Lords Sitting of 8 December 1830

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. For the abolition of Slavery, by Lord WHARNCLIFFE, and Lord FARNHAM, from Stockwell, Wotton-under-Edge, Mansfield, Barnsley, and Wimborne. By Lord KING, from Blackburn, for a repeal of the Stamp Duties on Newspapers.

REPEAL OF THE UNION WITH IRELAND.
The Marquis of Ormondepresented a Petition from Kilkenny, complaining of distress, and praying for a Repeal of the Union. The noble Marquis stated it as his conviction, that a Repeal of the Union would be a most disastrous measure to both countries.
Lord Clifdenquite concurred in that opinion. He did not know any thing that would be more disastrous to Ireland than a repeal of the Union. He really believed, that if their Lordships thought fit to erect Ireland into an entirely separate State, and to send to the Continent—to Prussia, Austria, or Russia, for some Prince to place as a sovereign there, they could not more completely lay the foundation of the utter ruin and subversion of the empire, than by repealing the Union. He would assert, that ninety-nine out of a hundred men of property in Ireland,—that all respectable persons, Catholics and Protestants, were against a repeal of the Union. No man was a greater friend than he (Lord Clifden) was to an effectual and proper reform, but he was at the same time decidedly opposed to universal suffrage, radical reform, and the repeal of the Union.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND.
Lord Farnhamregretted that he did not see the noble Earl at the head of his

817
Majesty's Government in his place, as he wished to put a question to him, which the absence of that noble Earl yesterday had alone prevented him from putting. He trusted that he should not, in the observations he was about to make, be considered as offering any hostility towards the noble Lords in whom it had pleased his Majesty to repose his confidence. He was one of those who were strongly of opinion, that the more the administration of justice could be separated from political considerations the better it would be for the public. He therefore lamented exceedingly that the constitution of our Government was such as to make it necessary that the place filled by the learned Lord upon the Woolsack should be a political situation. If, however, it were necessary that the Great Seal of England should be confided to a person in the Cabinet, he did not see any reason why the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland should be held by a person politically connected with the existing Government. He had heard a report that it was the intention of his Majesty's Ministers to remove Sir A. Hart from the Chancellorship of Ireland, in order to make room for a person for whose talents he entertained the greatest respect—he meant Lord Plunkett. He was in hopes that his Majesty's Ministers were determined to redeem the pledges which they had given to enforce the most rigid economy in every department of the State. Now one great objection to the arrangement which he had mentioned was, that it would have the effect of saddling the public with an additional and unnecessary expense of 4,000 l. a year; and as soon as such an arrangement could be completed, they would have no less than six Chancellors and ex-Chancellors, and in the present unsettled state of politics, he should not be at all surprised if, in a short period, they should have two more retired Chancellors upon the list. It was a common, and a prudent practice in private families, to make a provision to prevent the estate from being encumbered by too many settlements. It struck him that such a case was strictly analogous to that of the great estate of the nation, and therefore, that in the case of retired Chancellors, no more pensions should be settled upon them until some of the antecedent dowagers had dropped off. He was not personally acquainted with the learned
818
person who was about being removed from the Chancellorship of Ireland, but he understood that he had filled that high situation in such a manner as to give universal satisfaction to the suitors to his Court—to the Bar, and the public, of that country. He meant to say nothing: in disparagement of the noble Lord who was to succeed him, when he said, that he had only to imitate the conduct of his predecessor to give equally general satisfaction. Perhaps, indeed, if the arrangement spoken of had been made, it had been framed upon economical principles, and he wished to give Ministers an opportunity to explain the details of such an arrangement. Looking at it prima facie, such a change as that to which he had alluded but ill accorded with that rigid economy to which his Majesty's Ministers had pledged themselves.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that nothing could be more fair or candid than the questions which had been asked by the noble Lord, and he only regretted that he had to state in reply that, at present, nothing in the way of minute information could be obtained upon the points to which those questions referred, not merely on account of the absence of his noble friend, at the head of his Majesty's Government, to whose department every question regarding economy more particularly related, but also because, in point of time, the questions themselves were premature. The noble Lord had said, that he had heard that the arrangements in question had been framed upon economical principles, and that he wished to give Ministers an opportunity of stating them to the House; but it must be evident to the noble Lord, that unless arrangements were completed, it would be impossible for the Government to take the opportunity of stating them to the House. With regard to his first question, it appeared that the noble Lord entertained the opinion, that the officer who discharged the judicial functions attached to the situation which he (the Lord Chancellor) filled in that House, and the officer who filled a similar situation in the sister kingdom, were not persons who should have seats in the Cabinet, or be politically connected with the Administration of the day. Now, whether or not it might be more desirable, for the better administration of justice in the country (using the word in the largest and most comprehensive sense), that the rule of

