man-he spoke theoretically. He went by his knowledge of human nature. He proposed to insert in the resolution, "Whereas it is expedient to secure the independence of the judges by providing them adequate salaries; and whereas it is unwise and inexpedient to promote puisne judges to be chief justices, or puisne barons to be chief barons." The Attorney-General thought It would be very unwise and inexpedient to adopt the resolution as it was moved by his hon. and learned friend. Neither the history of present or of past times proved it to be at all necessary. A resolution of the house in the last reign had been inserted as the preamble of an act for securing the independence of the judges and the due administration of justice; but that formed no case to justify the resolution now proposed, which if good in principle ought to be constituted into the rule by legislative provision. He thought it scarcely fair to attempt to carry it under the colour of an opinion given by the house. If it were wise to forbid the promotion of puisne judges, let that be expressed. But if the matter were to be left to individual discretion, the crown must be left to exercise that discretion. Any particular abuse in its exercise might form a ground for legislative interference. It was said that these translations were more numerous than in former times. What did that amount to, if in every case a justification was found in the circumstances? At the time of the appointment of Chief Justice Dallas, the place was offered to the attorney-general, who refused it. Mr. Dallas had been solicitor general. Could it have been offered to a more fit and proper personcould the situation have been better filled either for the court or the public? His hon. and learned friend had quite forgotten the practice of past times. Lord Coke was moved from the common pleas to the chief justiceship. Sir M. Hale was a puísne judge before he was made chief justice. Lord Hardwicke was chief justice of the king's bench, and then was made lord chancellor. Lord Camden was chief justice of the common pleas before he was lord chancellor. Yet the hon. and learned gent. would lead the house to believe, that since 1810 a new principle had been adopted. Accident had multiplied the cases, but there was no new principle. Lord Kenyon was chief justice of Chester and master of the rolls before he was made chief justice of the king's bench. What did all this prove, but that the line could only be drawn, however desirable in general to avoid the practice of translation, by individual discretion, and that discretion must be left with the crown? It was against the practice of the constitution to embrace a proposition of this nature in a resolution, which, if good at all, ought to be carried into effect by an act. Mr. Scarlett could not reconcile the inconsistency of his right hon. and learned friend in saying that there ought to be no resolution, and the conduct of the chancellor of the exchequer in proposing a resolution. If it were inexpedient, then why was any resolution proposed? He could perfectly understand the design of his hon. and learned friend near him, who wished to propose the sentiment of the the house, (which he must take leave to say was that of public opinion generally), in a way which would hand it down to posterity for the guidance of their conduct. But he invited his right hon. and learned friend to consider the effect of what he had uttered. He allowed no qualification whatever: he declared every resolution of the kind to be unwise and inexpedient. Again, let him only remark the inconvenience of entrenching him. self behind individual cases. How was it possible for his opponents to argue with him while he remained in such perfect safety? They took general and abstract grounds, to which the right hon. and learned gentleman, without any reasoning upon them at all, opposed individual circumstances. Of course there could be no argument on those terms. Suppose he were to take up the statements of the right hon. and learned gent. and put a particular case. In the time in which Mr. Garrow was attorney-general there were no less than three vacancies-two as chief baron, and one as chief justice of the common pleas. Were either of these offices tendered to Mr. Garrow? Was he not a man of eloquence equal to any manof consummate talent in his profession-of high legal attainments? What objection could there have been to his appointment? Would it be pretended that he was like some other great men who had preferred ease and retirement? Alas! he solicited and obtained the situation of puisne judge. It was impossible to offer an objection to his appointment, and yet three chief judgeships were vacant, and not one was offered to him. It could not be presumed that the chancellor, who had the recommendation of the judges, wished to insult a man of Baron Garrow's character by quietly passing him by. It was much less to be supposed that he would before that have advised his promotion to the office of attorney-general, if he had not been convinced that he was equal to the highest offices of the law. Such was the inconvenience of arguing upon individual cases. As to the cases of former times, he had always understood that Lord Hardwicke had taken the chancellorship very unwillingly. The right honourable gentleman should recollect, that it only belonged to modern times for a chancellor to hold the seals for 25 years, or half a century. At that time a lord chancellor was considered only as a minister subject to removal with his friends: no one dreamed of holding that great and lofty situation for life as in our times. No doubt the public derived the highest advantages from the judge who now held the office. But could Lord Ellenborough be prevailed upon to accept it? No; he preferred being chief justice of the king's bench. Lord Mansfield refused the seals: Lord Camden accepted them with difficulty, to oblige his party; nor was he ever known to be satisfied with the exchange. Until the right honourable gentleman could get up a joint stock company to ensure the possession of the office for half or quarter of a century, the promotion of a chief justice to a chancellor, such would always be the case. It was not proposed to prevent