HL Deb 22 March 1832 vol 11 cc582-3
Lord Auckland

moved, that the House resolve itself into a Committee on this Bill.

Lord Ellenborough

regretted, that the Bill had been so long delayed in coming before their Lordships, as he understood there was now a necessity for passing it forthwith. Under such circumstances, he would not move the Amendment, which he thought the Bill required, upon receiving an assurance from his noble friend, that he would look into the question, so far as regarded compensation to the individuals who claimed it; and, that if his noble friend should be satisfied that the fees were legal, that he would use his influence with Government to cause justice to be done to them.

Lord Auckland

said, the delay complained of by his noble friend was occasioned by the necessity of examining into the allegations of those persons who petitioned against the Bill. As to the assurance, which his noble friend required, he had no hesitation in giving it, and he pledged himself that the question of compensation should be considered.

Lord Ellenborough

was quite satisfied with that assurance, because, he was sure that the question would be fairly considered. If it was to be left entirely to the Law Officers of Ireland, they might be biassed by party feelings.

Lord Plunkett

thought the noble Lord was hardly justified in throwing out such insinuations, he surely did not mean to impute improper motives to these individuals, although his remarks sounded very like it.

Lord Ellenborough

understood from the most authentic reports of what passed in Parliament, that the Solicitor General of Ireland had already given an opinion in his place, not very favourable to the petitioners, but his main objection rested to the legal advisers of the Crown, in their official capacity, deciding on the property of individuals. These persons were notoriously more or less connected with party, and this question had been taken up as a party question. He, therefore, thought a more impartial tribunal ought to be selected than the Law Officers of the Crown.

Lord Auckland

said, they had followed the usual course adopted upon all such occasions. The opinions to be taken would, of course, be the opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown, and they had no other means of proceeding in this Case.

Bill went through the Committee, and was reported.

Back to