HC Deb 05 March 1821 vol 4 cc1084-100
Dr. Lushington,

in bringing forward his promised motion, trusted he should be honoured with the attention of members, and particularly of those members interested in the prosperity of the sister kingdom; for he hoped to convince them that the rejection of his motion would be, to a very large class of the inhabitants of that kingdom, pregnant with the most serious injury. It needed not to be stated that over every description and over every form of property courts of equity now held jurisdiction. Wherever an account was to be taken, or a doubtful title investigated, a contract to be enforced or cancelled, or a disputed fact ascertained, courts of equity exercised an extensive, if not an exclusive jurisdiction; and the paramount importance of celerity and despatch in all the proceedings arising in such courts must be obvious to every one. Now, it was a general complaint, that although justice might upon the whole be fairly dealt out in courts of equity, yet, that the expense and delay attendant upon their decrees was a most intolerable grievance: that delay and expense was an inconvenience equally lamented by suitors and by lawyers; and the House would be imposing upon the already heavily burthened suitors of the Irish courts of equity an additional load of distress, if they permitted that practice which it was the object of the present motion to set aside. The duties united in the person of the hon. and learned gentleman opposite (Mr. Ellis), the duties of member for Dublin, and of master in chancery in Ireland, were so incompatible with each other, that either the first or the last must necessarily be neglected. He did not mean to say that the hon. and learned gentleman might not with perfect regularity discharge his functions as a member of the House of Commons—for the House had a paramount right to the service of its members and a power to compel their attendance; but lie wished to protect the Irish suitors in chancery, who had no such compulsory process against their master, and who consequently would be unable to cope with parliament in the mutual claim to the hon. and learned gentleman's attention: and he was prepared to show, first by the report of the commissioners appointed by the Crown, and next, by evidence which could neither be controverted, nor explained, in short, by the words of the hon. and learned member himself, that the duties of that hon. and learned member as master in chancery could not be performed by deputy, and that they must absolutely be at a stand whenever his parliamentary calls required his presence in England. Now, the hon. and learned gentleman had been appointed to his office in the year 1806, and he had obtained the resignation of the former incumbent Mr. Walker, at the price, according to his own statement, of 9,850l. He did not mention that fact as at all aggravating the impropriety of the hon. and learned gentleman's desire to retain both the characters which were vested in his person: in purchasing his office, the hon. and learned gentleman only acted in conformity with that which, for a long series of years, had been the practice in Ireland; but he must be permitted to say, that the practice of selling judicial offices, particularly offices of such high responsibility as the office in question, was a practice most favourable to the creation of abuse. That abuses indeed had prevailed, and to a very considerable extent in the Irish courts of equity during the last 30 years, few persons would deny; for it appeared among other facts, by the report of the commissioners, that one single six clerk had charged 1,297 attendances in the same cause—not one of those attendances being otherwise than fictitious. The simple relation of such a fact, without any thing in the way of comment, was sufficient. That many similar abuses prevailed, even at the present moment, there could be no doubt: he trusted to see them remedied, but they would not be remedied by withdrawing the attention of a master in chancery from the very material duties imposed upon him by his situation. To show, upon the hon. and learned member's own oath, the nature of the duties devolving upon him as a master in chancery, it was only necessary to go to his examination before the commission which sat upon the state of courts of justice in Ireland. On his appearance before the commissioners upon that occasion, the hon. and learned member was asked "What are the duties of your office, and the hours of attendance?" How did the hon. and learned gentleman answer that question? He answered, "the duties of my office are various, and difficult to be specified, they principally consist in taking accounts pending in chancery suits; in investigating disputed facts in case of lunacy, bankruptcy, and title; in taking affidavits;" and, in short, in a great variety of important avocations which he (Dr. L.) would not now enumerate; but from any delay in the performance of which the most mischievous consequences could not fail to arise. If an account was to be taken in bankruptcy, if an allowance was to be fixed for a lunatic, if a lease was to be granted on the part of a minor, or if a report upon any question in a cause was not duly made; if all these matters, or if great part of them, or if any of them was to be brought to a stand-still by the absence of the hon. and learned gentleman upon any secondary pursuit whatever, great injustice was done to the Irish suitors in chancery.—The second part of the question, however, put to the hon. and learned member by the commissioners was worthy of consideration. The question was, as to the hours of attendance. What was the hon. and learned gentleman's reply? "The duties of my office require my regular attendance for ten months in the year, and afford more or less business for every day in the year. I am always in my office from 11 o'clock until 3 or 4, each day during term, and from 12 until 3 during the vacation, as business may require; this is independent of occasional business at my house in the evening; and of taking affidavits at all hours when parties find it necessary to swear them." Now here was evidence of the hon. and learned gentleman himself, that his presence was required in his office ten months in the year. And how such an attendance could be compatible with the coming of the hon. and learned gentleman to this country to discharge his parliamentary duties, he could by no means understand. Could any other master in chancery perform the hon. and learned gentleman's official duties? What did he himself say upon that point? He said no: and his evidence had the strongest corroboration in the world, for at the very same time there were two out of the other three masters in chancery for Ireland, each giving the self-same account of his own occupations. Even independently of the want of leisure, the nature of the duties devolving upon a master in chancery was such, that those duties, nine times in ten, could be executed by no one but himself; and surety, not the warmest advocates of the practice which he was deprecating, not even the attorney-general, nor the learned member for Exeter, nor the learned member for Tewkesbury—both masters in chancery—surely not one of those gentlemen would say that he could perform the duty of a master in chancery in England if it so happened that parliament were sitting, in Dublin. The appointment of a deputy, in Ireland, was equally objectionable; and, notwithstanding the desperation which seemed to attend all motions arising on his side of the House, he did trust that there were members present from the sister kingdom, who had something like feeling for their unfortunate fellow-subjects. It might be argued, that the motion was premature and without precedent, and that it came in the nature of an ex post facto law. He viewed it in a very different light. The hon. and learned member had received his office during pleasure: he had not taken it as a mere source of emolument, without the prospect of any duties to perform. The hon. and learned gentleman had allowed himself to be put into one situation the duties of which were quite incompatible with those of another which he then and still continued to hold. He had stated, in his own examination before the commissioners, that he had been appointed to his office as a master in chancery in Ireland by the duke of Bedford, without any condition "save the due performance of the duties attached to it." The only condition, then, was the due performance of the duties. And, had he not violated that condition to which he had voluntarily subjected himself, by subsequently accepting another office to which imperative duties were attached—duties that he could not possibly perform consistently with the previous ones which he had fully contracted?