Lords Sitting of 4 July 1831

MINUTES.
Bill read a second time Suits in Common Law Courts.
Returns ordered; by the Marquis of LONDONDERRY, for the names of Governors of Counties in Ireland, adding to their names those who exercise the Office of Custos Rotulorum.
Petitions presented. By Earl DUDLEY, against the Truck System. By the Earl of CARLISLE, for an Amendment of the Criminal Laws from the Occupiers of Land, in the Hundred of Nantwich, for an Extension of the Elective Franchise.

THE CASE OF MR. MICHAEL. STORKS.
The Earl of Harewoodrose, and bogged leave to call the attention of their Lord ships to a subject which was partly personal to himself, partly applicable to the situation which he had the honour to hold under his Majesty, and partly affected every individual in the kingdom who was intrusted with a similar situation. In rising to call their Lordships' notice to this circumstance, he asked a particular indulgence in being permitted to do so, as, however much be might feel on the occasion, or however much their Lordships might consider the case worthy of their notice, it was not his intention to conclude with any motion. He would not have taken this public mode of investigation, if it were not from a feeling that, though it might be unusual
622
to do so, it would be still more unusual and extraordinary for him, or for any person, situated as he was, to allow the case to pass over without demanding an explanation. He had, in the first instance, to declare, that in bringing a matter in which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was concerned before the House, he was not influenced by any hostility towards him. From that noble and learned Lord he had to ask an explanation for the satisfaction of his own feelings, and for the credit of the situation which he held, though he was ready to admit the full right which that noble Lord had to appoint whom he thought fit to the office of a Magistrate, as well as to erase from the list the name of any person whom he had reason to think was unworthy of that trust. He further did not deny the right which the noble and learned Lord had, of acting independently of the office which he (the Earl of Harewood) held in the county; but he felt that an explanation was at least due to the office, when the noble Lord thought proper to act without its intervention. He would now state the case, and, though their Lordships might consider it trivial, and unworthy of so particular a notice, he begged leave to observe, that there were circumstances connected with it which made it of some public importance; and it was one which deeply interested the magistracy of the county over which he presided, and, indeed, he might say, the magistracy of the whole kingdom. The facts were these—in July last, a Magistrate of the West Riding of York had an indictment for perjury preferred against him. It went before the Grand Jury; but before the bill was decided, a letter was received from the individual indicted, by the Foreman of the Grand Jury, endeavouring to influence him and his brother Jurors in his case. The Foreman was directed by the Grand Jury to hand that letter over to the Judge of Assize, and the Judge instructed the Foreman to deliver it to him in open Court, and then he conveyed it to the Secretary of State for the Home Department; and the result was, that when the new Commission of the Peace appeared on the occasion of his Majesty coming to the Throne, the name of the individual in question was omitted, that omission being founded on two circumstances—namely, the bill of indictment for perjury, and his attempted interference with the Grand

623
Jury. It was true that the indictment for perjury was not brought home to the accused, but his conduct with regard to the letter could neither be defended nor explained. Now, what he had to complain of in this case was, that the noble and learned Lord had acted without any communication with those who were usually thought worthy of consideration under similar circumstances. It so happened, however, that the Commission of the Peace remained open till the 14th of June, and up to that day the individual's name was not to be found in it, and he could take it upon himself to prove, that, so late as the 13th, the noble and learned Lord's mind was made up not to restore him. If the noble Lord had any doubt of that fact, he had it in his power to recall to him strong expressions which he himself had used on that particular day. The noble and learned Lord was not, on the 14th, possessed of any additional fact, nor was any further vindication of the individual possible; but an application had been made to him (the Earl of Harewood), as Lord Lieutenant of the county to restore this individual, and he had refused to interfere. The commission closed on the 14th of June, and on the 30th of June, he was astonished by being informed that the fiat of the noble Lord, dated the 21st of June, restoring the individual in question to the Commission of the Peace, was actually in the Crown Office; and that was done without the noble Lord taking the trouble to consult or communicate with him, though, from the office he held as Lord Lieutenant of the county, it was reasonable to expect he should do so. That was the plain state of the case, and he did not think it, could be passed over without his taking some public notice of it, either as it affected the individual against whom, as he knew him not personally, he could entertain no personal animosity, and as regarded his own personal feelings at being slightingly passed over by the noble and learned Lord. He brought the circumstance before the House, as, in his opinion, the relations between the person holding the Great Seal and the Magistracy of the county should be fully and clearly understood. Applications had been made to him concerning the individual in question, and he had refused to interfere either for or against his restoration to the Commission of the Peace, because he believed it was his duty
624
to do so. The noble and learned Lord had occasion to speak to him the other day on this subject, and in that conversation, the noble and learned Lord seemed to think that the indictment for perjury, which had failed, was the only thing against the individual, and he understood from the noble Lord, that he had not heard of the letter to the Grand Jury till that time. He at once applied to the late Lord Chancellor, and got from him, as far as his Lordship's recollection went, a copy of a letter which he had written to the noble and learned Lord now upon the Woolsack, which letter made distinct mention of the individual's letter to the Grand Jury forming one of the grounds of his name being left out of the commission. It was not usual, he believed, and certainly he had never experienced it before, for a Lord Lieutenant to be so passed over, and he begged their Lordships to consider what that situation was in which he should find himself placed, if he were asked in the county, "Why did you appoint such and such a person? "He must reply to such a question, "I did not appoint him." "Why, then, who did?" would be the next question; and he must answer, "It was the Lord Chancellor." Nor would questioning stop here. It would be said to him, "But did not the Lord Chancellor communicate or consult with you upon the subject; and, if not, is this treatment which you intend to put up with? "Now these were questions which it would not be very agreeable to answer. He could assure their Lord ships that he had never interfered, either to have this person displaced or restored; and he, therefore, felt himself in a condition to put this case before the public, in the only way in which it was possible for him to protect himself against an imputation which he should be very sorry to labour under, and which he did not deserve. These were the circumstances of the case, and the only question which he had to put to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, was this:—what were the reasons of the noble and learned Lord —his public reasons—for having passed him over in that office which he had the honour to hold; for, though he acknowledged the complete right of the noble and learned Lord to do this, yet he must ask the reasons of the exercise of this right; and farther, why it had not been done at the time of. the opening of the

