of justice that evening ought not to be made use of on slight grounds. It was an imputation on both those who framed, and those who administered the laws, to say, that the interests of seamen were neglected; and, if he had said so himself of that hon. gentleman, he should have upon reflection thought. that he did him an injustice. It was essential to the honourable character of the country, that the character of courts. of justice that had to administer not only to our own subjects, but to those of foreign states, should be preserved inviolate; but declarations such as he heard would have a tendency to injure them in the eyes of other nations. If there were any improprieties in the members of those courts which were spoken of, the courts themselves would be ready to chastise their officers.

Admiral Berkeley approved of the principle and the provisions of the bill, with some reserve of modification in the committee. He defended his hon. friend now absent on service (Admiral Cochrane), who had only stated facts.

Sir Charles Pole offered a few words in explanation of an observation made on a former day, that the state of the navy was not what it should be.

Doctor Laurence thought the bill very far from calculated to promote the interest of Doctors Commons, except that large interest which every member of that court took in the honour and character of the country.

The question for the recommitment of the bill was then put and carried.

Mr. Johnstone thought it necessary, before the Speaker should leave the chair, to recommend an instruction to the committee to make some provision for the more speedy determination of cases of appeal, He adverted to the number of decisions of the vice-admiralty courts in the last war. Of the 318 decisions of this kind, 259 had been immediately reversed., He allowed all possible merit to the diligence of the right hon. gentleman opposite (Sir W. Scott) by means of which an accumulation of appeals, to 1000 beginning at the conclusion of the American war, and consequently increasing during the last war, was gradually reduced, and now altogether removed. He represented the great inconvenience and expence attending this delay. He adverted to the improvement of the ap peal tribunal by the association of the judges of the courts in Westminster-hall, in the time of Lord Hardwicke. He also adverted to the system recommended in these cases by Dr.. Paul, Lord Mansfield, Sir Dudley Ryder, and Sir George

Leigh. He thought the administration of the admiralty court ought to be totally separated from that of the court of appeal. He moved that it be an instruction to the committee to make provision for the better regulation and dispatch of the trial of appeals in prize causes.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer allowed, it was important that there should be all due dispatch in these cases; but he did not think any interposition of the legislature necessary with a view to that object. Indeed, the hon. gentleman had himself acknowledged, that the difficulty that formerly stood in the way of the dispatch of these causes, had been removed by his right hon. friend (Sir W. Scott). The constitution of the vice admiralty courts abroad was also materially altered from what it had been at the time when, according to the statement of the hon. gentleman, fifteen out of sixteen of the decisions of these courts were reversed. It was matter of great` delicacy to interfere so materially with a judicature, which was to give satisfaction, not only to this country, but to all other nations. This delicacy was confirmed by a reference to the association of judges of the courts in Westminster-hall in the decision of appeals, which, though undoubtedly, as the hon. gentleman stated, an improvement, was regarded with much jealousy by foreign powers, as an innovation that may lead to some abridgment of their rights. There was no necessity for separating the admiralty judicature from that of appeals. His right hon. friend, from delicacy, never attended on appeals from his own decisions. For himself he did not think this delicacy necessary, and in the highest tribunal in the empire, it was known that the highest judicial officer, often with much advantage to justice, spoke on judgments given by himself.

Sir John Nicholl accounted for the multitude of appeals in the last war, by the circumstance of the Americans being then for the first time in the situation of a neutral power, and their carrying on the whole colonial trade of France.

Mr. Johnstone's proposition was negatived, and the house

went into the committee.

Mr. Rose recommended the propriety of having an office where seamen, or their representatives, may know their share of all prizes, and the names of the agents. He thought this office should be under the government of Greenwich hospital. This proposition gave rise to much conversation, but the suggestion was generally approved of.

A number of new clauses were added to the bill, and seve

ral amendments were made. The report was ordered to be received on Thursday.

The other orders of the day were put off.-Adjourned till Thursday.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

MONDAY, MAY 30. ́

On the adjourned debate on the question whether Mr. Justice Fox should attend above the bar, or below the bar of the house,

Lords Carleton, Limerick, Carlisle, &c. differed from the opinion of the Lord Chancellor as expressed on a former night, and contended, that the judges in Ireland, as those in England, when called on to attend on the house, should be admitted above the bar, and that though they had not yet received, they ought still to receive writs of assistance.