—He had heard high encomiums passed upon the effective manner in which the hon. and learned gentleman had discharged his duty as a master in chancery. It was for that very reason he required the House not to impose upon the hon. and learned gentleman duties which it was utterly impossible he could perform, and continue those in which he was now considered so efficient. They had no right to deprive Ireland of the services of such an officer. At all events, it was quite clear, from his own showing, that he could not attend to them and retain his seat in parliament. The hon. and learned gentleman had stated in his evidence, that his fees annually amounted to 3,710l., his salary to 400l. a year, half the fees of his examiner and clerk amouned, short by a fraction, to 300l. a year more, making a total of 4,400l. per annum—a sum as large as the puisne judges of the land enjoyed.—He would now show how the two situations were quite incompatible. It was a principle always recognised and acted upon by the House, that they had a right to command, whenever they pleased, the attendance of all their members. So far back as the year 1549, that principle would be found to have been acted upon in their journals. In 1676, sergeant Maynard was ordered to be taken into custody for going circuit without leave. In 1692, Mr. Cunningham was ordered into custody for leaving his duties in parliament and going to Ireland to discharge his duty there as first commissioner of the revenue. It was therefore quite clear that, by the law, the attendance of a member of parliament was imperative. Perhaps he should be told that the House seldom enforced its orders in their most rigid sense. God forbid that they should! For it was clear that, in many cases, their orders might be made to bend to private convenience, without affecting public interests. But though they might be abandoned for temporary purposes, let it could never be contemplated that they should introduce a principle which would go the length of a permanent relaxation of them. It was true, that officers in the army, while members of that House, were repeatedly absent in the discharge of other public duties in which they were perhaps of more material service to their country. Their absence on such occasions was, however, tempoporary and accidental, and furnished no analogy whatever to such a case as that of the hon. and learned gentleman; for in his case, in the nature of things, it never could happen that he could discharge his duty in that House, without leaving other duties of equal importance undischarged elsewhere, to the material injury of the suitors in his court. With respect to his attendance here, take, for instance, the call of the House on Friday week—suppose the hon. and learned gentleman were then engaged in the close performance of his official duties in Dublin, would the House receive that as an explanation for his non-attendance here? Suppose again, that the bill for degrading her majesty had come down to that House, and had entailed upon them, for months and months, the task of examining witnesses, how was it possible that the hon. and learned gentleman could have obeyed the call which was then intended to have been enforced, without exposing the suitors in chancery to all the losses which must necessarily arise from his absence? Then, again, there were the duties of election committees, the burthensome nature of which rendered it impossible they could fairly reduce the liability of members to serve upon them. In such cases, how was it possible the hon. and learned gentleman could stay where he was bound to remain in the discharge of one duty, without altogether abandoning his professional duties? After the reports which had been made by the commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of the courts of justice in Ireland, it was impossible the House could overlook the necessity of rendering the performance of the duties therein as efficient as possible. They would remember that in June 1814, when the abuses in these courts were brought to light, the existence of such abuses was confidently denied by the noble lord opposite, and one of his right hon. colleagues. They taunted those who asserted the abuses with maligning the administration of justice in the courts of Ireland, and yet the result disclosed all the abuses which were alleged at the outset. They would recollect that that inquiry was originally instituted by only a majority of 49 to 48. But why need he refer to these matters? Did not the noble lord opposite, when the subject was under discussion last year, distinctly state, that "all he required was, that the learned gentleman should have the option, if elected, of retaining his seat or resigning his office; but that, if he retained it, there could be no objection to address the Crown for his removal." Such were the noble lord's words: he had heard them with his own ears; and the House had heard them. The same expressions were used by a right hon. gentleman now absent (Mr. Canning). So that in June 1820, it did appear, both to the noble lord and to his right hon. friend, that if Mr. Ellis took his seat as one of the members for Dublin, it was quite fit he should be removed from his office as a master in chancery. The noble lord then fully admitted, that it was quite impossible the learned gentleman could bean efficient member of parliament in England, and at the same time an acting master in chancery in Ireland. He knew of no occurrence since June last, which could alter the noble lord's opinion upon this matter, or make him think that Ireland could better bear abuses now than she could then. Suppose this gentleman were allowed to retain his seat and office, might not every other Irish master in chancery, with equal right, become elected to serve in parliament the following day? As the case now stood, it was an insulated one; they had no precedent since the union; but if they made a precedent now, those who might hereafter come Before parliament would have just reason to com-plain if they were not allowed a like permission. He therefore called upon the House to decline making a precedent which could not fail to be prejudicial to the public interests. He would move "That the duties of a master in chancery in Ireland require, for the due performance thereof, a constant residence in Ireland; that Thomas Ellis, esq., one of the masters of the said court, being elected and serving as member in this parliament for the city of Dublin, cannot adequately discharge the duties both of master in chancery in Ireland and member in this House; that the duties of member of parliament are intitled to precedence; and that, consequently, the duties of master in chancery in Ireland must be neglected, and great delay and injury result to the suitors in those courts."

