorneys should be disqualified. Both these arrangements could not be right, and, therefore, he should be better pleased to see it left entirely to the Lord Chancellor to appoint fit and proper persons as judges.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the office of clerks of the courts to be created by the Bill had been set aside exclusively for attorneys. But as to their appointment to judgeships, he asked how it would be possible for the Lord Chancellor to judge of the fitness of any solicitor or
922
attorney for such an office? Their profession did not bring their acquirements prominently before the public, or give that opportunity for a display of the talents peculiarly necessary for the judicial office which would be necessary to enable the public to form an opinion upon them. The education given to barristers and attorneys differed most materially. The attention of attorneys was not directed to those branches of the legal profession that would qualify them for the judicial bench; whilst the education of barristers, on the contrary, was of a nature peculiarly to suit them for it.
MR. ROMILLYwas of opinion, that the judges under this Bill ought not to be allowed to practice at all as barristers. Concurrent practice as a barrister unfitted a man's mind for the judicial capacity. If these judges were allowed to practise as barristers, it might be possible for interested parties to obtain an opinion from one of them in his character of barrister having reference to a case which he would afterwards have to decide on as a judge. He would therefore make these judges judicial officers and nothing else; he would take up their whole time in that way, pay them handsomely and liberally, and thus the country would really get cheap and good justice brought home to everybody's door.
MR. J. S. WORTLEYthought the Government was right in not proposing to exclude the judges under this Bill from practising as barristers. How else could they hope to get good judges? Did they think a man fitted for the situation would abandon all the prospects of his profession for such a salary? He differed from the hon. and learned Member, who thought concurrent practice as a barrister unfitted a man for a judge. He knew three gentlemen on the northern circuit eminent as barristers and distinguished as judges; and of these he might mention the recorders of Hull and Leeds. The hon. and learned Member had said, that it might be possible to entrap a barrister in giving an opinion in reference to a case which he would afterwards have to decide on as a judge; but if he were a right sort of man, with a candid and strong mind, that circumstance would not prevent him from giving a proper decision on the case submitted to him as a judge. These courts would not take up all the time of their judges, and by attending Westminster-hall they would keep their weapons polished.
LORD J. RUSSELLconsidered that there were two ways of obtaining good judges. One was by giving very considerable salaries, and, as in Westminster-hall, separating them altogether from practice at the bar, to be wholly devoted to judicial questions in every kind of form. There was another mode in regard to less important judicial functions and more limited spheres, namely, by appointing persons who at the same time practised at the bar. In justification of this latter course, the instance of Mr. Baines, the recorder of Leeds, and other cases, had been mentioned; in support of the contrary view no instances were given, but it was simply said that persons practising at the bar could not exercise judicial functions as well. This last view, however, was not borne out by the fact; and every one must allow that the minds of such persons were likely to be constantly exercised, and to be in full vigour, upon legal questions. With regard to the plan of giving moderate salaries to persons to be placed in certain districts, to which they should be required to confine themselves, he (Lord J. Russell) thought that a mode which would fail of securing good judges. Those who did not very well succeed at the bar would be anxious to have these appointments; but men of talent, who knew they were likely to rise at the bar, would refuse them; and thus the country would be excluded from getting men of the greatest vigour of mind and the highest talent. No doubt there were men of good legal knowledge, who did not much practise at the bar; but the party who had this patronage would have great difficulty in saying who they were. When a man had risen to eminence at the bar, and had argued with ability, he had been subjected to a test; but in appointing these other persons there must be great uncertainty whether they were not men of very inferior talent. In Scotland, the judicial decisions of local judges had never given satisfaction; and all difficult cases were sent to the superior Judge, who was an advocate in the highest practice in the courts at Edinburgh; and by Act of Parliament the sheriffs were actually required to be habitually attending the Court of Session. Unless the House were disposed to go to a much greater expense than was contemplated, in prohibiting practice, they would be in danger of having men of very second-rate abilities and knowledge of law, and who in the course of a few years, would forget what they had known when practising.
924
The objection, however, just made seemed valid, that a barrister ought not to practise in the district for which he was judge; and words should be proposed to obviate that.
MR. WAKLEYmoved, as an Amendment to the Clause, that attorneys be eligible for the office of judge in these courts. He did not propose that they should be appointed; but that the Lord Chancellor, if he found fit men acting as attorneys, should have the power of appointing them. He was sure that attorneys, if eligible for this office, would find no fault on the score of salary. For 1,200 l. a year they would find men of great legal learning who would most readily accept the office. By the Bill of last year attorneys were made eligible for judgeships after ten years' practice.
The Committee divided on the Question, that the words, "or as an attorney at law," be inserted:—Ayes 16; Noes 53: Majority 37.