819
Separating the judicial from the political functions of Judges should be departed from in one instance,—namely, that of the person holding the Great Seal—whether or not it was better, for the Administration of Justice, that such a deviation should be made from that otherwise excellent principle, was a question of not less difficulty than importance. At the first sight, every person who would consider the question would be inclined to give a decision in the negative, and to agree with the noble Lord in thinking that there was a clashing between the political and judicial functions of that office, and that they should be, therefore, severed from each other. On the other hand, it would appear that there was vested in the office which he (the Lord Chancellor) now held, a certain peculiar and exclusive and varied jurisdiction, on account of which it had been deemed necessary hitherto that such an office should be filled by a person politically connected with the Government. There was no precedent, certainly, for the separation which the noble Lord now called for, and if such a measure were adopted, it would be the greatest change that had ever been introduced into the Administration of Justice in this country,—one, at the same time, which would be contrary to all the precedents that we had since the time when the office of Lord Chancellor was known in this country, and which would put that great branch of the Civil Justice of the country upon a footing on which it had never been before. He did not deny that such a proposition might form a very fit subject for discussion, and if it were brought forward with that notice and preparation which so important a measure deserved, he pledged himself that he would not be found wanting to take his part in such a discussion. But, however the case might be in England, the noble Lord had asked, why not effect such a separation in Ireland? He (the Lord Chancellor) had known a great number of Lord Chancellors in that country, and he had no recollection of any one of them who was not removed upon a change of Administration. In 1801, when Lord Sidmouth became Premier, Lord Redesdale succeeded to the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland; in 1804, when Lord Sidmouth went out of office, Lord Redesdale certainly did not go out, but that was no instance against the rule, Lord Eldon continuing in office in England,
820
because the principles of the Administration remained the same. The death of Mr. Pitt occasioned a change of Administration in the beginning of 1806. Lord Redesdale then came back from Ireland, and was succeeded by the late Mr. George Ponsonby. In the following year, 1807, another change of Ministry took place. The Duke of Portland and Mr. Perceval came into power, and the intimate friend of both, Lord Manners, was appointed to the office of Chancellor of Ireland, which he held till the end of Lord Liverpool's Administration. Then, as soon as the convenient arrangements could be made, the same rule was again applied in England and Ireland. Lord Eldon retired in this country, and Sir A. Hart succeeded Lord Manners in Ireland, who only continued to hold office until the arrangements were made to provide his successor. In all those instances the same rule had been applied in England and Ireland, and he could not see that there was any thing which distinguished the Irish Chancellor from the English Chancellor to justify a departure from that rule. The change recommended by the noble Lord would be a most serious one in England, but it would be also one of very serious importance in Ireland. He was sure the noble Lord would admit that no charge lay against his Majesty's Ministers for not departing from a rule which all former Governments had acted upon. It might be departed from hereafter, if the Legislature should give its sanction to such an alteration, as it had already to other alterations in our judicial system; but Ministers could not be charged with a dereliction of their duty because they awaited the wisdom of Parliament to make, if it should think fit, such an unusual and unprecedented change in the Administration of Justice. The noble Lord had asked whether or not the Government had given directions for making the change he had mentioned with regard to the person who had filled the office of Lord Chancellor in Ireland. To that he would without hesitation reply, that nothing as yet had been finally done. If he were asked whether such a change was in contemplation, he did not feel himself bound to answer such a question. Whenever his Majesty's Ministers made up their minds, they would state their intentions to Parliament, but it was not his duty to state what they had in contemplation,

821
He would tell the noble Lord however, frankly and sincerely, though the matter had not been finally determined on, that his own leaning was towards such a change. The noble Lord had drawn an example from a private estate, with regard to which provision was often made to prevent its being encumbered with more than a certain amount of settlements. That might be a very good arrangement with respect to a private estate, but no instance had occurred where a pension had not been granted to a retired Chancellor. He would take upon him to assert, that though no arrangements had been finally made, either as to the terms upon which the Great Seal of Ireland should be held, or upon what terms the alteration should be effected, if such an alteration (of which he admitted the possibility) should take place, and though he could not be expected to state the details of that which was hardly commenced, much less completed—he would take the liberty to state, that when the details came to be laid before their Lordships, the plan would be found to have been conceived and made out with the strictest regard to economy. He was satisfied, that if such a change should take place, it would be found that the salaries would be modified as they had never been before, and so modified as to produce a saving—small, perhaps, in amount, but still a saving to the public; and he was also satisfied that the arrangements would be found quite consistent with the due economy of the public money.
[In the early part of the evening the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod acquainted their Lordships that he had taken a person into custody, who had been seen lurking about the House, and was suspected of having dangerous weapons in his possession, and who had attempted to take away the life of one of the Marshalmen attending the House, though the pistol missed fire. With this man he waited their Lordships' pleasure. At a later period of the evening the following Motion was made:]

