wish of the House that another name says On Motion, "That Mr. Cubitt be one -"Earl Russell said that previous to the election of Prince William to the Greek throne, the King of Denmark, Prince Christian, and Prince William had intimated that no objection existed on their part." What I understood, and what my noble Friends behind me understood, the Mr. Cubitt to be one other Member of noble Earl to say was this:-That previousthe said Committee. ly to any communication with the Greek Government, Lord Russell had consulted House adjourned at a quarter the King of Denmark, and that the King of after One o'clock. Denmark said he had no objection to the candidature of Prince William, provided his father, Prince Christian, and Prince William did not object; but that the noble Earl did not say that he had obtained the consent of Prince Christian and Prince William. I believe I am right in saying that was the sense in which the words of the noble Earl were understood, and I should be glad if my noble Friend opposite would state what was his impression of what was said. EARL GRANVILLE: I believe what my noble Friend intended to say, and what he did say, was not exactly that he had obtained the consent of Prince Christian and Prince William, but that the instruction to Mr. Elliot was not sent until an intimation had been received from the Court of Copenhagen that the King had no objection to Prince William accepting the throne of Greece, if the Prince and his father, Prince Christian, agreed to the proposal. UNITED STATES OF THE IONIAN ISLANDS-REMOVAL OF JUDGES. ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE. THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, before proceeding with the business of the evening, I wish to call the attention of the Government to a subject respecting which I wrote this morning to Earl Russell, asking him to be present this evening to hear my remarks; but, as the noble Earl is not able to be present here to-night in consequence of his attendance at the funeral of Sir George Lewis, perhaps the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) will answer the observations I have to make. I understand that in the two leading newspapers of to-day-that is, papers repre- LORD CHELMSFORD, in rising to call senting two parties-there appears what I attention to the removal of two of the Judges consider to be a misrepresentation of Earl of the Supreme Council of Justice of the Russell's answer to me last night. I allude Ionian Islands, and to move an Address to the final answer, after he had spoken, for papers relative to the subject, said, and after my noble Friend had spoken. though many months had elapsed since the The report in The Times is-" Earl Rus- occurrence of the transaction in question, sell (whose reply was very indistinct) was he was desirous of bringing the subject understood to say, I think what I stated under discussion, because the consequences was, that the King of Denmark consented; of the removal attached, and would conand that if Prince Christian and his son tinue to attach, to the persons affected by should consent, we had no objection." it, and would probably have an injurious "We" would, of course, mean the Eng-effect upon the Supreme Court of Judicalish Government, and I suppose that is a misprint; but in a leader of The Times it is inferred, in the course of an argument, that Earl Russell stated that he obtained the consent of Prince Christian and his son, as well as the consent of the King of Denmark, previous to communicating with the Greek Government. The Standard ture of the Ionian Islands. The abandonment of the Protectorate of the Islands, which, from the conversation of last night, he might be allowed to take for granted had been decided upon, might, in some degree, deprive this question of its importance; but whenever the tie which united us to those Islands should be severed, it must be the wish of all not to leave be- sisted of four Judges. Two of them were hind us the recollection of having sanc-appointed by the protecting Power, and tioned any act of injustice, or of having approved of anything calculated to impair the efficiency of a Court pronounced by high authority to be one of the best and soundest parts of the Ionian institutions. The statement which he had to make related to two of the Judges of the Supreme Council, men of high character, and of great legal attainments, who had, for many years, faithfully performed their judicial functions, without the least suggestion of misconduct or incapacity. These gentlemen had been abruptly removed from the bench, in the month of September last, without any reason alleged, with out even the slight courtesy of a previous warning, the first intimation of their dismissal having reached them through the columns of the Government Gazette, which announced the appointment of their successors, and the whole affair being so timed-whether intentionally or not was immaterial that no complaint on the subject could possibly be heard in the British Parliament until many months had elapsed after the event. In order to make the matter understood, it would be necessary to trespass on their Lordships' attention with a short explanation of the peculiar character of the Ionian Constitution, as far as regarded the appointment to and removal from offices. The body intrusted with those functions was the Senate, the Execu-ims and principles of justice, the character tive of the Ionian States. The Senate was of the Court had been so elevated as to encomposed of a President and five Senators, all title his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone), appointed by the Lord High Commissioner. in the course of the important mission No condition was annexed to the choice of which he fulfilled during the Administration President, except that he must be a natu- of his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby), ral-born noble of the Ionian Islands. He to report that "the British as well as the