List of the AYES.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Hume, J.

Borthwick, P.

Muntz, G. F.

Brocklehurst, J.

Newdegate, C. N.

Brown, W.

Pechell, Capt.

Collett, J.

Waddington, H. S.

Dickinson, F. H.

Williams, W.

Escott, B.

Evans, Sir De L.

TELLERS.

Gore, M.

Sibthorp, Col.

Henley, J. W.

Wakley, T.

List of the NOES.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Macaulay, rt. hon. T. B.

M'Donnell, J. M.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Bernal, R.

Morpeth, Visct.

Bodkin, W. H.

O'Connell, M. J.

Bridgeman, H.

O'Conor Don

Brotherton, J.

Oswald, J.

Buller, C.

Owen, Sir J.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

Palmerston, Visct.

Cabbell, B. B.

Parker, J.

Craig, W. G.

Pigott, rt. hon. D.

Dundas, Adm.

Plumridge, Capt.

Dundas, D.

Rich, H.

Ebrington, Visct.

Romilly, J.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Russell, Lord J.

Etwall, R.

Seymour, Lord

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

Somers, J. P.

Fox, C. R.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Stewart, P. M.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Turner, E.

Hawes, B.

Warburton, H.

Hindley, C.

Wood, rt. hon. C.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Wood, Col. T.

Horsman, E.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Howard, P. H.

Wyse, T.

Jervis, Sir J.

TELLERS.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Hill, Lord M.

Layard, Capt.

Tufnell, H.

COLONEL T. WOODmoved as an Amendment, that the judges shall cease to practise as barristers when they accept office.
The Committee divided on the Question, that the words be inserted:—Ayes 12; Noes 57: Majority 45.

List of the AYES.

Bernal, R.

Romilly, J.

Bridgman, H.

Waddington, H. S.

Cabbell, B. B.

Wakley, T.

Collett, J.

Willliams, W.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Horsman, E.

TELLERS:

Hume, J.

Wood, Col. T.

Oswald, J.

Warburton, H.

List of the NOES.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Layard, Capt.

Macaulay, rt. hon. T. B.

Bentinck, Lord G.

M'Donnell, J. M.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Bodkin, W. H.

Morpeth, Visct.

Borthwick, P.

Muntz, G. F.

Brotherton, J.

O'Connell, M. J.

Brown, W.

O'Conor Don

Buller, C.

Owen, Sir J.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

Palmerston, Visct.

Craig, W. G.

Parker, J.

Dickinson, F. H.

Pechell, Capt.

Dundas, Adm.

Pigott, rt. hon. D.

Dundas, D.

Plumridge, Capt.

Ebrington, Visct.

Pryse, P.

Escott, B.

Rich, H.

Etwall, R.

Russell, Lord J.

Evans, Sir De L.

Seymour, Lord

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

Sibthorp, Col.

Fox, C. R.

Somers, J. P.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Stewart, P. M.

Gore, M.

Turner, E.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Wood, rt. hon. C.

Hawes, B.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Henley, J. W.

Wrightson, W. B.

Hindley, C.

Wyse, T.

Hobhouse rt. hon. Sir J.

Howard, P. H.

TELLERS.

Jervis, Sir J.

Hill, Lord M.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Tufnell, H.

Clause agreed to.
House resumed. Committee to sit again.
House adjourned at Ten o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a. Naval and Military Departments; Steam Navigation; Lunatic Asylums (Ireland); Ejectments, &c. (Ireland); Income Tax Deductions; Customs Duties (No. 2); Rateable Property (Ireland); New Zealand Government; New Zealand Loan Act Amendment.
2a. Contagious Diseases; British Possessions; Public Works (Ireland) (No.3); County Works Presentments (Ireland) (No. 2); House of Commons Offices; Spirit Licenses, etc. Duties; Turnpike Roads (Ireland); Lunatic Asylums and Pauper Lunatics; Public Works, Fisheries, etc. Public Works Commissioners (Ireland); Baths and Washhouses (Ireland).
Reported. Exclusive Privilege of Trading Abolition (Ireland).
3a. and passed. Waste Lands (Australia); Legal Quays (London).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Cot Fishermen of the Rivers Burrow and Nore, for Protection of the Fisheries (Ireland).—From Andrew Banfield, for Amendment of Insolvent Debtors Act Amendment (Ireland) Bill, and for the Insertion of a Clause giving to Aggrieved Creditors, Suitors of that Court, the Right or Privilege of Appeal to a Court of Equity in Ireland.—From Penryn, against Naval and Military Flogging.