Mr. Lennard

seconded the motion; It seemed that the learned member for Dublin had, in effect, stated in his examination, that he considered himself only entitled to the benefit of his office, so long as he conscientiously and diligently performed the duties of it—duties which he had admitted required his own personal attendance. There was pretty sure evidence of his diligence in his office, allowing the increase of his fees to be a criterion. The learned member had bought his place on a calculation of 2,500l. a year, and by his own evidence that the fees of it amounted to nearly 4,000l. It would not be pretended that the learn- ed member had a legal ubiquity, like the king, and could be supposed, present at the same time in different places. He thought that a case of complete incompatibility of duties had been distinctly made out, that there was but one remedy by which the interests of the Chancery suitors could be restored, and that was by his majesty being graciously pleased to restore those rights to them by the removal of a person who had been guilty of a moral waver of his office, by the acceptance of another, which, whilst he executed it, was inconsistent with his duty as master, and Which, if he executed his duty as master, he ceased to fill with justice to his constituents. Let the House suppose that there was still a parliament in Ireland, and that a person holding a judical office, which required his personal attendance in London for ten months every year, should be elected a member of it; and that he should abandon his judicial duties in England for those of a representative in Ireland; could it for a moment be contended, that he would be allowed to do so with impunity, because there might be no express remedy, no statute prohibitory? The mere statement of the case was sufficient to show the absurdity of such a position, if it should be attempted to be maintained. There was a distinct line to be drawn between occasional absences and permanent and fixed absences; the one, being common to all persons, could not be held to disqualify; the other being fixed and known, rendered the person subject to them virtually incapable of election; which formed a ground for addressing his majesty, to remove the member for Dublin from his office of master.

