§ On the order of the day for the further consideration of the report upon the Bill to prevent the Sale of Offices being read,
Mr. Ponsonbyobserved, that there was a difference between the manner of appointing the Masters in Chancery in Ireland and in this country; such appointments being made by the crown in the one, while they were made by the Lord Chancellor in the other. In consequence of this difference, it had become a practice for such masters as were about to retire to dispose of their places for money. A case of this nature occurred while he had the honour to hold the seals, and being applied to as usual, to sanction the sale, he hesitated, conceiving it rather extraordinary that a place for the administration of justice should be sold for money. However, upon being informed of the custom, and that the person seeking to dispose of the place had himself bought it, he gave his consent, on condition that the place should not again be sold by the purchaser. Yet as the circumstance of such purchases on the part of other masters created a case with regard to Ireland, to which the provisions of this Bill would not in equity apply, he suggested the propriety of introducing a clause upon that subject.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerexpressed his readiness to support a clause to meet the case referred to, and recommended the right hon. gent. to propose it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthen stated, that if it was the wish of any member to propose further amendments, he would propose a re-committal of the Bill.
Lord Folkestonesaid, the bill in its present state was perfectly nugatory. He had formerly had it in contemplation to introduce a clause into it, but on its being pointed out to him that the clause he thought of bringing forward would countenance the continuation in place of a person who had procured his appointment by corrupt means, in consideration of his having afterwards given information against others, he had not submitted it to the Committee. He was of opinion, that it would be proper to hold out some inducement to persons thus situated to inform against others concerned in such corrupt practices that some of the offenders might be punished (A cry of move, move! from the Opposition). The noble lord concluded, ex- 574 pressing an inclination to make a motion to that effect.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwished the bill to be made as effectual as possible. He had no objection to give the noble lord every opportunity to improve it by the introduction of a new clause, and he would therefore move that it should be recommitted.
§ The Bill was then ordered to be recommitted, and the house resolved itself into a Committee.
Lord Folkestonethen moved "That for every such offence the party should be liable to forfeit and pay the sum of 500l. which sum should be given to the informer. The convicted offender being punished by fine and imprisonment, or by the one or the other, as the judges should direct."
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, as he understood the noble lord intended to bring forward another clause, he wished to hear that; that knowing the substance of both, he might be able more correctly to judge of the measure suggested.
Lord Folkestone, in reply, stated it to be somewhat on the same principle as the clause which he had formerly been induced to suppress; namely, the exonerating from punishment those who informed for having participated in the offence. Though he would have the party disabled from holding a situation obtained through such improper and unconstitutional influence.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdid not think the Committee could go to the length of the noble lord's proposal. Were there no other ways of gaining information of such practices, it might be expedient to resort to the mode he had pointed out. But in the present state of things, he did not think it proper to hold out such a temptation to false evidence, or obtain true information by such means, and under such circumstances; possessing, as they did, other means of obtaining information, it was unnecessary. The temptation held out to false information, by adopting such a measure, he thought extremely dangerous, as the artifices of an infamous scoundrel might procure him 500l. in some instances where the provision that the informer should lose his place, could do him no injury, which sum his benefactor, though far less culpable, might be compelled to pay.
§ Mr. Tierneythought the objection of the Chancellor of the Exchequer not a very strong one. If the benefactor of an in- 575 famous scoundrel were liable thus to be punished, what argument was it against the clause? He ought to have had nothing to do in such an affair.
Lord Folkestoneobserved, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said it was unnecessary to resort to such an expedient to obtain information, as sufficient information could be derived from other sources. This he denied; without the evidence of some one concerned, to obtain information was difficult, and perhaps in some instances impossible. He never thought the bill would do much good, but from the view he then had of it in its present state, he thought it might do harm. He thought with the right hon. gent., that it was but fair if the patron of an infamous scoundrel should suffer for endeavouring to advance such a character to a place of emolument or trust.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdeclared his mind was open to conviction. The words of the right hon. gent, had had some effect on him, and if they could satisfy him that such a measure would be likely to benefit the country, he would give it his support. The noble lord had spoken as if information thus gained must be true; but that he thought extremely doubtful. He was of opinion, punishment would frequently fall where it was least deserved. Men might have exerted their influence with others to obtain a situation for scoundrels, who had got round them, and who might be wholly unknown to the person who gave them their situations. Yet against that person might they give information, though no party in the corruption. He might have given places to various persons on the recommendation of others, on whom he thought he could rely, since he had been in office, and a man thus appointed, might, were such a clause received, accuse him of corruption. Information might be given of the wrong, and, wrong or right, the informer would be rewarded.
§ Lord H. Pettyknew of no information that could be procured from accomplices, which would not be attended with such concomitant evils. He, however, thought the informer more likely to accuse the right than the wrong, for this plain reason; it was more easy to substantiate the fact in the former case than in the latter. He thought with the noble lord, that the bill in its present state was useless. That which it proposed to make a misdemeanor was before punishable by law, but no pro- 576 ceedings had ever been instituted against any one. Why? Because no inducements were held out to call forth witnesses to substantiate the fact and furnish evidence.
The Attorney Generalopposed the clause, on the grounds that punishment might fall where it was least deserved. A and B might be trafficing for a place, which B might obtain for A, through the influence of C, who might be wholly ignorant of the traffic between them. B being dead, A might charge C with corruption, though only culpable in yielding to the solicitations of B, and bestowing an office on a person he thought deserving of such a situation. A might, in fact, be more likely to accuse C than B, however culpable B might have been; as A and B might be supposed to be friends, while between A and C no connection whatever might have existed.
§ After some further observations, the house came to a division upon the Amendment proposed by lord Folkestone,
| Ayes | 31 |
| Noes | 74 |
| Majority against the Amendment | —43 |