libelled king, lords, and commons, without parliament having moved any address to the Crown. Lord Eldon's predecessor in the office of Attorney-general, pursued the same course. The information against Paine, for publishing the Rights of Man, proceeded on the ground that the work was a libel on parts of the constitution. During the period when lord Ellenborough was Attorney-general, there were three informations of this nature. When sir William Garrow was Attorney-general, there were four informations and one indictment for libels against the House of Commons, published whilst the House was sitting. When sir S. Shepherd was Attorney-general, there were ten informations for libels on the House, during the sitting of parliament. When lord Gifford was Attorney-general, the same course had been pursued with respect to similar libels. Moreover, this was not a libel merely against parliament. It was, likewise, a libel against the king; and no man would maintain, that, if the king should happen to be attacked along with the parliament, and the ministers, it was for that reason less a libel on the king, and that the party should not be prosecuted for it. If sir C. Wetherell had bestowed a part of his time in the search of precedents on this point, he would have found five hundred instances, and no one besides himself and Mr. Alexander would have objected to the course pursued.

As the motion was merely for the production of papers, without pointing at any substantive proposition, and the Attorney-general was willing that the papers should be produced, there was no

debate. Sir Francis Burdett admitted, that it was made out that the Attorney-general, after commencing in one manner, had proceeded in another; and that thus some expense might have been occasioned to the defendant; but this was the whole amount of the alleged cruelty and oppression. Both Mr. Peel and the Attorney-general ascribed the prosecutions to this, that the tendency of the libels was to prevent the excitement, which had been raised by the Catholic question, from subsiding after the bill had been passed. The general impression on the House, however, seemed to be, that the prosecutions were harsh and vindictive; that their object was to crush an obnoxious newspaper, and in that they succeeded,

and that sir James Scarlett, notwithstanding his whig education, and opposition life, was inclined. to be a very dictatorial Attorneygeneral. His defence satisfied nobody, and it was plain that his former friends had cast him off.

The Attorney-general attempted to recover the ground which he had lost, by carrying through a bill to mitigate, in some respects, the existing law of libel. By one of what were called the Six Acts, passed in 1819 and 1820, when great disaffection and disturbances were prevailing, it had been provided, that a second conviction for a seditious or blasphemous libel might be punished with transportation. Another act of the same session had provided, that every person who should publish a newspaper, or certain other publications, should first enter into a recognizance of 3001., with two sufficient sureties, in the metropolis; and if in the country, the amount was to be 2007. The object of this clause

was, to guard against the circulation of blasphemous and seditious libels, and to ensure a forthcoming fund out of which their au thors should pay the awarded penalty. By the bill which was now introduced, the punishment of transportation for the second offence was to be repealed, while the securities demanded were to be raised from 300l. to 4007. in London, and from 2001. to 300l. in the country, and the sum covered by them was to be made available for paying damages awarded, as well as fines imposed. To the first of those propositions there was no objection; but a strenuous opposition was made to the second, to adopt which, it was said, would be imposing new shackles on the press, while the Attorney-general claimed merit to himself for conferring by his bill a great boon. The repeal of the power of transporting was practically no concession. It was a power which it had been known from the beginning would never be exercised. Since the day of passing the act, it had remained inoperative, and no minister would begin to use it now. When the new bill was in committee, the committee, on the motion of lord Morpeth, by a majority rejected the clause; but, on the third reading, the Attorney-general, having brought down, or taking advantage of having opportunely found, a more numerous attendance of ministerial members, moved, and carried, the restoration of the clause.

This session presented the rare occurrence of an address to the Crown by both Houses of parliament, praying for the removal of a judge, on the ground of malversation in his office. The delinquent was sir Jonah Barrington,