RECENT LAW APPOINTMENTS.
LORD LYNDHURST: My Lords, I have to request your Lordships' attention for a few moments to some statements that appeared in the morning papers of yesterday, assuming to report certain proceedings in the other House of Parliament, with reference to some recent law appointments. From the nature of these statements, my Lords, I feel it my duty—a duty which I owe my noble Friend (the Earl of Ripon) who is at present absent in a distant part of the country—a duty which I owe to myself—and give me leave to add, in reference to the situation which I lately had the honour to hold in your Lordships' House—a duty which I owe to your Lordships, to enter into some explanation with respect to those statements. I very much regret that your Lordships did not assemble yesterday, and that I had not then an earlier opportunity of meeting the charges preferred against the noble Lord (the Earl of Ripon) and myself. My Lords, I do not assume that the statements to which I am referring is a correct representation of what fell from the noble Lord in the other House of Parliament; I will not assume
894
it, on account of the coarseness of the language which is imputed to that noble Lord, and on account of the character and nature of the imputation which he has cast upon the noble Lord and myself. It must be understood, therefore, that in the observations which I am about to make, my remarks are confined to the representations as stated in the papers to which I have referred. My Lords, I consider that upon all occasions, when particular charges of a grave character are brought against Members of your Lordships' House, the true course to be pursued by the party accused, is to state fully and plainly, and in detail, all the circumstances of the transaction—because, if the facts do not speak for themselves in a case of this nature, it is quite a vain endeavour on the part of those who are accused, to attempt to justify themselves by reasoning and by argument. Therefore, I shall confine myself strictly to a statement of the particulars of these transactions. My noble Friend, late the President of the India Board—of the Board of Control—applied to me early in the spring of this year, asking me to recommend a certain number of individuals whom I might consider competent to discharge the duties incident to the office of a Judge in India, and who at the same time would be willing to accept the office. I understand that the office had previously been offered to an individual of considerable eminence at the bar, who had declined it. In consequence of this application, I returned to my noble Friend the names of six or seven individuals, including the name of Mr. David Pollock, as persons whom I considered fully competent to discharge the duties of the responsible office of Chief Justice of Bombay, and who, I had reason to believe, would be willing to accept the appointment. I believe—I have reason to think—that the noble Lord did not confine his application merely to myself; but that he consulted other learned and eminent individuals on whose judgment he could rely, as to the qualifications of the different individuals whom I have mentioned. The result of all this was, that my noble Friend selected for the appointment Mr. David Pollock, the brother of the present Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer. That, my Lords, was the whole of the matter so far as I was concerned; I had nothing further whatever to do with the transaction. Mr. David Pollock was appointed, and, as far as I was concerned, there the matter terminated. I am quite sure that every one

895
who knows anything of Mr. David Pollock must agree with me in opinion, that he was eminently qualified to discharge the duties of the office for which he was selected; and I believe on the 10th of June (as early as that day) Her Majesty's pleasure was taken as to the appointment, and She then signified Her approval. Thus the matter concluded as far as it is at present necessary for me to consider; presently I shall again advert to this part of the case, when I shall call to your Lordships' attention some other facts which I shall feel it my duty to mention. In consequence of the selection of the learned individual to whom I have referred, a vacancy was created in another office—in the office which he had previously filled—the office of a Commissioner of the Insolvent Debtors' Court. Mr. Phillips was appointed to that vacant office. Mr. Phillips had been appointed by me a Commissioner of the Court of Bankruptcy about three years ago. He had met with a severe domestic misfortune about a year since; and he had applied to me several times, entreating me, in consequence of the unpleasantness of his position, and the feelings of distaste which he had whilst he remained in Liverpool, to remove him, even at a considerable sacrifice of income, to some other situation. I had no other opportunity of doing so. His wife and daughter had left him, and were residing at Cheltenham. On this vacancy occurring, Mr. Phillips himself, or through the medium of my noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham), who is now absent, applied to the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the situation to which I have referred. I was not aware of that application. It was not made through me, neither was it communicated to me until after the application was made. Sir James Graham wrote to me asking me whether I thought Mr. Phillips qualified for the appointment. In answer to that letter, I replied, that I had appointed Mr. Phillips to the situation of Commissioner of Bankrupts three years ago; that he had been assiduous in the discharge of his duties; and that I had been informed that in no instance had there been any appeal from any one of his decisions; and I concluded by saying, that I considered him qualified for the office, as the duties of that office were analogous to the duties of the office which he had previously so well discharged. My Lords, I have nothing further to say with respect to
896
this appointment. I had no other communication whatever with any one respecting it. I was referred to for the character of this individual, and I gave him the character to which I thought he was justly entitled; and, my Lords, no one who knows the man will say that the character which I gave him goes one step beyond that which he was authorized to expect from me. So far, my Lords, as to this transaction. In consequence of this appointment, the office which Mr. Phillips held in the Court of Bankruptcy became vacant. I placed in that office Mr. Perry, my principal secretary. Mr. Perry had served me long in that office; I have had continual epportunities of observing his conduct. He is a man of integrity, and a man of great industry, a man of great talent, and I may say with confidence, a man well versed in the laws of his country. I am sure there is no person whom I could have placed in the office, who would have accepted the office, more capable well and faithfully to discharge its duties, than Mr. Perry. If, under such circumstances, I had passed over that gentleman, I should have committed an act of injustice; and if, from the fear of any observations that might be made with respect to the appointment, in consequence of his connexion with me, I should have permitted that injustice, I should, my Lords, I say, have been guilty, not only of an act of baseness, but also of an act of cowardice. He is known to many noble Lords in the House, who, I believe, also know that he is well fitted to discharge his duties; and to think that the noble Lord, who knows nothing of this gentleman, should cast aspersions and imputations on him, and undertake to say that he is not qualified for the office! When a man goes out of his way to make assertions of that kind, he is entirely unworthy of attention in any reasonable assembly. But now to show what that noble Lord is reported to have done. The noble Lord is reported to have said, that—
"As regarded the appointment of Mr. Perry, he was bound to say that it was a gross job! Mr. Perry, he believed, had had no practice in the courts of law conneetcd with the description of business to which he was appointed; and he was informed that he had been accompanied to Liverpool by Commissioner Holroyd, as it were to dry-nurse him in those few duties he would have to perform."
This noble Lord appears to cast out these imputations with a liberality quite unparalleled,

