and, as he need not remind those now on the Treasury bench, that it had been very recently shown, that a long and faithful discharge of his duties to the House was not always considered sufficient to ensure the re-election of a Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the exclusion of the Judge of the Admiralty Court, and had, in attributing it to him, satirically called it a benefit which he had procured for the House. He (Lord Hotham) had in a former debate explained the grounds on which he had proceeded on the occasion to which the right hon. Gentleman had al

ble the House with a repetition of them; but the right hon. Gentleman now imposed upon him the necessity of stating more fully to the House the circumstances attending the exclusion of that learned Judge. The exclusion of that high functionary from the House of Commons was expressly recommended by a Committee which sat in 1833, which also recommended that Judges,

counter so formidable an opposition, it was | candidate at an election-that the same nevertheless his duty; and, moreover, he act which sent Members to their constiwas extremely anxious to say something in tuents, terminated also the office of Speaker answer to what had been advanced against the measure he had ventured to introduce, and which the House had hitherto been pleased to view with favour. He trusted, therefore, that the House would bear with him for a short time, while he endeavoured to do so. It was not without regret that he found himself so strongly opposed by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, who had now been heard by many Members of the House for the first time. He (Lord Hotham) had had many former opportunities of hearing him, and whether agreeing with or differing from the right hon. Gentleman, he always listened with plea-luded, and was therefore unwilling to trousure to his speeches. But a great deal of the eloquent speech which the right hon. Gentleman had just delivered, referred not to any consequences which the present Bill could produce, but to times past, and to a state of things no longer existing. The right hon. Gentleman had inquired why it was that he (Lord Hotham) wished to exclude Judges from the House of Commons, without taking equal exception to their sit-instead of being paid by fees, should be paid ting in the House of Lords? If the right by fixed salaries, and should have retiring hon. Gentleman had attended the former pensions, but should be incapacitated from discussions on this Bill, he would have sitting in that House. According to the heard the distinction between the two cases statement of the right hon. Gentleman, it sufficiently explained; and he (Lord Ho- might be supposed that the Members of that tham) would repeat that explanation now, Committee were young and inexperienced if the right hon. Gentleman had not an- politicians, having little, if any, regard for swered his own inquiry in reminding the the stability of our institutions. The House House that Peers were, ipso facto, Judges would perhaps permit him to give the names -an admission which, if it proved anything, of some of the hon. Members who served might be considered as pointing to the pe- upon that Committee, and it would then be culiar propriety of learned Judges having seen how far they were of that description. seats in that assembly. The right hon. The Chairman of that Committee he saw Gentleman had made another statement, opposite to him, the right hon. Gentleman which coming from one so conversant with the Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere), history as himself, had astonished him and the Report of the Committee was in (Lord Hotham) more than he could express. all probability drawn by him according to The right hon. Gentleman had asked, with Parliamentary usage. He (Lord Hotham) an air of triumph, how the judicial office had in his hand a copy of the Report of could be degraded by the appearance of that Committee, and he would mention the Judges as candidates for seats in a popu- names of some of those daring invaders lar assembly, without the dignity of the who had proposed this measure. First, was high office now so ably filled by the right the late Sir Robert Peel. Was he a man hon. Gentleman in the chair, being in like likely to have proposed any measure which manner impaired? But the right hon. would degrade the character of the House Member for Edinburgh had strangely for- of Commons, and was he not well acquaintgotten the entire want of analogy between ed with what were the duties both of a the two cases, and had supposed that which Judge and of a Member of Parliament ? could never Occur- -it being obvious to The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of every one that no one not already a Mem- the Admiralty (Sir J. Graham), whose opinber of the House could be its Speaker-ion on this subject he (Lord Hotham) knew, that therefore a Speaker never could be a and whom he was sorry not to see in his

place, was also a Member of that Committee. Then came Mr. Charles Williams Wynne, Sir James Scarlett, afterwards Lord Abinger, Mr. Abercromby, now Lord Dunfermline; the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn); the present Chief Baron of the Exchequer; Lord Campbell, then Solicitor General; the present Chief Justice of the Common Pleas; Lord Sandon, now the Earl of Harrowby; Sir John Nicholl, Mr. Cutlar Ferguson, Serjeant Spankie, Mr. Estcourt, Mr. William Brougham, a Master in Chancery; Lord Ebrington, now Earl Fortescue; Sir Charles Lemon; and the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford-heretofore the uncompromising champion of consistency

many hon. Gentlemen had been unseated in consequence of acts committed by persons in connexion with them. Now, it might be an unfortunate thing for a private individual to lose his seat upon such grounds as these; but he would ask the House, would not the judicial bench be degraded if the Master of the Rolls, or any other Judge, were declared, by his agents, guilty of bribery; and whether such degradation would be removed by the Committee reporting that it had not been proved to their satisfaction that such bribery was committed with the knowledge or sanction of the learned Judge? There was also one point which he (Lord Hotham) had before referred to, and that was, that the Master of the Rolls was liable to be called upon to decide cases in which his own con

SIR ROBERT H. INGLIS: I did not stituents were concerned. He had since concur in the recommendation.