judge of the High Court of Admiralty in Ireland, and the offences had been committed so far back as 1805, 1806, and 1810. The detection had taken place in the course of the investigations instituted by the commissioners of inquiry into the Courts of Justice in Ireland; and the facts were thus stated in a resolution which was now moved, and unanimously agreed to by the House: "Statements were made to the commissioners upon oath, and confirmed by documents, by which it appeared, that in two several derelict cases, which were adjudicated in the High Court of Admiralty, the judge who then presided, sir Jonah Barrington, had appropriated to his own use certain portions of the proceeds. In the first of these cases, the Nancy derelict,' sir Jonah appropriated to his own use out of the proceeds, 4821. 8s. 8d., and 2007., making together 6821. 8s. 8d., and never repaid any part of either. In the second of those cases, that of the Redstrand derelict,' on the 12th of January, 1810, the sum of 2001. was paid by the marshal into the registry, on account of the proceeds in the cause; and, on the same day, sir Jonah Barrington, by an order in his own handwriting, which was produced to the commissioners, directed the registrar to lodge that sum to his (the judge's) credit in the bank of sir William Gleadowe Newcomen, which he (the registrar) accordingly did. Subsequently, a petition having been presented to the Court by Mr. Henry Pyne Masters, one of the salvagers, sir Jonah wrote an order at the foot of it, bearing date the 29th day of May, 1810, directing the registrar to pay to the petitioner a sum of

40%.; and, at the same time, he wrote a note to Mr. Masters, requesting that he would not present the order for two months, at the close of which period sir Jonah left Ireland, and never returned. Mr. Masters, after a considerable time (upwards of four years), finding that he could not get his money, prepared a memorial, addressed to the lordlieutenant, stating the circumstances, and complaining of the conduct of the judge; and, going to the registrar, he demanded payment of his money, otherwise he would immediately present the memorial which he held in his hand. The registrar, anxious, as he stated, to screen the judge, on the 8th day of July, 1814, paid Mr. Masters the money out of his own pocket, and produced to the commissioners his receipt, and a letter of acknowledgement from Mr. Masters for his good conduct in the transaction. Under somewhat similar circumstances, the registrar paid a further sum of 91. 12s. 9d. to Mr. John Wycherley, another salvor, who came to Dublin to endeavour to get his money. Sir Jonah Barrington having represented his inability to attempt a journey to Ireland, an extract from the minutes of the proceedings of the commissioners was transmitted to him, containing every thing at that time deposed to, by which his character might be affected. Subsequently, sundry communications were received from him. Assertions of general denial, contained in these and subsequent letters, were the only contradiction or explanation of the foregoing facts, given by sir Jonah to the commissioners, which contradiction would have had much weight with the commissioners, had the alleged facts been supported only by the

parole testimony of the officer who stated them; but when the commissioners found the handwriting of sir Jonah Barrington himself supporting the statement of the witness, they could not avoid giving credit to his (the witness's) evidence. They resumed the examination of the registrar; and the registrar, though aware that they had been in communication with sir Jonah, who might, if he had sworn falsely, have suggested means of contradicting him, persisted in his former evidence, and furnished other documents, tending to confirm his testimony, which he had subsequently found." The facts were thus detailed by the commissioners, in their eighteenth report. That report, with the evidence and documents, had been referred, by the House of Commons, to a select committee, during the last session. The committee now reported their opinion that the matters contained in the report were true; and the House resolved, "That sir Jonah Barrington has been guilty of serious malversation in the discharge of his office of judge of the High Court of Admiralty, and that it is unfit, and would be of bad example, that he should continue to hold the said office."-The resolution having been adopted in committee, sir Jonah, having petitioned to that effect, was heard by Counsel on the motion for bringing up the report. His counsel did not enter upon the merits of the case, but merely objected to the course of proceeding which had been followed, contending, that it was irregular and unconstitutional to condemn a judge on the mere report of a committee. He might have been impeached, or, if that mode of trial was reckon

ed too cumbersome and tedious, a scire facias might have been sued out, to abrogate the patent of office, or a criminal information could have been filed by the Attorneygeneral. At all events, if the House determined on taking the matter into its own hands, instead of sending the case to a jury, it ought to have heard the evidence at the bar, and not proceed, in the exercise of so high a function, on the opinionofa few of its members, sitting in a select committee. The present would be a most dangerous precedent. It was not an extravagant supposition, that on a future occasion the ministers of the Crown might wish to get rid of a judge, and to put another person in his place; and all that would be necessary to enable them to effect that object would be, to obtain a report from a select committee, as had been done on the present occasion. In the House it was answered, that to hold that the House of Commons must necessarily proceed in such a case on the verdict of a jury, was to strip it of one of its most important powers. If the malversation had previously to be ascertained by a trial at law, the 12th and 13th of William III. ought not to have been passed at all. That judges should be, as they were, independent of the Crown, no one would question; but was a judge to be allowed to take advantage of that law which conferred this independence on him, to neglect his duty to the country? There were many disqualifications, short of legal crimes, which would justify the removal of a judge. If, for instance, a judge should be guilty of gross and continued immorality, that would justify the House in addressing the Crown for the reVOL. LXXII.