625
Commission, and why it had been done without the noble and learned Lord giving him any information on the subject?
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he could very easily answer the noble Lord, when the noble Lord asked what there was in him (Lord Harewood), or in his high office, which could lead him (the Lord Chancellor) to treat him (Lord Harewood) —he would not say with disrespect, but— with any thing bordering upon, or approaching, or looking towards disrespect. His hearty, frank, and conscientious answer was this—" Nothing." Never, to that noble Lord individually, nor to the office which the noble Lord held, had he been inclined to show anything but that respect which the conduct of the noble Lord, and the nature of the noble Lord's office challenged from him. But he would not rest there; he would not content himself with saying this to the noble Lord personally—with saying this about the office which that noble Lord filled; he appealed most confidently to every one of their Lordships who were Lords Lieutenant, and begged them to say whether, in their intercourse with him, it was possible for any Keeper of the Great Seal to have shown a more entire and implicit deference to their office, or to their opinions as to what persons should be inserted in, and what persons excluded from, the Commission of the Peace. He was very much understating the fact, when he said, that in every week since he had come into office, he had had very many applications, some of them most urgent applications, to insert the names of particular gentlemen in the Commissions. His answer had been one and the same to all, and that answer was, "Go to the Lord Lieutenant; if he recommends you, that shall be a law to me; I never will insert or exclude any without the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant, for he is the responsible adviser of the Great Seal, and has local knowledge, which I have not." Nay, in many cases in which he was free to confess that he thought the Lord Lieutenant had been wrong, as in the case of two Magistrates in a disturbed district; and in another case, where the recommendations were of the strongest, the highest, the most respectable character—even in such cases he had refused the applications that had been made to him. He had offended some of his most intimate connexions by this-course of proceeding; and he had
626
been even remonstrated with, and told that it was at once his right and his duty to grant applications, of the propriety of which he had no doubt, in spite of the absence of the Lord Lieutenant's recommendation. His answer had been uniform and inflexible, and he had told their Lord ships what that answer was. He at that moment saw a noble Lord before him (the Lord Lieutenant of a county) to whom he had yielded, and inserted that noble Lord's friend, giving up his own, though he was of opinion that the application of the latter ought to have been attended to. And now he would put it to their Lord ships, whether there had been any deviation on his part from that course in the case of Mr. Storks—for Mr. Storks was the gentleman to whom the noble Lord had alluded. Certainly, according to the noble Lord's friend statement, there had been such deviation; but then the noble Lord had, unintentionally no doubt, omitted some very material facts of the case. He would, with their Lordships' permission, mention them. In 1807, Mr. Storks was first put into the commission; he was afterwards omitted; in 1820, Mr. Storks was put in the commission again, upon the demise of the Crown, being then recommended by the noble Earl. Mr. Storks continued in the commission, and continued to act as a Magistrate until 1830. On the accession of his present Majesty, there was a new commission; and the noble Earl had forgotten to state that he (the noble Earl) had again caused Mr. Storks's name to be inserted in the commission also.
The Earl of Harewoodmade an observation, which was not heard.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he must not be interrupted. He had allowed this very irregular discussion to take place—he had allowed it—for he might have stood upon his right—he might have told the noble Earl to impeach him, if he pleased; or he might have taken advantage of the order of proceeding in that House, and forced the noble Earl to give a formal notice before bringing on this discussion. He would venture to say, that this was the first time a Keeper of the Great Seal had been put upon his trial for the improper discharge of a very delicate duty, by virtue of a polite note received from the noble Earl, with the noble Earl's compliments; and without any notice to their Lordships generally, though with very am-

