80 the Lord High Commissioner, on obtaining | State, in Parliament, vindicates the course leave of absence, to be away as short a taken by the Lord High Commissioner, time as possible, lest important business by insinuating against them charges which should arise; and yet, before that very have never been brought forward so that leave of absence had expired, the same they might have an opportunity of vindiLord High Commissioner who so praised cating themselves. I hope the noble Duke and so lauded them, so entreated their will not adhere to his determination of early return to their duties, had deter- withholding the correspondence asked for. mined on their dismissal, and was laying I do not ask for the correspondence be before the Secretary of State his opinion tween the Lord High Commissioner and that they were dangerous persons. Is it the Senate, nor that between the Compossible to reconcile with any ordinary missioner and those by whom he has been justice-I do not deny the technical right led or misled; but I say that we have a of the supersession-this keeping of the right to know the ground assigned by the dismissal hanging over their heads without Lord High Commissioner for a most unnotice, to the last moment? I think, at usual and high-handed stretch of power, all events, it was a straining of the and what are the grounds on which the powers of the Lord High Commissioner Secretary of State is prepared to accept to remove them without making a and adopt an Act which, I contend, the charge without giving them an oppor- Queen could not adopt, even as a ministunity of defence. That is a course which terial act, without being satisfied that the it is impossible to vindicate, either by grounds of dismissal were just. I am the spirit of the Ionian Constitution, or, perfectly satisfied, on the statement of my still more, by the rules which prevail in noble and learned Friend, and the statethis country. The noble Duke had of- ment of the Secretary of State, to leave fered something like an insinuation against the case of these gentlemen to the decision these gentlemen, in what he said upon of the Parliament and the country. But, the remark of my noble and learned before I sit down, allow me to add one Friend upon the habitual corruption of thing. We are now about to withdraw officials in the Ionian Islands. But my our protectorate from the Ionian Islands. noble and learned Friend alluded to the Let not the last act done with regard to state of things which existed forty years those islands be one which will cast sussince, and congratulated himself and the picion upon our respect for the indepencountry that the period had long gone dence of the judicial bench, or our respect by. There was a constant train of evidence for the integrity of the judicial character ; showing, that during the whole of the and let it not be said that we have ventime these Judges sat on the bench there tured to adopt an arbitrary course with had not been the slightest imputation respect to the Supreme Court of States against their personal integrity, their confided to our protection, a course which ability, and the manner in which they we never should have ventured to apply to discharged their duties. It is rather hard, any place which is, properly speaking, a then, that a dismissal, given without the portion of Her Majesty's dominions. slightest cause being assigned, to men of high character, should be palliated by the fact that forty years ago there was a suspicion of foul practice in the courts. If the Judges had been guilty of violation of duty, or suffered themselves to be led away from their duties as Judges-if they were dangerous men-if, by their conduct, they had caused well-founded discontent-it was due to them-it was due to justice itself-precisely the same footing as that of Engthat the charge should have been early made against them, and that they should have had an opportunity of being heard in their own defence, and not dismissed in the first place, without the slightest cause assign ed; nay, with the highest laudation of their demeanour as Judges. And now, after their dismissal, the Secretary of THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE explained that he had been quite misapprehended. He was quite prepared to give the papers, provided the usual words, Copies or Extracts," were attached; and if the papers when produced did not give all the information that was required, it would be for Parliament to call for further particulars. The law of the Australian Colonies was on land with respect to the apointment of the Chief Justices and Puisne Judges; and the distinction which he had attempted to draw between the case of the Australian and Ionian Judges was, that what applied to one case could not apply to another, where the law was different. So far as political considerations entered into the the Lord High Commissioner, and they were appointed for a period of five years. Now, the arguments applicable to the irremovability of Judges were wholly inapplicable in the case of a people who start removal of the Judges, it was not, as the noble Earl seemed to suppose, because the political opinions of the Judges were at variance with those of the Lord High Commissioner that they were removed, but it was because the Judges had mixed them-ed with this principle-that to their mind selves with the