moval of such a person from the bench, though, in the eye of the law, it might not be sufficient for a formal sentence to that effect. Again, the absence of a judge from the realm- pretended indisposition on the part of a judge-advanced age, or infirmities, which unfitted him for the performance of the judicial functions-any of these circumstances would justify the House in addressing the Crown to remove a judge. For, was it to be endured, that a judge, who performed no duty, should be allowed to draw his salary from the public funds? There were many sufficient grounds, then, for an address for the removal of a judge, though no legal crime might be imputed to him. So, also, if no legal crime could be proved against a judge; if a member had a moral conviction that a judge had committed acts which disqualified him for the judicial office, he would be justified in joining in an address to the Crown for the removal of such judge, without waiting for positive proof of the individual's guilt. As to the proposition, not to regard the report of the committee, and still to hear evidence at the bar, in the first place, that was not what sir Jonah asked. His counsel had only objected to the manner of investigation; he did not. crave to be allowed to produce evidence. If he chose to have called witnesses, that was the time to have urged the claim; but no such request was made. In truth, however, the House was not called upon merely to adopt the opinion of the committee. It had, to be sure, the report of the committee, but it had, likewise, all the evidence, both parole and documentary. On that evidence, no member pretend[K]

ed to entertain any doubt of sir Jonah's guilt; the documentary evidence alone, arising out of papers, every one of which was admitted by sir Jonah to be authentic, placed the case beyond the reach of controversy. Two different opportunities had been given to the accused, before two different tribunals, to explain and rebut that evidence, but both of them he had neglected. Even now, he did not tell the House that he could disprove or explain any, or what part of the evidence; and the object in view was clearly to gain time, that the session might pass over.Sir Robert Wilson, therefore, mov, ed, that sir Jonah should be called to the bar, and asked, what is the nature of the evidence which he wished to produce; but only four members supported the proposi

tion.

On the moving of the resolution, that the report of the commissioners was fully borne out by the evidence before the committee, sir Charles Wetherell observed, that, as a constitutional question, he thought the address to the Crown for the removal of a judge from his office ought to be founded on evidence taken at the bar, and not before a select committee. There were, he was ready to admit, circumstances in the present case, which would justify a departure from the general rule for which he contended, as the charges here were mainly dependent on written documents of the party accused; but then those circumstances should be stated in the resolution, as the ground for departing from what he considered the constitutional practice.

Mr. Secretary Peel agreed in this as a general principle; but it

appeared to him, that the case had been legitimately concluded, when the counsel retired from the bar, and that the House would be fully warranted in leaving the special circumstances to be collected from the record. The resolutions having been agreed to, the House then voted, "That an humble address be presented to his Majesty, requesting that he would be graciously pleased to cause the said sir Jonah Barrington to be removed from the office of Judge of the High Court of Admiralty in Ireland." A committee was appointed to draw up the address, which haying been agreed to, it was order. ed to be carried to the Lords and their concurrence therein requested at a conference. The Lords having examined evidence at their bar, unanimously agreed in the address, and sir Jonah was removed.

Committees of the House of Commons, and the Law Commissioners appointed by the Crown, had found much to blame in the arrangements for the distribution of justice in Wales: and an act passed, during the present session, abolishing altogether the separate system of Welsh judicature, and annexing the jurisdiction of the Welsh judges to that of the judges of England. By the same bill, the number of the latter was increased from twelve to fifteen, one new judge being added to each of the three Courts of King's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer. In Scotland, on the other hand, while Courts were abolished, the number of judges in the remaining Court was diminished. The High Court of Admiralty was abolished; as well as the Commissary Court, which