Lord Carnarvon had not meant to trouble their lordships on the subject, as not having conceived it of very material importance whether Mr. Justice Fox sat on one side of the bar or the other; but the noble lord (Carleton) had shown that it involved some points of the utmost importance. I do not however (said his lordship) think that it is to be considered as a right of the judges of Ireland; but of the peerage of Ireland in the united parliament, and still more so of the people of Ireland, and a right of the most essential nature. Writs of assistance were invariably issued to the judges of Ireland to. attend the parliament of Ireland whilst it had a separate existence, because without the assistance of such judges the peers of Ireland could not decide in cases of appeal; the same appeals from the people of Ireland follow the parliament as altered and removed to England; and if the same legal assistance does not follow the peers of Ireland to the newly consti-. tuted parliament, the people of Ireland must suffer most essentially in all appeals; for Irish causes decided in all cases by the English judges, would be frequently wrong decided. The interest of the people of Ireland must have been completely sacrificed by the act of union, if the aid and assistance of the Irish judges in cases of appeal (which the Irish parliament till the union enjoyed) should be understood to be intercepted by the act of union; and the opinion of the judges of England, according to the learned lord who presides in this.

house,

house, is solely left as the guide to inform the united peerage in Irish appeals on the Irish law. This is a most gross injustice to the people and peerage of Ireland; nor is it the consequence of any clause in the act of union: the act is silent on the attendance of the judges of Ireland, but without them the duties of peers of Ireland in case of appeals cannot be performed; and it is essential to every great change and reformation, that all which is essential to the performance of a parliamentary duty should be considered as retained, if not changed by the express words of the reforming act. The contrary doctrine that all is revoked but what is expressly kept by special words would lead to a total overthrow of the thing reformed. In the present case, if the assistance of the Irish judges was not reserved to the united parliament trying Irish appeals, as it existed to the Irish peers before the union, the rights of the people, meant to be preserved, would be mangled. The act of union does not abridge this essential practice: if the new parliament is formed by the act of union, the omission of a clause authorizing a writ of assistance to the English judges who did give their necessary aid to the English peers, must be as fatal as the omission of a clause authorizing a similar writ to the Irish judges, whose assistance was given before the union, to the parliament of Ireland. The mutual importance to the two parliaments when united is similar; their prior practice the same. The learned lord on the woolsack says, that if the Irish judges ought to have had writs of assistance, it has been an error from the beginning: a few years omission does not supersede the right, he ought to have issued writs; but it is no reason why the error should not be cor rected; nor can it lead to any inconvenience. The learned lord admits that he has in Irish appeals felt great difficulties but that he had felt more in Scotch appeals, to whose judges' no writs of assistance were issued on the Scotch union, nor have since. If communication with the Scotch judges were necessary, writs should have been made issuable by a subsequent act; but the noble and learned lord forgets that the Scotch judges were not convoked to the Scotch parliament by any writ, and the Scotch peers had not their assistance before the union, and their attendance was not cut off by any construction of the act of union with Scotland. The single instance of a Scotch union with England is not to be considered as precedent for the construction of an union between England and Ireland, particularly in a point which, by the

learned

learned lord's own admission, had no similitude with the point in question with Ireland. In the present point the situation was as it was before the union; the situation of the Irish peers is contrary to the situation in which they were before the union. I am therefore for directing a writ to be issued, or immediately deciding the case, not deciding incidentally so important a question.

Lord Somerton (Archbishop of Dublin) suggested the propriety of at least not coming to any decision in the present instance, which might seem to prejudge the rights of the judges of Ireland; but that the question should be open for future consideration. He therefore hinted that it might be thrown in as a concomitant in the order for Mr. Justice Fox's attending at the bar-" he not having yet received his writ of assistance."

The Lord Chancellor and Lord Hawkesbury supported the original motion. Agreeing to the addition last proposed, would be confessing that the judges of Ireland were entitled to have writs of assistance issued to them.

Lord Auckland repeated the doubts he had formerly expressed, but concluded by moving an amendment which he thought would keep the question entire, and to which the noble and learned lord could not object. The words were"Mr. Justice Fox not having had a writ of assistance issued to him."

The Lord Chancellor expressed his readiness to concur in this amendment, as it would keep the question entire. He, at the same time, had no hesitation in saying that he entertained no doubt on the question of right.

The Earl of Carnarvon and Lords Carleton and Holland could not agree to get quit of the question in the manner now assented to. Either there was a right, or there was no right. They could not think it consistent with the character and dignity of the house to evade the decision in the way proposed.

On this the house divided. For the Lord Chancellor's motion, as proposed to be amended, namely, " that Mr. Justice Fox not having had a writ of assistance issued to him, attend at the bar of the house,"

Contents

Not Contents

Majority

18
ΤΟ

8

The committee on the Pancras bill was postponed till Thursday.-Adjourned.

VOL. III. 1805.

P

HOUSE