politics of the country at all. He entirely agreed with the Lord High Commissioner, that Judges should keep as clear of politics as possible. and according to their notion of Govern- THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, he had not intended to take any part in the discussion, but he thought what had occurred rendered it right that he should say a few words upon a subject so interesting and important. He was happy to think that the subject had been introduced by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Chelmsford) in a speech as temperate as it was clear; and he was followed by the noble Earl in a speech full of that eloquence and ardour which distinguished his addresses on all occasions. But throughout the whole of those speeches words had been used and appeals made to sentiments and feelings which were very dear to the English mind, which were associated with all that we held sacred and important, but which, in his opinion, were beside the subject before the House. The noble and learned Lord said frequently, and the noble Earl also repeated the phrase, that those Judges had been removed, dismissed, superseded under circumstances involving great hardship, if not oppression, and had been condemned without the opportunity of being heard. The independence of the Judges was a matter about which every Englishman felt most jealous. But that feeling must not be carried too far. The feeling which we had with regard to our Constitution must not be carried along with us in the consideration of the circumstances applicable to other countries. But first, what were the facts? Why, those Judges had not been removed at all. It was incorrect to say that they had been either removed or dismissed. It had been admitted in one instance by the noble and learned Lord, that strictly speaking, they had not been removed; but through the whole of his argument, and through the address of the noble Earl, the appeal to the House was made altogether upon the grounds of the But if, after so long an inremoval, which was assumed without any terval, the Senate came to an opposite foundation at all. The Constitution of conclusion, ought not their Lordships the Ionian Islands was of this nature rather to give them credit for having exthat two of the Judges should be appoint-ercised their right prudently and wisely? ed by the Senate, with the approbation of No doubt their Lordships and he did They not deny that such were his own feelings | two Judges had not been removed, but that -would like to see a change in the they held their places only for a time. lonian judicature in regard to the dis- The Lord Chancellor had answered the armissal of Judges, but it would be neces-gument that the practice had been the sary, for this purpose, to alter the Con- other way by hinting that the Ionian Senate stitution of the Ionian Islands; but so had doubtless now, after twenty-four years, long as the power and privilege existed, found a reason for getting rid of these their Lordships were not entitled to for- Judges. That argument was, to his mind, bid the Senate to exercise their right. very equivocal and unsatisfactory. While His noble Friend (the Duke of Newcastle) in office he himself had occasion to recomhad asked-and he thought the circum-mend to Her Majesty that Judges should stance ought to be conclusive-who had be removed, but he regarded the principle complained of this act of the Senate? of judicial independence as of such extreme Had there been a single complaint, ex-importance that he never took that step cept from the two gentlemen concerned? without referring the questions connected What their Lordships wanted to know with the conduct of the Judge to the Juwas the cause which rendered it expedi-dicial Committee of the Privy Council. ent for the Senate, the Lord High Com- In a particular case, one of the most dismissioner, and the Secretary of State, in tinguished Governors at that time in the the first place, to take this step, and then service of the Crown complained, and with to approve it. His noble Friend labour- great reason, of the conduct of a Judge ; ed under this difficulty:-That if he told and because the Crown refused to exercise their Lordships all the arguments and cir- its extreme prerogative in dismissing that cumstances which led the Senate to act Judge he resigned his office. Although as they did, he might possibly heap upon the loss to the public service at the time these gentlemen a severe sentence of con- was serious, he (Earl Grey) incurred it demnation. The noble Duke had taken rather than depart from the principle that the better and more merciful part of the conduct of a judicial functionary ought, stating that they had not been removed in the first instance, to be thoroughly invesfor any judicial fault or imputation on tigated before the Committee of the Privy their moral character, but that they had Council. Technically and legally, the effect been removed because they felt it their of not re-appointing these Ionian Judges duty to act under the influence of certain was the same as if they had been removed. political principles, which were felt by The noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle) those who had charge of the Government said that their removal was of greater imof the Ionian Islands to be incompatible portance to the people of the Ionian Islands