REGISTRAR OF THE PREROGATIVE COURT OF CANTERBURY. (Hansard, 10 May 1850)

§ LORD HOTHAM

, seeing the hon. Member for Marylebone in his place, wished to say a few words on a subject to which that hon. Baronet had recently called the attention of the House. The hon. Baronet inquired, some days since, of the noble Lord 1311 at the head of the Government, whether it was true that the Archbishop of Canterbury had appointed his son to the reversion of a valuable sinecure in the Prerogative Court—a situation which the late Archbishop had declined to fill up? The noble Lord stated, on a subsequent day, that the hon. Baronet had been correctly informed, and that such an appointment had been made; but he added that under the provisions of an Act passed in 1847, the 10th and 11th Vict. cap. 98, and inasmuch as a Committee upstairs was inquiring into the fees in courts of justice, it was very probable that, should the individual appointed ever come into possession of the office, he would be obliged to take it upon a new footing, and would have no claim to compensation. The matter had subsequently attracted very much of the attention of the public, and had been largely discussed in the public papers, and that discussion had been recently revived mainly in consequence of a letter published by an individual who had been erroneously supposed to be the person upon whom the office in question had been conferred, and also in consequence of a public declaration which had been made by the Archbishop of Canterbury himself of the motives and objects by which he was guided in making the appointment. It was because he (Lord Hotham) thought that these statements had led the public to draw inferences prejudicial to the character of the late Archbishop of Canterbury, that he ventured to bring forward the subject. One of the statements he had seen made was, that the late Archbishop of Canterbury, having no son of his own, it became a matter of comparative unimportance to him whether the office was filled up or not. It was also stated in the letter to which he had alluded, that— Archbishop Howley had recommended the abolition of the office, or reduction of the emoluments, and therefore might probably feel that he could not, with propriety, nominate any one to it at a time when his nominee would be entitled to compensation in the event of the interference of Parliament. It had also been stated by the Archbishop of Canterbury himself, that the Bill relating to the sinecure in question only passed a few months prior to Archbishop Howley's death. Now, with regard to the first of these statements, he (Lord Hotham) thought he might very safely appeal to the noble Lord opposite, and to the occupants of the Treasury bench, whether the fact of their having no sons of their own at all relieved 1312 them from other importunities in reference to the distribution of patronage? But it was obvious, that any one who had filled the situation of Archbishop so long as Dr. Howley had done, must necessarily have had many persons connected with him whose fidelity he would have been glad, in any proper manner, to reward. Then, as to the second statement, he apprehended that Archbishop Howley, had he been so minded, might have nominated any one to the office, imposing a condition constantly made in the nomination to offices under the Government, that the persons appointed should take them subject to the future regulation of Parliament. The inference naturally to be drawn from the statement that the Bill of 1847 only passed a few months before the death of the late Archbishop was, that had his life been prolonged, he might have been induced to make an appointment to the vacant office. He (Lord Hotham) would undertake to say that there was not the slightest foundation for any such supposition. The Bill in question, which was a Government Bill, and upon which Archbishop Howley must necessarily have been previously consulted, was introduced by the Lord Chancellor on the 1st of July, and received the Royal Assent on the 22nd of July. The Archbishop's death did not take place till the following February; and he (Lord Hotham) would leave any one to judge whether, if the Archbishop had been inclined to appoint to the office, he had not abundant opportunity of doing so. Lest it might be supposed, however, that the Archbishop was at that time in such a state of health as to preclude his attention to business, he (Lord Hotham) might observe in proof to the contrary, that, the Bill having passed on the 22nd of July, the Archbishop was attending his duties at convocation in the following November. But he (Lord Hotham) was happy to be able confidently to state to the House that the objection of the late Archbishop to fill up this valuable office arose from principle and from principle alone. The feeling of the Archbishop was that, with respect to any situation in his gift which had become actually vacant, it was competent to him to deal with it as he thought proper; but he did not feel it consistent with his high station to anticipate an event the occurrence of which no one could foretell, and thus he did not think it proper to appoint to any office in reversion, or to any sinecure office. He (Lord Hotham) could, however, carry the 1313 case still further, by showing that at the earliest period of his career Archbishop Howley had acted on the principles upon which he acted in this case. At the time he was Bishop of London, a sinecure office, worth some hundreds a year, which had been held by the son of one of his predecessors. Bishop Lowth, and who was appointed to it when only ten years of age, became vacant. Dr. Howley abolished the office as a patent office, and appointed to it a gentleman in whom he justly reposed confidence, but he only made the appointment during pleasure, and the present Bishop of London had continued the same gentleman in the situation. After Dr. Howley became Archbishop of Canterbury, offices of a similar kind fell to his disposal. In one case he appointed as joint registrars of the diocese of Canterbury two individuals on the sole ground that they had for many years discharged the duties of the office. He (Lord Hotham) also knew that in 1844, when, on the death of the son of a former archbishop, two sinecure offices became vacant. Dr. Howley appointed to one office the individual who had previously performed the duties as deputy, and the other he did not fill up, nor had it been filled up to this moment. He (Lord Hotham) wished to say that in making this statement he was influenced by no private considerations. He was entirely unconnected with the late Archbishop, or any member of his family, and had never asked or received the slightest favour at his hands; but, having been a warm admirer of the great piety and learning and the humility and meekness of Dr. Howley, as well as of the firm yet temperate manner in which he performed all the duties of his exalted station, he (Lord Hotham) had felt that it would be a public scandal to allow any stain to be thrown upon the memory of so excellent a man, or any doubt to remain on the mind of any one as to the high and disinterested principle on which, during a long public life he invariably acted. He (Lord Hotham), therefore, had felt it his duty to endeavour to remove any misconception that might exist on this subject.