the crown from translating puisne judges, but only to give expression to the general feeling. He remarked the impropriety of quoting the cases of Lords Coke and Hale, who were deposed from their places, and put down to the bar. It was admitted that the crown was not to be restrained, but it belonged to either house of parliament to make propositions of his kind in the nature of advising. Mr. Canning would not undertake to argue on the points of professional knowledge in issue between the hon. and learned members; but conceding all which had been urged by the hon. and learned gentleman who spoke last, he found the argument conclusive against agreeing to the resolution proposed by the hon. and learned member for Winchelsea. Lord Althorpe supported the resolution proposed. Mr. Peel opposed the motion. After some observations from Sergeant Onslow, Mr. Denman, Mr. Wynn, and some other members, the house divided, when the numbers appeared-For the amendment, 29; against it, 112; majority, 83.-Adjourned at half-past one o'clock. House of Commons, May 19.The order of the day for bringing up the report on the quarantine laws bill was read. Sir I. Coffin felt it his duty to make a few observations on the present occasion. He could from his own personal observation state that the plague was contagious. When he was at Malta, the disease was brought to Valetta by a shoemaker, in some leather. The man died, and so did the family with whom he resided. The disease was soon pronounced to be the plague, and spread rapidly; and had it not been for the precautions adopted by Sir Thomas Maitland and the other English officers on the spot, he did not doubt that all ought ought to be scrupulously examined. The Mahomet, or what, perhaps, they would rather prefer, would be permitted to enjoy everlasting fruition in the arms of the houris, took no precautions against catching the disease, and were therefore carried off by thousands. He knew a respectable merchant connected with the Levant company, who expected by the operation of the bill to put into his pocket about 4,000l. or 5,000l.; but, much to his credit, he had publicly stated that he should do so with regret, because he considered it the price of blood. The difficulties which we should experience in our export trade, in consequence of passing the bill, would more than counterbalance any advantage which might result from it to the import trade. In Naples and Leghorn, England was already considered an infected country, and our ships were not allowed to land their cargoes until they had waited a considerable time. This, no doubt, would be productive of great inconvenience to merchants. He could not imagine what object the right hon. gentleman could have in bringing in the bill. He had turned the matter over in his mind, and at length he had hit upon the object which the right hon. gentleman had in contemplation. He must intend to establish a joint stock company for the purpose of extending the burying grounds. He entreated the house to consider the subject well. He trusted that hon. members would oppose the measure; and, like the ancient prophet in the wilderness, "stand between the dead and the living, and stay the plague." Mr. Bernal cautioned the house against against hastily adopting any measures upon so serious and important a subject. Mr. Charles Grant said, that the bill, properly looked at, was open to none of the objections which had been taken to it. The committee of foreign trade had sat last year on the subject of the quarantine laws. Having received a variety of complaints as to the difficulty and impediment which those laws placed in the way of commerce, the committee had applied themselves to consider, not whether the plague was or was not contagious, but whether, assuming it to be contagious, any part of the existing restrictions could be dispensed with without danger: for he (Mr. C. Grant) wished that hon. gentlemen had read the report of that committee before they made up their minds on the subject-the committee had actually set out by assuming that the plague was contagious, and had refused even to examine any evidence to the contrary effect. It was the opinion of Sir Gilbert Blane, and of several other physicians, decided advocates for the theory of contagion, that, admitting the plague to be contagious, all the provisions of the present bill might be carried into effect with perfect safety. The hon. member sat down by declaring that the effect of the bill had been entirely misunderstood by those who opposed it. Lord Belgrave said, that he merely intended to protest against the doctrine of the plague not being contagious. Mr. Bernal was of the same opinion. Mr. J. Smith said that the Levant trade must be entirely destroyed if the bill were not carried. He believed, certainly, that the plague was not a contagious disease. Mr. Trant thought differently as to the question of contagion, but believed that there was nothing to be apprehended from the operation of the present bill. The report was then received: to be read a third time to-morrow. House of Lords, May 26.Lord Melville rose to move the second reading of the bill he lately introduced, for amending the law relative to the oaths taken on naturalization and on reversal of attainder. According to the law as it now stood, foreigners naturalized, or subjects restored to honours, were obliged to appear at the bar of the house to be sworn, and to have taken the sacrament according to the forms of the church of England. This was on high authority held to be the law, under an act which passed in the reign of James the First, about a century before the union with Scotland. It was understood at the union that no test should be required of the natives of Scotland; but, notwithstanding the stipulation on that subject, the law had since been differently interpreted, so that the great age of the Earl of Mar could not excuse him from coming to that house, and he was obliged to comply with the usual practice of taking the test. It was very unreasonable that the sacramental test should be required of natives of Scotland, or of foreign calvinists on being naturalized. He thought it would be sufficient if the law provided that the person naturalized was a protestant, |