897
quite unexampled in any public assembly. This puts me in mind of the phrase used by Mr. Pitt, who, when speaking of Napoleon, said that nothing was too great for his ambition, or too small for the grasp of his rapacity: so there is nothing which the noble Lord thinks it beneath him to descend to give vent to his slanderous and petty inventions. I will now state the circumstances connected with this part of the case. In consequence of Mr. Phillips coming up to London, and in order that the duties of the office should go on, it became necessary to procure some gentleman to perform those duties during his absence. Accordingly I requested Mr. Holroyd to go down. He went down on the 23rd of June. The day after Mr. Perry was sworn into his office, he returned to town. So much, my Lords, for the imputation of this gentleman having gone down for the purpose of giving instruction to Mr. Perry in the discharge of his duties. These are the kind of charges thrown out totally regardless of the character of the individuals against whom they are directed. I have now directed your Lordship's attention to these three points, to the appointment of Mr. David Pollock—to the appointment of Mr. Phillips—and lastly, to the appointment of Mr. Perry. I ask your Lordships to pause for the present, and to say whether there is the slightest foundation for the imputation cast on my noble Friend or myself in this transaction? But I now come to the most grave part—perhaps the only part of the matter which deserves any serious consideration. The noble Lord takes upon himself to state that he believes from representations made to him, that in fact the appointment of Mr. David Pollock was made by me in consequence of a bargain between me and my noble Friend at the head of the Board of Control, that I should present a friend of his to the living of Nocton. That was the charge made at the time to which I am now referring. What has taken place since? The noble Lord yesterday, as I am told, abandoned that statement; but he abandoned it upon a false ground; he abandoned it because he thought he had discovered in a book to which he had referred, that the presentation to the living of Nocton was not in the Chancellor, but in some private individual. Therefore, he did what he was bound to do—apologize for the charge which he had made. But the ground on which he recants is totally unfounded. The presentation
898
was in the Chancellor. I presented to the living. I am ready to admit that I presented to the living, and I presume that the noble Lord will now retract his retraction, and revert to his original accusation. My Lords, why do I mention these circumstances? To point out the levity of this man—to show that he makes charges without investigation—that he retracts these charges without investigation—that he is indifferent as to what he does—and that he scatters about his attacks without in the least considering how they may operate, and whom they may affect and injure. Now, as to the fact. I take upon myself to say, that when I presented the friend of my noble Friend to the living of Nocton, that circumstance had nothing whatever to do with the appointment of any judicial officer. For the truth of this, I pledge to you my honour, as one of your Lordships' House—I pledge you my honour as a gentleman—and, my Lords, I have no doubt that my noble Friend, if he were here present, would make precisely the same statement. I have already stated what led to the appointment of that gentleman, Mr. David Pollock, to the Chief Justiceship of Bombay. In that I had no farther concern than I have stated to your Lordships—namely, that I gave his name, with five or six other names, in order that my noble Friend might select out of them the person most fitted to discharge the duties of that office; and I say my noble Friend did make the selection accordingly, wholly uninfluenced by me. I pursued on that occasion precisely the course always pursued by my predecessors in similar circumstances. But now, my Lords, as to the living of Nocton — I must state to your Lordships the circumstances under which that presentation was made, and the grounds of that presentation. My noble Friend wrote to me on the sudden death of the Dean of Windsor, who before held the living, mentioning that circumstance, and asking me to present a friend of his to the living. The reasons on which he grounded his application were these:—
"I own," he said, "the whole of the parish, except a small portion of glebe land in the centre of it. I have recently laid out a large sum of money in building a new house as my future place of residence in the country, the former residence having some time since been burnt down. I have established and endowed a large school; and I pay the expenses of the schoolmaster and mistress. The church, a few years ago, was enlarged for the purpose of accommodating a greater number of persons. I paid two-thirds of the expenses of that enlargement. It is most desirable for us that we