with the tranquillity of the country. Their than the maintenance of the ordinary course Lordships, he repeated, had no right to of justice, the measure being, in fact, essendeal with this question on the principles tial for that purpose. Unless it was capable of the English Constitution when it was of being thoroughly substantiated, this was the Ionian Constitution under which the a grave accusation to bring against two act had been done. They ought rather high functionaries. In former times there to give credit to the Ionian Senate for had been inefficient Judges in this country; having exercised their judgment, not wil- but it had always been held better to subfully or perversely, but wisely and to the mit to temporary inconvenience than to best of their ability. If their Lordships violate the great principle of judicial indetook any other view of this matter, their pendence by the arbitrary removal of indiinterference would be of a very mischie-viduals. Vous character. EARL GREY said, he had listened to this debate with great regret, and this regret had been much increased by the speech to which he had just listened. He held that the principle of the administration of justice by Judges independent alike of popular clamour and executive power was at the very root of all good government. That principle was not less applicable to the Ionian Islands than to Great Britain. Their Lordships had been told that these It had been hinted that these judges were removed for political partisanship. That, if established, was a sufficient ground for the action of the Government, and it would have been a very proper course for the Lord High Commissioner to warn them, that if they presumed to act as partisans, the legal power of the Crown would be exerted to its fullest extent for their removal. But it was quite another thing to withhold all information, to refuse to state the grounds for not re-appointing them, to bring forward no direct charge in WEST HARTLEPOOL HARBOUR AND THIRD READING. Order for Third Reading read. Parliament, but to make insinuations which, if they had any meaning whatever, meant that they had been guilty of political misconduct. He knew something of the diffi. culties of government in the Ionian Islands, and he believed that the greatest service which England had it in her power to render to that dependency was to teach the people of those Islands, not only by precept but by example, respect for those high constitutional principles which were observed and respected in this country. The system of intrigue and corruption which had prevailed so deeply in the Ionian Islands could not be met by having recourse to similar artifices. British authority must take its stand on high constitutional principles; and if the Government could not be successfully administered from that level, the responsibility would rest on those who opposed it. A temporary exercise of the power of the Crown, not descending to intrigue, and avoiding any extraordinary and arbitrary use of the authority vested in the protect ing Power, a straightforward and simple adherence to great principles of government, would, he was convinced, afford the best means of bringing about improvements in the state of the Ionian Islands. In the course which had been taken this wholesome rule of action had been departed from, and he had heard with regret the defence urged by men in the high position of the noble Duke and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. Motion agreed to. House adjourned at Eight o'clock, HOUSE OF COMMONS, MINUTES.] tee. MR. ROEBUCK said, that last year he had presented a Petition from a gentleman named Coleman in reference to the affairs of the company, in which he stated that the chairman (Mr. Jackson) had imposed, not only upon the public, but upon the House. Power had been given to the company, under certain circumstances, to borrow £700,000. The chairman, had, however, employed his ingenuity to induce the public to lend two million and some odd hundred thousand pounds. When he brought the matter forward, he asked the House to grant a Select Committee to inquire into the allegations of Mr. Coleman's Petition. But the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Farrer) then got up and said he was the personal friend of the chairman of the company, that that chairman was a perfectly honourable man, and that he (Mr. Farrer) was ready to vouch for it that the allegations in the Petition were untrue. Now, those allegations had been proved to be true before a Committee of the House, and he (Mr. Roebuck) defied the hon. Member to deny that assertion. It also appeared that an agreement between Mr. Coleman and the company had been drawn up by the brother of the hon. Member for South Durham. That agreement, a copy of which he (Mr. Roebuck) held in his hand, clearly showed that Mr. Coleman was not in any way amenable to the assertions made by the hon. Gentleman to whom he alluded. At a recent meeting of the company, a report of the directors was read, in which it was stated "The Directors are, however, happy to report that Mr. Coleman's suit in Chancery has been terminated by an arrangement between him and the late Directors, and the Board concurs in the following statement, which forms part of the arrangement : "The defendants (the company) admit that the SUPPLY-considered in Commit-proceedings