the last occasion on which this subject had been under discussion in that House, noticed in the Rolls Court cases connected with the disposal of charities proceeding from electoral boroughs; and there was nothing to prevent cases being brought for decision from the very borough which the Judge himself represented. He had on former occasions quoted, in support of the course which he felt it his duty to pursue, the opinions of individuals well conversant with the duties of a Judge, and also of the duties of a Member of that House-opinions which ought to bear some weight with the right hon. Gentleman himself. He had quoted the opinion of a learned Gentleman, which, upon a subject of this nature, was well worthy of the consideration of the House

LORD HOTHAM: But the hon. Baronet never took any opportunity of expressing his dissent from the Report; and last came the learned Judge himself, Dr. Lushington, then one of the most distinguished Advocates in Doctors' Commons. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh had asked him if there was any degradation in canvassing those 5. freeholders whom the hon. Member for West Surrey considered ought to be disfranchised? What he meant to say was, that there were things to be done at every election, which, although no degradation to private persons, were not compatible with the dignity of a person holding a high judicial office. As an illustration, he would take a case which had occurred at the last general election-a-the opinion of the late Sir Samuel Rocase where the nomination was attended by a large crowd of persons, and one of the candidates, not being allowed to speak when he wished to address his constituents, was at length obliged to retire to the back of the hustings, and surround himself with the representatives of the press, who alone had the benefit of hearing his discourse. Would such a scene as that have well become the gravity of the judicial character? In the chairing, too, he would ask was there nothing in which a Judge ought not to join? He had seen at the conclusion of an election for the city of Oxford the successful candidate carried up the High-street with the back of his head streaming with blood a parting compliment from some disappointed adversary. A learned Judge, too, would not be exempt from the chance of a petition being presented against his return; and the House was aware how

milly, and it was decisive against the propriety of a Judge being also a Member of that House. The late Master of the Rolls, Lord Langdale, was asked to accept the office upon condition that he became a Member of one or other House of Parliament. The noble and learned Lord refused, stating that he thought it quite clear that the Master of the Rolls ought not to be a Member of the House of Commons, for if an active Member he would act in a manner inconsistent with his judicial character; if inactive, he might neglect the interests of his constituents, and of those who promoted him; and, active or inactive in the House, he might be placed in the predicament of having to adjudicate in his office between his constituents and others. And he, moreover, distinctly declared that the judicial office was sufficient to occupy the whole of any man's time. Lord

COMBINATION OF WORKMEN BILL.

Further Proceeding on Third Reading [4th May] resumed.

Question again proposed, "That the word now' stand part of the Question."

6

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON said, he had no objection to the principle of this Bill so far as it went to affirm the perfect freedom of all parties to combine for purposes authorised by the existing law; but it was quite clear that that law should not be construed to authorise illegal combinations. His objection to the Bill as it stood, was this. It appeared to him that it would legalise that system of quiet and peaceful intimidation by which poor men, who were in great distress, and were willing to work at the smallest wages by which they could maintain themselves and their families, were sometimes prevented from so working, in order to be driven into combinations with other persons which they did not wish to join. There might be a man standing by the door of a factory, watching every man who went in and out, taking down his name, and giving him to understand that he was a marked man. The poor man who might be the subject of such observation knew he was thereby incurring certain consequences which he preferred to avoid by relinquishing the work on which he and his family altogether depended for subsistence. It appeared to him that such a system would be sanctioned under the words "peaceable intimidation, or inducing other persons to abstain from working. What he should therefore propose was, that this Bill should be now read a third time, and the consideration of any amendments, that could only be proposed after the third reading, be postponed for a fortnight, in order to allow time to consult with the law officers of the Crown with reference to framing a clause to meet the objection.

MR. DRUMMOND said, he quite agreed in thinking that the objections to which the Bill was liable ought to be removed, and that a fortnight ought to be given with that view.

Bill read 3°

HACKNEY CARRIAGES (METROPOLIS)

BILL.

Further Proceeding on Third Reading [30th May] resumed.

MR. PIGOTT moved the following Amendment. At the end of Clause 2, to add the words :

"Provided, however, that in case of the refusal or suspension of any such licence as aforesaid, it shall be lawful for the proprietor of any such Stage or Ilackney Carriage, or other persons applying for such licence, or subjected to such suspension, to appeal from the decision of the Commissioners of Police to the Metropolitan Police Magistrate for the time being sitting at the Police Office at Bow Street."

SIR ROBERT H. INGLIS seconded the Amendment. He thought, that considering the amount of capital engaged in this trade, it would be unjust to allow these matters to be decided by a single individual, without the power of appeal.

MR. WHALLEY said, he thought that the Police Commissioners would form a most useful tribunal to be invested with any kind of judicial authority.

MR. FITZROY said, that the Amendment would render the Bill nugatory so far as it regarded the refusal or suspension of licences.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The House divided :-Ayes 42; Noes 79: Majority 37.

MR. ALDERMAN CUBITT rose to propose an Amendment in Clause 6, line 32: after the word ' elsewhere, to insert the words "within the Metropolitan Police District.'

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

And it being Six of the Clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House till Tomorrow, without putting the Question.