899
should have a person in whom we can place the most implicit confidence as our minister. The residence of the minister is within a few yards of our house, and the church is close by. I am, therefore, under these circumstances, most desirous that you will have the kindness to present the person I have recommended."
In addition to this—and that was the only circumstance which in my mind created any doubt—I was told that, although the gift of the living was in the Crown, it had been the constant practice to present the person recommended by the owner of the estate now possessed by my noble Friend. Indeed, so constantly had this been the practice, that it had led to the conclusion that the right of presentation was in the owner of the estate; and I was apprehensive, therefore, if I continued to present the person nominated by the owner of the estate, I might by degrees impair the title of the Crown. I investigated the case, and I found that the title of the Crown was so well established, that on the statement made to me by my noble Friend, I presented his friend to the living—a gentleman of the greatest respectability, of unblemished character, and in every way fitted to discharge his duties. Not one word was ever said, I am quite sure, by any of the parties with regard to the appointment to this Judgeship. I am so desirous that this part of the case should be free from all doubt, that I must trouble your Lordships to allow me to read the correspondence, for all will see from that correspondence what the grounds were on which the appointment was made; and that in it you can nowhere trace anything that can justify the imputation—the foul imputation—cast on my noble Friend and myself, with regard to this part of the transaction. I am sure that your Lordships will not think that I am trespassing too far in calling your attention to these letters. The first which I will read is dated the 9th of May, 1846:—
"1, Carlton-gardens, May 9, 1840.
"My dear Lord Chancellor—The death of Lady Ripon's uncle (yesterday), who was Dean of Windsor, and Vicar of Nocton, in the county of Lincoln, occasions me to trouble you with this letter. The living of Nocton is in your gift; and as the whole of the parish is my property (except the glebe), it is of the utmost importance, not only to myself individually, but to the good of a very extensive parish, that the vicar should be a person with whom I could act in perfect harmony for the benefit of the parishioners. This vicarage belonged for generations to the owners of the Nocton estate; and it was merely by an accident that the right of presentation lapsed to the Crown; but it has invariably been given at the recommendation of the owner of Nocton; and I feel sure that under these circumstances, your kind feelings
900
will induce you to attend to the recommendation of a Colleague. If you wish for any explanation from me upon this matter, I will call upon you tomorrow at any hour you may appoint. I am really very anxious upon the subject.—Believe me most sincerely yours, "RIPON.
"P.S. This letter was sent to your house in town, but as I find you are rusticating, I forward it to you by messenger to Turville."
Two days after I received a letter from Lady Ripon. Now, this estate came through Lady Ripon; it is the estate of her family:—
"Carlton-gardens, May 11, 1846.
"My dear Lord Chancellor—I trust you will excuse my venturing to address you on the subject of the living of Nocton, lately become vacant by the sudden death of my dear uncle, the Dean of Windsor; for I cannot help thinking, that when made fully aware of the peculiar circumstances of the case, you will be disposed to accede to Lord Ripon's and my request on the subject. The circumstances of the case are indeed peculiar, for the whole parish of Nocton has long been in the possession of my ancestors. The glebe land is in the centre of the estate, and the parsonage within 100 yards of the house, and close to the church, where my dear father and all my family, for some generations, have been buried. Until the time of my grandfather, the churchyard extended to the house itself. With all these circumstances before you, you will not, I am sure, be surprised to learn that the living has been always given on the recommendation of the proprietor of the estate, so much so, that my father entertained the impression that the living was in the actual gift of the proprietor. It is our only place of residence in the country. The old house having been burnt down a few years back, we have built a new one, which we have just completed. You will, therefore, I think, concur with me that our comfort must greatly depend upon the clergyman continuing to be not upon merely good, but upon absolutely intimate and agreeable terms. Mr. Wilson is a well-known clergyman, of the age of forty, married to a particular friend of mine, and both husband and wife are most conscientious and active persons. Mr. Wilson is devoted to his duties, an upright single-minded man, who must be a blessing to any parish of which he is the pastor. I can now only throw myself upon your kindly feelings, and express my earnest hope that you will transfer to Mr. Wilson the favourable intention which you this morning entertained towards Mr. Bagley, as Lord Brownlow, well aware of the peculiar circumstances of the case, has withdrawn his recommendation of Mr. Bagley. I will add, that I shall feel truly obliged to you if you will accede to my request, and thereby enable us to reside with comfort on my old hereditary property.—Believe me, my dear Lord Chancellor, very sincerely yours, "S. A. L. RIPON."
I should mention that Mr. Wilson was in the possession of a living in Dorsetshire equal in value to that of Nocton, and that it was merely from friendly feelings towards Lord Ripon that he gave up that living to which he had been presented by the Bishop of Bath and Wells, for the purpose of removing to Nocton. My Lords, I