was appointed for a period of two years Ionian Judges of this high Court are reand a half, but was capable of re-appoint-garded with confidence and favour by the ment. As head of the Senate, the President had the initiative in all their proceedings, and had the privilege of a double vote. The five Senators were chosen, three of them by the Lord High Commissioner, out of the Legislative Assembly, and with regard to two there was scarcely any restriction upon his choice. Therefore, it was not too much to say, that with the power of the initiative possessed by the President, with his double vote, and with the votes of the two selected Senators, the Lord High Commissioner practically exercised complete control over the acts of the Senate. The Supreme Council of Justice, to which the attention of the House was to be particularly directed, con were generally English subjects sent out from this country; the two others were Ionian subjects, chosen by the Senate, with the approbation of the Lord High Commissioner. All the offices in the Islands, including the judicial, continued only during the existence of Parliament, which. was chosen for a maximum term of five years. But with regard to the Judges, the constitutional charter provided, that though their term of office had expired, they should perform their duties until removed or re-appointed by the proper authority. It might appear extraordinary, that when the new constitution of the Islands was framed, no better security was provided for the administration of justice, and that the Judges should hold their offices by such a precarious tenure. The explanation might be found in the circumstances of the times. He might say it without offence, because it was matter of history, that at that period the character of the Ionian tribunals was not above suspicion, and it seemed to have been considered expedient that the Executive should have in reserve the power of removing Judges whose corruption might be notorious, but the legal proof of it extremely difficult. Happily, that state of things had passed away. By the introduction of English Judges, bringing with them English max community at large." But this vicious theory of judicial appointment was cor rected by practice. From the time of the passing of the constitutional charter, on the 2nd of May 1817, until the present day, as far as he had heard, there had been only one instance of the summary removal of any Judge of the Supreme Court. This occurred under the Lord High Commissionership of Lord Nugent, in 1834, when one of the English and the two Ionian Judges were removed. An appeal was made to the Secretary of State by the English Judge, and he was immediately reinstated; the Ionian Judges did not appeal, and, of course, there was no reversal of their dismissal. He believed that Sir Henry Ward, when Lord High Commissioner, had made rather a sweeping removal of the Judges of the inferior courts; but that had no bearing upon the question, which referred entirely to the Judges of the Supreme Court. He believed he was entitled to say that practically they might consider that they held their offices during good behavour. There were other circumstances which might contribute to this impression. Pension Acts had been passed from time to time, and in the first, which applied to the Judges alone, the preamble recited that it was important to secure the permanence and stability of the judicial body; and accordingly the Legislature provided a pension for them, the minimum term of service to entitle them to it being twelve years. That was a pretty good indication of the opinion of the Legislature that, practically, the Judges were not liable to summary removal at the expiration of every five years. Subsequent Pension Acts ware passed applying to other offices as well as that of the Judges, and the Judges were compelled to contribute out of their salaries to those pension funds, the minimum term of service to entitle them to a pension being ten years. The attention of Mr. Gladstone, when Lord High Commissioner Extraordinary, was directed to this subject. The right hon. Gentleman was struck with the precarious independence of the Judges, and recommended to Her Majesty's Government, that, on the one hand, their salaries should be fixed by a permanent Act; and that, on the other, they should not be removed except upon the address of both Chambers. Whether the proceedings to which he desired to call their Lordships' attention were in the spirit of this recommendation, and were consistent with the usual practice or the just expectations of the Judges, their Lordships would have an opportunity of judging by the facts he was about to bring before them. They related to the removal in September last of two Judges of the Supreme Court, Sir Giorgio Marcoran, who had been a public servant for nearly fifty years, and Sir Anastasio Xidian, who had been in the public service for thirty-five years. They had been Members of the Supreme Council of Justice-Sir Giorgio Marcoran for twenty and Sir Anastasio Xidian for twelve or thirteen years. Sir Giorgio Marcoran was about seventy years of age, and in four or five months he would have been entitled to retire upon the highest scale of pension. Both these Judges were held in the highest estimation by the inhabitants of the Ionian Islands, and by their colleagues in office. The Chief Judge of the Supreme Court, Sir Patrick Colquhoun, bore the highest testimony to the character and efficiency of these gentlemen, and two retired English Judges of the Court, now in this country, Sir James Reid and Mr. Blair, had written to him since he had given notice of his intention to bring the subject before their Lordships, to express their high appreciation of the talents, knowledge, and integrity of these gentlemen. These were the Judges of the Supreme Court, who in September last, without any notice, were dismissed from the bench. As he understood, the ordinary course in re-appointing the Judges of the Supreme