of Mr Coleman have not been taken by him from any motive of private gain, and that the charges made by him in his Bill in Chancery have been supported by the evidence, and that the institution of these proceedings was not in violation of any antecedent contract or engagement by him, and that they have been calculated to place the affairs of the company on the present sound and legal basis." WAYS AND MEANS-Resolutions (April 16) re- Gardens in Towns Protection (Lords) [Bill 50]. Third Reading-Telegraphs [Bill 78], re-committed: Office of Secretary at War Abolition [Bill 72], and passed; Oaths Relief in Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) [Bill 74], and passed. He (Mr. Roebuck) thought it would have been graceful on the part of the Member for South Durham (Mr. Farrer), who had twitted him with his conduct in present- | disputed that Mr. Jackson's proceedings ing the Petition, if, after the allegations in had been very irregular; but what he had that Petition were proved to be true, he said had been based on sound documentary had risen and admitted the fact. The evidence, which he should be glad to show Bill before them was the result of the the hon. and learned Member. He trusted proceedings of the chairman. On the part the House would throw no impediment in of the company, that gentleman, had is the way of the passing the Bill, which was sued debenture stock, as it was imagined calculated to remove great difficulties, to under the sanction of an Act of Parlia- repair much irregularity, and to place on ment, and by the Bill it was intended to a sound and firm basis the affairs of a large deprive the holders of that stock of the and thriving company, who were adopting preferential right to which they were en- the most strenuous measures for the detitled, and to place all demands against velopment of the resources of a highly imthe company on a footing of perfect equal-portant district. The port of Hartlepool ity. The subject was one of great im- stood upon its own merits, and it was portance in the country, many people therefore unnecessary for him to defend having invested large sums of money in its interests. In conclusion, he apologized debenture stocks. The Bill, however, was to the House for occupying their attention the first step in the business of repudia- in a matter personal to himself. tion, which ought to be carefully watched by the House. He had nothing further to say except that the allegations in the Petition he had presented had been shown to be true, that the assertions of the hon. Member (Mr. Farrer) in respect to those allegations had turned out to be incorrect, and that no apology had been made for the incorrectness of those assertions. MR. FARRER said, he was surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman had taken that opportunity of making a personal attack on himself, without giving him the slightest notice that it was the intention of the hon and learned Gentleman to impugn his conduct before the House. He was, however, prepared to reply to the attack which had been made upon him. The hon. and learned Gentleman imputed to him (Mr. Farrer), as a fault, that his brother had been instrumental in drawing up the agreement between Mr. Coleman and the company. He was no lawyer, and he need hardly say he did not interfere in any way with his brother's professional affairs. Further, he denied that when he spoke upon the Petition presented by the hon. and learned Gentleman, he had made any attack upon him. All he then stated was that the grounds upon which the Petition was framed were not such as to require the intervention of the House, in the shape of a Select Committee. With reference to the document quoted by the hon. Gentleman (Mr Roebuck), he must remind the House that it did not admit that all the allegations of Mr. Coleman were correct. Moreover, he understood that the report of the directors, which had been quoted, was not agreed to unanimously by the boards. He (Mr. Farrer) had never MR. PEASE said, he was prepared to defend the integrity of both the hon. Members opposite, each of whom he believed to be influenced by the most honourable motives in the matter, and to be justified in the course he had taken, from the impressions under which he acted. Although some of the provisions of the Bill were of an unusual character, the circumstances under which they were framed were also unusual. He trusted, therefore, that no opposition would be thrown in the way of the passing of the Bill, which was calculated to prevent much litigation, and be a great boon to the bondholders. Bill read 3o, and passed. DOCK AND VICTUALLING CRAFT. MR. FERRAND said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Board intend to comply with the Memorial of the Masters of Dock and Victualling Craft for increase of pay, or to restore the pensions to their widows. LORD CLARENCE PAGET replied, that the question of pay of the Masters of Dock and Victualling Craft was fully entered into in 1857, and it was not the intention of the Admiralty to re-open it; but he might state for the information of the hon. Gentleman that it had been in serious contemplation by the Admiralty to do away with the masters of the craft altogether, and to substitute for them warrant officers and seamen of the Royal Navy, who might be called upon to serve their country in case of war. |