901
was extremely desirous to provide for Mr. Bagley, the son of one of the prebendaries of Canterbury, with whom I had been intimately acquainted at college, and I had mentioned Mr. Bagley as a person of whom I thought Lord Ripon would have approved. This gentleman's application had been supported by Lord Brownlow. I then received this letter from Lord Ripon:—
"India Board, May 13, 1846.
"My dear Lord Chancellor—In reference to the question of the Nocton Vicarage, I ought to tell you (what I believe I omitted) that the school is maintained entirely at my expense; I provide a school-room of adequate dimensions, an excellent house for the schoolmaster and mistress, whom I appoint, and whose salary I pay. No charge, therefore, has hitherto fallen upon the clergyman in respect to those material objects in every parish. I have already spent upwards of 10,000 l. in rebuilding my house there, and before it will be finally completed it will have cost me from 15,000 l. to 20,000 l.; and some years ago, when the church was enlarged to accommodate the increasing number of the population, I paid two-thirds of the expense; and I can truly say that I have spared no expense (nor my predecessors before me), in promoting the comfort and well-being of the people there, every one of whom, farmers, shopkeepers, artisans and and labourers, are my tenants.—Most truly yours, "RIPON."
Under these circumstances I acceded, as might be expected, to the application of my noble Friend, and I appointed Mr. Wilson. I afterwards received from Lady Ripon this letter:—
"Carlton Gardens, Thursday,
Three o'Clock.
"My dear Lord Chancellor—I have just received your note, and though I considered my case a strong one, I am not the less obliged to you for your most courteous decision; and as you cannot know all the very peculiar circumstances attached to that living, nor the many reasons I have to feel so strongly on the subject, you cannot appreciate as fully as I can, the obligation you have conferred on me and mine. Again thanking you, I remain, my dear Lord Chancellor, yours very sincerely,
"S. A. L. RIPON."
This, my Lords, is the correspondence on the subject; and I ask you whether this correspondence, written at the time, is not absolutely inconsistent with the charges preferred against my noble Friend and myself? The grounds stated for making this appointment must be completely satisfactory to your Lordships, for they are grounds which it would have been perfectly impossible for me not to have attended to. In consequence of my having made this appointment, now, my Lords, what is the charge against me, and the ground on which that charge is made to rest? It is the most extraordinary charge that ever
902
was preferred against a public man, considering the evidence on which it rests. The noble Lord does not speak from his own knowledge, but he states what was communicated to him by some individual. But he does not name the individual. That individual conjectures or asserts that the fact is so without stating the grounds. Is it possible that any man filling a public situation, pretending to direct the Councils of the country, or, at least, of the party to which he belongs, could come forward with accusations against the character of public men, founded on such evidence? It is totally condemnatory of the individual; it shows him to be utterly unfit for any public situation—it destroys his fitness and his character. It is not only weak, low, and silly; but its weakness, lowness, and silliness only, are equalled by its folly and baseness. Having justified myself fully as to these grounds, I come to the remaining point, the question of law, with which, however, I had nothing to do, but which, in the absence of my noble Friend, I feel bound to state—the question I mean, with reference to the Bill brought in by my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack. The facts are these: Sir H. Roper sent in his resignation, to take place on the 2nd of November. My noble Friend sent to the Colonial Office, after he had fixed on Mr. David Pollock as his successor, requesting the patent to be made out as from the 2nd of November. My noble Friend is no lawyer. My noble Friend was told by the Colonial Office that it was irregular, and that such a prospective appointment could not be made, for that it would, in fact, be the grant of an office in reversion. In answer to this, my noble Friend directed the patent to be made out in the usual form. The patent was made out. I admit that it was incorrect; for by the patent given to Mr. David Pollock, the office of Sir H. Roper in India was thereby at an end, and he was discharging the duties of a Judge when he was no longer a Judge. Nothing, therefore, could be more irregular. But that was not peculiar to the Colonial Office; it was not peculiar to my noble Friend. It had been the constant course of practice. The same circumstances occurred in the appointment of Sir H. Roper, in the appointment of Sir Robert Comyn, in the appointment of Sir Charles Grey—I believe in every instance where an appointment was made on the surrender of a Judge in India, and the consequence would be, that all intermediate acts done by the