Court was this-a week or ten days after the assembling of a new Parliament warrants were issued for the_re-appointment of these functionaries. In the present case, the warrants ought to have been issued in March in last year; but month after month elapsed and they were not forthcoming, nor was it until the Chief Justice remonstrated with the Lord High Commissioner on the delay that he was told it was not the Lord High Commissioner's intention to issue the warrants until after the Assembly had risen. The Lord High Commissioner, however, expressed a high opinion of the character of these Judges, expressing his satisfaction at the harmony with which the Judges of the Supreme Court seemed to be acting together. He granted leave of absence to Sir Anastasio Xidian, at the same time requesting him to hold himself in readiness to return to the Supreme Court if anything arose which should render his presence necessary. He was afraid he must come to the conclusion that at this very time the Lord High Commissioner had made up his mind to remove these two Judges, because some delay took place in the departure of Sir Anastasio Xidian, and he was accidentally in the Island when an announcement ap peared in the Gazette, by which he and his colleague were superseded and their successors appointed. Of their successors he would only say that they were both men of less experience than the Judges they displaced; it was rather unfortunate, too, that one of these gentlemen was a member of the Senate, which removed the two Judges in question and appointed with their successors. There was a hardship as | sanction given to their dismissal. If there to the time of their removal. It was the were any charge against these two Judges, intention of Sir Giorgio Marcoran to have they were at least entitled to know it; and resigned his seat on the bench in a few if, without any accusation, they had been months, when, as he had stated, he would sacrificed to a political necessity, they have received the highest scale of pension. might at least have been spared for a He now found himself discarded, and few months, until they attained that term would only receive the pension which of service which would have given them he might have claimed seven years ago, the pension to which they were equitahad he then retired, although he had con- bly entitled. Even now, under the contributed to the Pension Fund during the stitution, he believed the noble Duke had whole of that interval. Sir Anastasio power to retrace the steps which had Xidian had been in like manner entitled been taken, and to reinstate the Judges. four years and a half ago to the pension he He did not expect him to adopt any such would now receive. These gentlemen na- course, nor would it, perhaps, be at all turally felt themselves disgraced in the desirable; but he thought it would be eyes of their fellow countrymen by their quite possible for the noble Duke to give sudden dismissal, and they appealed to the instructions to the Lord High CommisDuke of Newcastle, but their appeal had sioner to advise the Legislative Assembly been rejected. He was satisfied that all to supplement the pensions of these rethe circumstances could not have been moved Judges by a vote. It was very communicated to the noble Duke, or else possible-it was even extremely probable that there was something behind which had not been brought to his (Lord Chelmsford's) knowledge, and which, if known, would give an entirely different complexion to the case. It was said that a perfectly legal right existed to remove these two Judges; but it was impossible such a course could be perfectly legal, unless from the notion of legality were removed all sense of equity and justice. His noble Friend (the Duke of Newcastle) said, that under existing circumstances, their removal was conducive to the public advantage. His noble Friend was, of course, aware of the nature of the existing circumstances; but they had never been communicated to the Judges who were removed, and he (Lord Chelmsford) could not conceive any public advantage which could outweigh the inconvenience and disadvantage of shaking the independence of the Judges of the Supreme Court, and of introducing a sense of insecurity into all the tribunals throughout the Islands. He did not believe that any allegation of misconduct would be charged against the Judges, because the noble Duke, on the application to him being renewed, said that he still adhered to his former determination, but he sent a letter to the Lord High Com missioner, in which he expressed apprehension lest the Judges should imagine that their long service had not been duly appreciated by Her Majesty's Government. This was but a scant acknowledgment of long and faithful service, and the only appreciation of that service by the Government, of which they were aware, was the that the Legislative Assembly would not agree to that proposal; but, at all events, it would be satisfactory to those gentlemen to know that their services had been properly appreciated, and that in their removal from office they lay under no stigma. Unless the noble Duke was able to introduce circumstances which he was not acquainted, he thought he was entitled to ask, at his hands, for an explicit avowal that there had been no misconduct on the part of these Judges, who would thus be freed from unfavourable suspicion, and would not, for the remainder of their lives, be disgraced in the eyes of their countrymen. The noble and learned Lord concluded by moving― "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Copies or Extracts of Correspondence and Papers on the Subject of the Removal of Two of the Judges of the Supreme Council of Justice of the United States of the Ionian Islands." THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE said, he was glad, though somewhat surprised, that his noble and learned Friend should have confined his observations entirely to one point-namely, the reasons why the Judges had not been