HC Deb 26 June 1828 vol 19 cc1524-6
Sir J. Mackintosh

said, he hoped he should be allowed to say a few words. He confessed that he felt very great regret, in common with all those who took an earnest interest in improvements in the law, that the name of Mr. Humphreys did not appear in the Commission that had been appointed, to inquire into the law of real property. The merits of Mr. Humphreys were so great and so well known, that no name would have sooner occurred than his, to any person who was zealous for reform in this branch of the law. If there was a man who, to a profound knowledge of the principles of the law, joined an eminence for his skill in practice, he could not help considering it as a public misfortune, that Mr. Humphreys's name did not appear in the commission. In saying this, he did not mean to say any thing derogatory of the learned persons who formed that commission. Mr. Campbell, though he had hitherto applied his talents to a different part of the law, would, he was sure, execute his task with skill, integrity, and assiduity. So would Mr. Duckworth. Still, he regretted the absence of Mr. Humphreys's name in the commission; and he had the less hesitation in saying so, as those very persons had expressed their sor- row at being deprived of the valuable assistance of Mr. Humphreys. Mr. Humphreys, animated as he was by a public spirit, would, no doubt, give the commission all the assistance in his power; but that would be very little, compared to the assistance which he might have given, had he been one of the commission. After the valuable publication which Mr. Humphreys had put forth, he did think this omission a misfortune.

Mr. Secretary Peel

said, he had been actuated by no personal feeling in the selection he had made. Nay, he had never even exchanged a word with any of the commissioners. Moreover, no one of the commissioners had made any application on the subject; they had each of them been invited to undertake the task; he believed that the proposal was totally unexpected by each of them; and it had been so made that they should consider themselves under obligation to no one for their appointment. As to Mr. Humphreys, the omission of that gentleman was, he would contend, perfectly consistent with the object of the commission. Mr. Humphreys had written a work which had provoked a controversy; and if Mr. Humphreys had been put upon the commission, so also must those who had engaged in the controversy against him. This would not have effected the object of the commission. It was much better that persons who had not committed themselves to any particular points should constitute the commission. If the commissioners thought proper to avail themselves of the services of Mr. Humphreys, they might do so.—They might receive both the evidence and the suggestions of Mr. Humphreys. It was thought that the commission should consist of no more than five; and that a common lawyer, two conveyancers, and two practitioners in a court of equity, were the most proper persons to make up that number.

Sir F. Burdett

could by no means agree in the rule, that persons who had showed a disposition to reform a part of the law, should be excluded from a commission appointed to inquire into that part of the law. Mr. Humphreys, a gentleman eminent in his profession, had performed the extraordinary task of producing a work on the subject of the law of real property, for the comprehension of which no technical knowledge was at all necessary. The omission of that gentleman's name in the commission reminded him of the old story of the play of Hamlet being performed, with the character of Hamlet omitted.—Mr. Humphreys had given up much of his time, and, of course, of his professional emoluments, to the investigation of the subject, to inquire into which the commission was constituted; and every body expected that his name would have appeared in it.

Mr. Batley

thought, that if Mr. Humphreys had been appointed, so also must the learned gentleman who had opposed the doctrines laid down in his publication.

Mr. Brougham

was convinced that the undeviating honour and integrity which had characterized Mr. Humphreys, ought to have assured every body, that a more valuable gentleman could not have been placed upon the commission. He could not help thinking, that the omission would not only tend to diminish the confidence of the public in this commission, but to diminish the prospect of benefit which they had every right to expect from the inquiry. It was said, that Mr. Humphreys had carried reform too far, and that therefore, another gentleman, who differed totally from him, ought to be placed on the commission, if Mr. Humphreys was. Now, he would contend, that there was no sense in putting such extreme notions in such a situation. A learned person was reported to have said, that he would rather have his bowels torn out, than that the system of fines and recoveries should be abolished. Now, would it not be an absurdity, to place Mr. Humphreys and this learned person together on the commission?

Mr. Hume

said, there was a great difference between having the evidence of Mr. Humphreys, and his being on the commission, where he might originate improvements. It would seem, that any men of talent and information, who had ventured to give their opinions on subjects of importance, were less likely to be employed, than men whose minds were a blank sheet of paper.