903
Judge in India would be invalid; and this has led to the Bill which has been introduced by my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack. That measure is retrospective, and refers to every one of the instances to which I have referred, for the purpose of doing what is necessary to be done for giving validity to the acts done by the Judge who, in this irregular way, had been superseded. This, my Lords, is the whole case, as far as it refers to my noble Friend. I do not say this in justification of my noble Friend. It was not his duty to make out the appointment in point of form; it was the duty of the Colonial Office. The blot has now been discovered—it has been hit for the first time, and it is intended to be cured by the Bill which has been introduced by my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack. My Lords, I have now gone through and met every one of the charges preferred against me and my noble Friend; and I ask your Lordships with confidence, whether there is any foundation whatever for any part of this accusation? I confess, that, for my own part, I am at a loss to account for the course pursued by the noble Lord. I do not know to what principle I am to refer it. Does it accord with his sense of justice that he should bring forward charges of this description without requiring first some explanation from the parties against whom they are directed, or without giving any notice of his intention to bring them forward? Is that the conduct of a discreet public man? My Lords, can any person justify such conduct? Perhaps the noble Lord thinks that everything is fair in party politics—that to blacken and traduce the character of political opponents, by means however base or foul, is perfectly justifiable. The noble Lord may, perhaps, have acted on that principle, or perhaps from his early associations and his early habits he may have been led to form so low an opinion of the principles on which mankind act, as to suppose that every man in his transactions of life must be directed by some base, selfish, sordid, motives. I cannot ascribe it to any other principle but one of these to which I have referred. It has been said, and well said, that to be praised by a person who is the subject of praise, adds tenfold to the value of the acknowledgment. The same principle will apply to calumny, and the best antidote to calumny will often be found in the character of the calumniator. I do not know with respect to the noble Lord's slander, that it
904
is, as the poet says, "sharp as the point of a sword;" but if "his tongue does not out-venom all the worms of Nile," it is not from the want of will or inclination, but from the want of power. A distinguished writer has this allusion in reference to persons unjustly assailed: "The sting of the wasp may fester and inflame, though long after the venomous insect has left his life and sting in the wound." Venomous, my Lords—I should say, little, vexatious insect, for that is the correct expression. Yes, my Lords, although refuted, these attacks are not harmless; they have a public effect—sometimes a lasting effect. Persons remember the attack—they do not always remember the defence. To me, my Lords, it is most humiliating, at the close of my public life, and at the close, I may say, almost of my natural life, to be called upon to repel accusations of this kind. I know your Lordships will bear with me on an occasion like the present. I rely upon your Lordships to come to a correct judgment; and I throw myself upon your Lordships' consideration, and the consideration of the country.

BRITISH POSSESSIONS BILL.
The EARL of CLARENDONsaid, that he rose for the purpose of moving the Second Reading of a Bill, entitled the British Possessions Bill, which was a Bill to enable the legislatures of certain British possessions to reduce or repeal certain duties of customs. In begging their Lordships to read this Bill a second time, it would not be necessary for him to trouble them with many observations. By the Act for the regulation of trade in the British possessions, certain duties of customs were imposed upon the importation into any of the British possessions in America, or in the Island of Mauritius, of several articles not being the growth, produce, or manufacture of the United Kingdom, or of the British possessions. The present Bill sought to enable the legislatures of the said British possessions, with the assent of Her Majesty in Council, to reduce or repeal all or any of such duties of customs, so far as they might be in force in such possessions respectively. These differential duties had been complained of by the Colonies, and the present Bill would enable them to alter or repeal them. As the Legislature of this country had established the principle of free trade, with certain exemptions for the purposes of revenue, as in the case of silk and timber, it would be