re-appointed. At the outset of his speech, and still more distinctly at its close, his noble and learned Friend admitted that the act was perfectly legal; whereas he was fully aware, from the instructions which he received from the persons most interested, it had been denied by those gentlemen that the transaction was legal. The gist of the complaint made by the Judges was that their removal was in "The proposal of rendering the appointments of the Judges co-extensive with their lives, or rather with their good behaviour, appears to me portance. The great principle of judicial indeto raise a doubtful question of considerable im consistent, not merely with the practice, a quinquennium, or upon a dissolution-a rule to but with the letter of the constitution; which the Judges form no exception; and the and they distinctly asserted that the ar-change now proposed, if your Lordship sees expeticle which had reference to the re-ap- inserting an excepting clause in favour of the dient to approve it, might be effected either by pointment of public officers was inapplica- Judges in the Article above cited, or by adding ble to the case of Judges. Had that point a declaratory article to the like effect in the prebeen raised, he should have been prepared sent chapter on the judicial organization." to show that by the constitution of the Lord Glenelg, in replying to Sir Howard Ionian Islands the Judges were removable, Douglas, said— or rather that their non-reappointment at the end of the quinquennial period was distinctly contemplated. On that point the law was clear. The noble and learned Lord, however, admitting the legality of their re-pendence is so universally acknowledged as the moval from office, deprecated this parti- basis of government that any reasoning in its cular provision in the constitution of the support would be superfluous. But that princi Ionian Islands as being calculated to ren- other free States, is qualified and protected from ple, as it is established in this country and in der the Supreme Court of Jurisdiction less abuse by other principles of at least equal importworthy of the confidence of the people, and ance. Such especially are:-1st, the right of as being a rule which probably had its the representatives of the people to address the origin in corrupt times and had fallen into Crown for the removal of any Judge for imputed desuetude. Whatever might have been misconduct; 2nd, the right of the public at large the origin of the provision-whether it 3rd, the right of a supreme tribunal, exempt from freely to discuss the judicial administration; and had grown out of any mistrust of the all reasonable suspicion of prejudice, to receive honesty or integrity of the Judges of that and to decide upon impeachments of the Judges. court-it had certainly continued in full In countries where there is no popular represenoperation, and he should be able to show tribunal commanding public confidence for the tation, no freedom of the press, and no supreme that in its exercise by successive Secreta- trial of impeachments, the independent tenure of ries of State down to the present time the judicial office might not improbably create an there had been no distinction between the arbitrary power much more formidable than any Judges of the Supreme Court and any It is a part of a general system of a free Constiof which it could prevent or punish the abuse. other Judges. The rule had not fallen tutional Government; and when isolated and deinto desuetude, for, as he could show by tached from other free institutions, would lose reference to the official records, at the end much of its value, and would probably undergo an of every quinquennial period there had entire change in its essential character. For been instances of the non-reappointment of this part of the limited reform recommended, these reasons I am not satisfied of the prudence of some or other of the Judges of the and I trust that so much of the measure will not Ionian Islands, although not in every case be proposed for Her Majesty's sanction in any of Judges of the Supreme Court. But to formal manner, until you shall have fully condraw a distinction on ground of principle sidered the objections to which it appears liable, between these and other Judges would be and have reported the view which you may ultias absurd as to say that the Acts of William On receipt of that despatch Sir Howard mately take of those objections." III. and George III. in this country ap- Douglas wrote to Lord Glenelg, stating plied only to the Chief Justices of each that the proposition for appointing the court, and not to the Puisne Judges. He was not defending the principle of quin-cordance with his Lordship's opinions, in Judges for life would be rescinded in acquennial appointments, which were, per- which he entirely concurred. Sir Howard haps, if not a consequence, at any rate an accompaniment, of some of the evils attend- Douglas was not the only Lord High Comant on the present constitution of the Ionian missioner who had approached this subject. Islands. But the subject had been repeat-terations; and Lord Stanley, the Secretary Mr. Stuart Mackenzie proposed several aledly brought forward and discussed at the edly brought forward and discussed at the of State, in communicating with him, reinstance of successive Lord High Commis-ferred to the Bill for extending the comsioners and Secretaries of State. In the mission of the Judges for life, and expressed year 1838 there was a despatch from Sir Howard Douglas to Lord Glenelg which his disapproval of its provisions. noble Lord directed the withdrawal of that saidthe 13th section of the constitution, and Bill, the object of which was to abrogate The "It was further recommended that the Judges should hold their appointment for life. By Arti- | cle 13, chap. 1 (which treats of the general organ- to make the Judges hold their offices for ization) all appointments terminate at the end of life, and it was withdrawn. This state |