Mr. Ellis was about to address the House, when—

The Speaker

interposed, and said, that a doubt arose in his mind, whether or no the hon. and learned gentleman should rise before or after the question was put from the chair. If the question were considered by the House as implicating the hon. and learned gentleman in any thing like a distinct charge, then the course would be, for him to speak before the question was regularly put, and then to withdraw during the subsequent discussion. If this motion were, however, not meant to be inculpatory, but merely to relieve the hon. and learned gentleman from the duties of a particular office, then he might reserve himself until after the ques- tion was read. If the proposition affected his seat in parliament, then, like all other questions of privilege, the usual course would be, to hear the hon. member before the question was put. As it struck him at present, the motion was not inculpatory, and therefore he thought the House might permit the putting of the question to precede the speech of the hon. and learned gentleman.

Mr. Wynn

rather thought, that where, as in this case, the motion named the individual to whom it referred, it ought to be considered as in some measure inculpatory, and as one of those subjects which the House, in delicacy, were in the habit of discussing in the absence of the individual. It would be, therefore, he thought, more consonant to the ordinary rules, to hear the hon. member before the question was put. He spoke, however, without having had any opportunity of consulting authorities.

The Speaker

thought, that the safer course would be, if any doubt prevailed, to hear the hon. and learned gentleman before the question was put.