905
but fair that they placed the Colonies in the same position with themselves. The Bill now sought to be introduced permitted the Colonies to deal with existing duties, but not to impose upon British goods any tax not at present levied. These were the powers which the Bill conferred; and it was considered only fair to give them those powers under certain limitations. The Bill had no other object than to enable the Colonies to reduce the duties upon foreign articles—a power which the Legislature of this country thought they were fairly entitled to.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHdid not object to the object of the Bill; but he took many exceptions to the manner in which that object was to be carried into effect. He begged to know what advantage would be gained, even in point of time, by the Act now proposed for their Lordships' adoption? They would not surely desire to act with a uniformity of opinion upon the part of the Colonies generally? Surely such was not the course his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Clarendon) or the Government intended to pursue? He had hoped that the noble Earl would have framed his measures so as to meet the general requirements of the Colonies, and not attempt to legislate for one to the prejudice of another. In order to adopt such a measure time would be required; and between the present time and the reassembling of Parliament in January next, a measure might have been taken into consideration which would have enabled Her Majesty's Ministers to come down prepared to propose some uniform system, which might, with equal justice, be made to apply to all the Colonies. However, there was a matter of much greater importance to which he wished to direct the attention of his noble Friend, and upon which it would be satisfactory to him to have the decided declaration of the opinions and intentions of the Government. The Legislature of this country had pronounced their opinion that it was but fair the Colonies should import our goods and the goods of foreign nations upon equal terms. That was conceded on free-trade principles; but he confessed he could not see how, on the strict principles of free trade, if they were to look at those principles alone, they could refuse to the Colonies free trade in ships as well as in goods—free trade in the ships that conveyed the goods, as well as the goods, inasmuch as the freight was a material element in the
906
price of the article. He was well aware of the deep importance of the subject, and he was ready to resist that claim at any cost if it should be made; for he knew there were other principles more important connected with it—the principles of public security—a due consideration for which ought to dissuade them from granting such a claim. He knew they had already lost by far the largest portion of the navigation connected with the whale fishery; and he apprehended that the coasting trade would in like manner be materially injured. He was aware that the number of ships and seamen increased with our increasing trade, and that such an increase would have an effect both upon the number of ships and the number of seamen; but he saw in the shipping and in the seamen of other nations an increase in higher proportion. It ought, in his opinion, never to be lost sight of, that upon our relative superiority, and not upon our strength and power, our security and safety chiefly depended. He would, therefore, wish to know from the Government in what spirit they were prepared to deal with the laws relating to navigation, and whether it was their intention to apply to them the principles of free trade.
EARL GREYremarked in reply, that with reference to the first part of the noble Earl's speech, he did not think he had sufficiently adverted to the existing state of affairs. The noble Lord appeared to think that some uniform system of levying duties on various descriptions of goods ought to be established for all the British possessions. Such, he was sorry to say, was not the fact; for, unfortunately, in all our Colonies there was an absence of any uniform system of taxing. Instead of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, having similar rates of duties upon imports, they had levied various duties, and had even taxed the goods coming from one Colony to the other. The present Bill, however, could not establish an equality. If all differential duties were to be repealed, there would be a deficiency of income to meet expenditure. One of the Members of the Executive Council of Canada was now in this country, and he had taken an opportunity of asking him whether a repeal by the Imperial Parliament of differential duties would be attended with inconvenience? and he had replied that such would be the case, and that it would be far better to allow the colonial legislatures to deal with the matter, and permit them to

907
repeal differential duties, which they most probably would do. He (Earl Grey) concurred with the noble Earl opposite, that the system of adopting different duties in different Colonies was productive of great inconvenience, and that an uniformity of duty, if it could be obtained, would be an object of great importance; and, as far as it could be accomplished, it was a subject to which the Government would not fail to direct their attention. He hoped it would not be supposed that, by passing this Bill, they abandoned the right and authority which Parliament always possessed, of regulating the general trade of the Colonies and the mother country, in the manner most conducive to the welfare and prosperity of the Empire. With respect to the navigation laws, he would only make a single remark. It seemed to him they stood upon very different ground. He believed that colonial shipping enjoyed a full share of the privileges which British shipping enjoyed, and that it would continue to do so as long as it was the interest of Parliament to maintain the navigation laws. As to the question of whether it was the intention of the Government to make any alteration in the policy that had hitherto been pursued, it would be extremely inconvenient to give an opinion. The question was one involving large and important considerations, and it would be rash to say more than that no alteration ought to be made that could tend to injure or diminish the extent of our commercial relations. Without expressing an opinion one way or the other, he would say that an alteration in those laws was to be considered, not so much with reference to the pecuniary effect, as to the effect upon the great commercial interests of the country. But, whether the navigation laws acted well or not, it would be highly inconvenient at this moment to enter into any discussion of their merits.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHhad no wish to intrude any observations by way of reply. He would be glad, however, to supply an omission which he had made in his former observations. It was to express his hope that in any communications that might be made with India, no imperative instructions would be sent, but that it might be left to the colonists themselves to decide whether it would be for the advantage of their trade and their interests generally to make any alterations in the duties they might think fit to levy.
Bill read 2a.—House adjourned.