CASE OF FRANCIS SISK—PUBLIC PROCESSIONS.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that their Lordships were probably aware that there was in the custody of the officer of that House an individual charged with the commission of a heinous offence within their Lordships' jurisdiction. It was
822
equally probable, however, that their Lordships would generally be of opinion that the most proper and convenient course to follow on this occasion was, to order the individual in question to be handed over to the Civil power, in order that he should be dealt with according to the ordinary process of the Courts of Law. He would, therefore, move, that Francis Sisk, now in the custody of the Usher of the Black Rod, be delivered over to the Civil power, in order to be dealt with acccording to law.
The Duke of Wellingtonwished to take that opportunity to advert to a matter which was of much more importance than the conduct of an individual,—he meant the procession which had taken place that day, through the streets of the metropolis, to the Palace at St. James's. That procession had been attended by a large body of people; it had occasioned large assemblages in the streets through which it had passed; and he therefore begged leave to call the attention of the noble Lord (the Secretary for the Home Department) to the circumstance, if it had not already attracted his attention. It seemed to him to be a very important matter, and as such he wished to hear what steps had been taken with respect to it.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that he was glad the noble Duke had called their Lordships' attention to the transaction, and he would, in a few words, give them a satisfactory explanation as to the whole circumstance from the beginning, and the whole course of proceeding which had led to the procession alluded to by the noble Duke. Almost the day after that upon which he had received the Seals of Office, he was waited upon by a deputation of the united trades of the City of London, who stated, that in consequence of the very severe disappointment which the City had experienced, from the putting off his Majesty's visit to the Lord Mayor, they were anxious to be allowed to present an Address to his Majesty, to testify their loyalty to his Majesty, and their firm attachment to the Laws and Constitution of the realm. Seeing no objection whatever to the presentation of such an Address, the more especially as they stated that it would be presented by a deputation of three individuals at the levee, he undoubtedly took his Majesty's pleasure concerning it: and his Majesty was graciously pleased to give his assent to its present-

823
ation. It was then understood that it was to be presented by three individuals, in the ordinary manner, at the levee. In the course of yesterday, he was greatly surprised, however, by learning from handbills which were laid before him, and which had been posted up in the different streets of the metropolis, calling on all the trades to unite and meet together to accompany this deputation to St. James's Palace, that the trades intended to have a public procession. On inquiry, he thought it necessary to take some measures as soon as possible, and he immediately consulted all the civil authorities on the subject, the heads of the police departments, the magistrates, &c, and they were all distinctly of opinion, that it would be much better to suffer the procession to take place, as proposed, than to prevent it by authority. They stated, that if the procession were allowed to proceed, they would be answerable for the consequences, and for the complete preservation of the public peace along the whole line it would have to traverse. Under these circumstances, he thought it should be allowed to take place, and that no measures of a strong nature should be adopted to put it down. He had now reason to be pleased with having followed these suggestions, for the procession had taken place in the most tranquil manner, and without any disturbance whatever of the public peace. He trusted, therefore, their Lordships would think, that, under all the circumstances, he had adopted the wisest course in not interfering with the wishes of the people.
The Lord Chancellorwished to add one word to what had fallen from his noble friend. The number of the persons assembled was certainly great, inconveniently great, of course, because the assembling of large numbers must always be more or less dangerous to the public peace. Still, however, if great numbers of the trades, or of other persons, were to say that they should like to see their Sovereign, or to accompany those who carried up an Address, how were their Lordships to prevent them doing so? The people might walk the streets if they pleased, and St. James's-street or Pall Mall were not exceptions; and they might walk with or without banners, the law would not justify any interference, much less the exertion of force, unless there was a probability of a breach of the peace. There was no such proba-
824
bility in this case; and he must say, he quite agreed in the advice which was given to his noble friend by those persons who were certainly very competent to advise in such a case, because they were the persons who, being answerable for the preservation of the peace, must be most alive to any danger of the peace being broken. The assemblage was no doubt to be regretted, but to be regretted only because all assemblages of large numbers were inconvenient. Nevertheless, the assemblage was perfectly legal. Before he left the Palace he had been careful to ascertain how these persons had conducted themselves, and he had found that their demeanour, as they passed along the streets, and while they were waiting outside the Palace, was perfectly quiet and peaceable. Though they lingered sometime about the Palace, probably in the expectation that his Majesty might appear at one of the windows, and that so they might obtain a sight of their Sovereign: although his Majesty did not appear, yet they expressed no symptom of impatience or disappointment, and committed no outrages, or behaved in any manner incompatible with good order, and the preservation of public peace.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that he did not know that the Government had received any information upon the subject, or he should not have mentioned it. As to the assemblage being a legal one,—he had not the Act of Parliament by him,— but he believed it to be altogether illegal. He thought such a proceeding contrary to the law. However, it was without any knowledge of those circumstances which the noble Viscount had stated, that he had felt it his duty to call the attention of the noble Viscount thus publicly to the subject,—and he must say, if such an assemblage were not contrary to the law, it was certainly extremely dangerous to the public peace.
Motion agreed to, and the man was given up to the civil authorities.*
* The individual referred to in the Debate, after being examined before the Magistrates, was committed to Newgate. He was subsequently tried and acquitted of the intent to murder, but ordered to be shut up in Bedlam as insane.