Mr. Ellis

began by expressing a hope, that no sense of delicacy towards him personally, or to his feelings, would prevent the House from going into the fullest discussion upon the subject of the motion. He could only lament that that delicacy had not been observed by the hon. and learned gentleman, but that charges had been made against him, exaggerated in their nature and exasperated in the detail, while they were meant to affect that question which alone related to himself. If a long and diffuse dissertation of the grievances of Chancery suitors, and supposed dereliction in other offices with which he (Mr. Ellis) had nothing to do; if all this had been done, he felt himself excused in saying, that those exaggerated statements had been made by the hon. and learned gentleman, with no delicacy towards his (Mr. Ellis's) own peculiar situation: If the present question referred only to his own feelings, he would much rather have at once withdrawn from a contest, where his name, accompanied with every circumstance of exasperation, had been held up, day after day, and week after week, to public obloquy. But, humble as he was, he felt that his case was now mixed up with that of a constituent body of the empire; and that, however his own inclinations might tend, he-could not abandon his own rights with- out sacrificing theirs. Upon a recurrence to the report upon which the hon. and learned doctor had dwelt so much, it would be found that the only part of his evidence wich was supposed te bear upon this question, consisted of two answers—one, a written answer to certain queries addressed to him by the committer of inquiry; and the other, a verbal answer to the commissioners in the year 1819. The answer which was given to the written queries was to this effect:—"I am always in my office from 11 till 3 during the term sittings, and from 12 till 3 during the vacation: and very often I attend later than these hours, in order to accommodate such suitors and parties, and their solicitors, as cannot attend at the ordinary hours of the court. The evening devote to taxing bills of costs, &c." Now this answer only referred to a question addressed to him, how he spent his time in the day? It might be necessary to explain to the Mouse his mode of doing business; and with this view it was intended that his answer should be addressed to the commissioners also; and it was a fact, that every day of every term, excepting perhaps Good Friday and Christmas day, his time was so occupied. But, did this answer bear the construction, that, because he gave this kind of attendance in term-time, he necessarily attended every day in the year in the same manner? It was an answer, simply explaining how long his attendance was necessary; and did not express an opinion, that continued attendance was necessary without regard to how that might be interrupted. More importance, however, was attached to his next answer; and he was ready to admit that more importance ought to be attached to it. It certainly, as it stood, required explanation, and that explanation would show that no injury resulting from the delay of a single day or a single hour, would accrue from his absence from Dublin. The words were—"The duties of my office necessarily require a regular attendance for 1Q months in the year," &c From that reply he did not wish to retract a single word. It might be necessary to acquaint the House that the business of the court of chancery proceeded in rotation. It was matter of mere accident what master's name was put on the order; and after it was so put down on the order, it was matter of perfect indifference by whom the duty was performed. In this country, the case, was other- wise. Here, upon the intended absence of a master, it was necessary for him to obtain leave, and notice was regularly given. In the sister country, no such forms were observed. It was open to every master to perform that duty, which, upon the paper, was assigned to another. There was no preference manifested in favour of one more than of another; and therefore, any compliments which had beep paid to him, at the expense of others, by the hon. and learned doctor, he begged leave to renounce. The other masters were, at least, as competent and as well qualified as himself. If, in the order or the return, there was a master named whom the officer could not rind, he had only to turn from the left to the right in the same building and another was immediately to be found equally fit for the purpose. Much as they had heard about the absence of the chancellor of Ireland, for months at a time, and the variety of ill consequences which ensued upon it, he, would answer that assertion by the irresistible fact, that the chancellor of Ireland never rose from his seat at the end of a term, and left one business upon the paper unfinished. And here he begged to say, that when he left Ireland three weeks ago, he himself left not one single paper on his desk, of any sort, nature, or description whatsoever which was not settled, adjusted, or finished. He challenged the inquiry of that House into the fact. But, to recur to the question of attendance, he begged to say, that from the 1st of January to the 31st of December, there was not a vacation of a single week in the business of the master; nor was the master's office throughout that period known to be shut even for a single day. [Loud cheers from the Opposition.] If he did not misunderstand that cheer, it meant this, that where offices were open all that time, there must be business which was to be done and required to be attended to. But, by what mode did they accomplish the transaction of this business of the public? It was by this, that the masters by an arrangement which they had made, had contrived to give each other two or three months vacation a piece. In the busy time of the year, the spring, he for instance, took a vacation of two months. During that time the three other masters did his business for him; and in return for that, he took two months for them, in the same way, during the long vacation. If they were to be absent all at once, they would defeat their own object, and the Master's Office would close. And how, he would ask, was this a state of things which required the House to deprive an individual of his office, and to take from the citizens of Dublin the exercise of their just rights? But, as he had said before, he would not enter into a statement of facts which delicacy, so far as the question regarded himself, prevented him in some measure, from adducing on this occasion. He did assure the House, in the most solemn manner, that if he should find that the discharge of the two duties trenched more upon his time, not than his public duties required, but than the interests of his family justified him in appropriating, he should not be slow to adopt the alternative which remained to him. He now took his leave for the present. It would be some consolation for him to know, even if he should never enter that House again, that the last time he raised his voice within its walls was in defence of the violated rights of an individual. The hon. and learned gentleman then withdrew.

Mr. Peel

said, he was prepared, even admitting the impossibility of the effectually fulfilling the duties of a member of parliament, and of the office of master in chancery, at one and the same time, according to the argument of the hon. and learned doctor, to maintain this position, that, supposing the hon. and learned member who had just quitted the House should select his alternative and prefer the duties of his office, yet, that it was contrary to the uniform practice of that House to interfere on the general presumption of the incompatibility of the two situations. The House had a certain way of enforcing the attendance of its members; namely, by a call of the House, and by punishing defaulters; but, in this instance, upon a mere previous supposition of the difficulty or impossibility of their execution, the House was called upon to enforce the performance of certain duties, which it had never been customary so to interfere in. Numerous were the cases in which officers in the navy or army, being called to attend their duties or commands abroad, neglected their attendance in that House; yet no measure was ever proposed for the purpose of enforcing such attendance. But, the constituents of those gallant officers might with some show of reason complain of such neglect; seeing that they returned them, on the faith of their discharging their parliamentary duties; whereas Mr. Ellis, at the time of his election, had informed his constituents that his professional, were likely to preclude the due discharge of his parliamentary duties. The cases of ambassadors, members of that House, but employed abroad on foreign missions, were analogous to those of naval and military officers. The right hon. gentleman then replied to the case cited by Dr. Lushington, of Mr. Culliford, a commissioner of the revenue in Ireland. In that case the House proceeded as of its own authority, and no address to the Crown was moved. The right hon. gentleman concluded by contending, that the proposition of the hon. and learned gentleman was totally inadmissible; and that, if it should hereafter be deemed proper to exclude masters in chancery from that House, they ought, following the practice of their ancestors, to provide for such an exclusion by a prospective measure, and not by a course of proceeding at once inculpatory and retrospective in its operation.

Mr. Abercromby

said, that the right hon. gentleman had not stated one single argument against the incompatibility of the two offices. The right hon. gentleman had triumphantly appealed to the case of ambassadors at foreign courts. Who were injured in that case? The constituents. Who were injured in this case? Not the constituents, but the suitors in the court of Chancery. The right hon. gentleman again argued upon the supposition that Mr. Ellis was performing his duty in the court of Chancery. Whence I this inconsistency, but from the misconduct of Mr. Ellis? Was it possible that the House could sanction such inconsistency? The evidence of Mr. Ellis before the commissioners had been precise and decisive. He could not perceive that his explanation touched it at all. He said that he had three colleagues. But his colleagues might be as ambitious as he was, and might vote as zealously against the Catholics as he had done. As to the complaint of ex post facto proceedings, the present motion came no more under that complaint than an address to remove a person for corruption or malversation in office. In one of his answers Mr. Ellis had said—"The duties of my office require my attendance for ten months in the year." Here they had his own distinct evidence without any qualification, that the duties of his office required his attendance for ten months. The noble lord had last year said, that if an address were moved, such as was now moved by his hon. and learned friend, no minister of the Crown would dare to oppose it. As Mr. Ellis had made his election, his hon. and learned friend had necessarily shaped his motion as an address for removing him from his office. But, if Mr. Ellis chose, he had the finest opportunity in the world of showing his zeal for the people of Dublin by relinquishing office in order to serve them. Whatever might be the result of the present motion, the case was so gross that he was confident Mr. Ellis would not sit long in that House and hold his office of master in Chancery.

Mr. Brownlow

expressed a hope, that the feeling of the House would be against the proposition, which in his opinion was not only a cruel proceeding towards an individual, but placed the Crown in an embarrassing situation. Last session this attempt was made in a clause introduced into the Chancery bill, which was stopped by those who stood between the king and the people. After that clause had been thrown out of the bill by the advisers of the king, how could they vote an address to his majesty to do what his advisers had refused to do? There was no pretence for the proposition. They might as well attempt to disqualify the right hon. and learned gentleman who recently astounded and bewildered the House upon the Catholic question. Mr. Ellis had proved that the duties of the office were not neglected, and the House had nothing to do with the transaction.

Lord Castlereagh

said, he should propose to consider, first, what was the general impression with respect to the course which ought to be pursued with the duties of Irish masters in Chancery; secondly, what was the case applicable to Mr. Ellis; and thirdly, what was the situation of the House with respect to the sentiments of the individual who had the honour to address them? This question was brought before the House on a former day, by the proposition of a right hon. baronet for instructing a committee to regulate the office of master in Chancery. The House came to a decision, the effect of which was, that the proposition should not affect the present situation of any individual. He had supported it for reasons which he stated to the House: but a he question was, what was the view of the majority? They came to a decision, and sent the bill to the other House for its concurrence. He had concurred in sending the hill to the upper House, but he never considered that in the event of the Lords rejecting the clause, he was bound to support an address which the House of Lords precluded him from supporting. He put it to the House, whether the ministers of the Crown could do by an address, what they could not do by a bill? He could assure the House, that such an idea never entered his mind. Objections were made to the proceeding by bill; and he had said, that if such an address was voted, any minister might advise the Crown not to reject it; but he never gave any opinion on the question then before the House. He acknowledged that it was a great incongruity that a judicial servant of the Crown in Ireland, should be also a member of that House. He had always felt this to be a difficult part of the case in coming to a decision with respect to Mr. Ellis; but he never could agree to any retrospective application of any legislative act on the subject. He certainly had been induced to agree with the majority of that House on a former occasion, but he had had an opportunity of considering the matter again, and many circumstances had since come out, which he did not know at that time. He found that it was contrary to parliamentary practice, and therefore to parliamentary principle, to make retrospective laws in similar cases; and he did therefore think that the hon. and learned gentleman opposite called upon the House to adopt a strong case. It was a harsher proceeding against Mr. Ellis than he had contemplated at the time he gave his support to the bill which passed that House last session. One of the delicate circumstances attending the case of Mr. Ellis was, that he had been permitted to purchase the office of master in chancery, and had not the power to sell it again. If therefore an address was to be presented to the Crown to displace Mr. Ellis, it would be a great personal hardship; for if he was deprived of his office he would lose a lucrative situation, with the positive loss of 9 or 10,000l. which he had given for it. Mr. Ellis had told them, that he could not, consistently with the duty to his family, give up a lucrative employment, nor, with his duty to the citizens of Dublin, vacate the seat which they had placed him in. With respect to a roaster of chancery sitting in that House, he agreed with the learned doctor, that he did not see that incompatibility in an English master of chancery so doing; but the case was widely altered with an Irish master of chancery. He would farther say, that if parliament had foreseen the possibility of such an event taking place, it would have provided against it in the bill of 1803. The idea of a judge of Ireland taking a seat in that House, was abhorrent from the judicial character. Although it might be proper to remedy the omission, he did not think they ought to take this individual case. It was said that it was necessary to have professional gentlemen in that House. He was of that opinion, but he thought there was sufficient talent in the lower branches of the profession to render it unnecessary to go to the judicial ranks. If a bill were brought in to disqualify Irish masters in chancery and judicial characters from occupying seats in that House hereafter, he would give it his best support. This would affect Mr. Ellis in the next parliament; but he thought it would be a great practical hardship to adopt the present motion.

Mr. Plunkett

warmly supported the motion. He said, he entertained a high respect for the integrity and learning of his hon. friend; but he thought that if he retired from parliament, neither himself nor his constituents would suffer a very grievous calamity. The right hon. gentleman had denied the incompatibility of the two offices, because they were not enumerated in the act of 1803. The object, however, of that act was, to exclude those who were under the control of the Crown, and had no reference to the incompatibility of the offices which it interdicted, being held in common with a seat in that House. With respect to the incompatibility of the two offices, it appeared to him that the situation of master in chancery in Ireland, was one of the last which ought to make a man wish for a scat in that House, or which was compatible with it. This would appear obvious, when it was considered, that he had to decide upon cases without appeal from his dictum; as regarded matters of fact at least; for the high court of chancery never interfered with the statements of the facts of a case made by the master. There were besides many points of law, and matters which depended purely upon discretion; such as the taxing of costs for instance. It was stated in answer to this objection, that the masters in the Irish, court of chancery took their duty in rotation; but it should be borne in mind, that after a master had once possession of a cause, he must follow it from beginning to end. It followed, therefore, that if the master was removed, the causes must stand still. In taxing costs, for instance, if three-fourths of a bill were gone, through, the parties could not go on, if the master was absent. In short, it was impossible, but great public inconvenience must accrue from an Irish master in chancery holding a seat in that House. It was urged, that if this motion were carried, and the address complied with, it, would have the effect of an ex post facto law. He would take the liberty of stating to the House his notion of an ex post facto law, in which view he did not look upon this to be one. If an act were done which was improper and impolitic, but which the legislature had not at the time of its commission touched or marked as an offence, he considered that were the legislature to inflict punishments for that act, that law would be ex post facto. But, if it merely adjudged the act to be an offence, and constrained the party who had committed it from continuing so to commit it, it would not, in his opinion, then, be an ex post facto law. With respect to Mr. Ellis then, the case was, he had accepted two offices incompatible with each other, and it was not proposed to punish him for having so done, but to restrain him from continuing to be guilty of the mischief which must be the consequence of it. It was with reluctance that he felt himself obliged to vote for the motion before the House; but he felt that his respected friend had taken upon himself what he was not able to perform.

The House divided: Ayes 52: Noes 112; Majority against the motion 60.