627
ple notice to some of their Lordships, as he could perceive by the full attendance in a certain quarter. he only mentioned these circumstances in passing, and should not have alluded to them, but for the interruption of the noble Earl, whom, however, and he begged it might be recollected, he had not interrupted while the noble Earl was addressing their Lordships. He did not complain of this question being put to him; it was a very fit question to be asked, and a very fit one to be answered, which, with the permission of their Lordships and the noble Earl, he would now proceed to do. From the facts he had stated, their Lordships would see, that he had the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant in favour of Mr. Storks, as late as last July or August. And what had taken place since that time? Why, Mr. Storks having been put on his trial for perjury, the name of that gentleman was left out of the Commission by his noble friend and predecessor in office. No doubt this was very proper, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant. He had, however, since inserted the name of Mr. Storks once more in the Commission; and he must say, that knowing nothing, and caring nothing about the individual, and having no further acquaintance with the case than he had derived from the report of Mr. Justice Littledale—the Judge who tried the indictment for perjury—he could not possibly have done otherwise, in common justice to Mr. Storks, in conformity with the principles of our law, and in conformity, he must add, with the precedents with which his predecessors had furnished him. Lord Eldon had laid it down as a rule—the rule might be too strict—it might—and he believed it did—sometimes keep improper persons in the Commission; but still it was a rule which Lord Eldon had gleaned from long experience, and a rule therefore which he (the Lord Chancellor) had thought it convenient to take for his guide. Lord Eldon, he repeated, had laid it down as a rule, that if a man were once in the Commission, he would allow no one but himself (the Lord Chancellor) to withdraw that man's name, unless he should be convicted of some disabling offence, by a competent Court, or, unless he should have become a bankrupt. It was true, that the Lord Chancellor ought to listen to no one but the Lord Lieutenant, in placing persons in the Commission; but it was a
628
part of Lord Eldon's rule, from which his Lordship had declared that he had never swerved, not to allow a Lord Lieutenant to strike a man's name out of the Commission. Lord Eldon had acted upon this rule in the case of the Durham Magistrates, who had been removed by the custosrolulorum, but whom the Great Seal had replaced, and insisted upon its right to restore them to the Commission. Well, then, such being the rule, such the facts of the case, had he flown in the face of the Lord Lieutenant? Certainly not, for he had the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant in Mr. Storks's favour, and Mr. Storks's name had been left out of the Commission by the late Lord Chancellor on account of the indictment for perjury, which indictment having been tried, Mr. Storks was acquitted by a Jury of his countrymen, with the fullest approbation of the learned Judge (Mr. Justice Little dale), who had told him (the Lord Chancellor), not an hour ago, in that place, that he (Mr. Justice Little-dale) had himself suggested and directed that acquittal. It was very easy for the noble Earl to say that that indictment had failed, that it had had no effect, that it had not succeeded and hearing such expressions, it was not unnatural that the generality of persons should think it was intended to say, that it ought not to have failed—that it ought to have had effect—that it ought to have succeeded. Why had not the noble Earl said, that Mr. Storks was triumphantly acquitted, which was the fact, as he (the Lord Chancellor) knew, and as the noble Earl might have known. It might not be necessary for the noble Earl to ascertain this fact, but it was necessary for him, as Lord Chancellor, to ascertain it. It was his business to go to the record. He had done so; and having the noble Earl's recommendation, as he had—for the noble Earl continued his recommendation in spite of the indictment—for that recommendation never having been withdrawn or cancelled, he considered it in force— having that, together with the fact of Mr. Storks being triumphantly acquitted, he had felt it his duty to restore that gentleman. When the gentleman was acquitted by a Jury of the country—was he, no matter how great his respect for the Lord Lieutenant of the county might be—was he to consult him, and place him above that tribunal which was higher than the station of the noble Earl—that of Judge

629
and Jury? and, surely, it was reasonable that if one Lord Chancellor only withheld the appointment while the trial was in suspense, that another should reinstate the individual, when the trial was terminated honourable in his favour. It could not be supposed that he had acted out of favour to Mr. Storks, and it was scarcely necessary for him to say, that not one of their Lordships was more utterly unconnected in friendship with that person than he was, and he knew little more of him than that he had a son an attorney. He knew nothing of Mr. Storks, but that he once had to examine him as a witness, and that at another period he was retained as Counsel against him, but, in consequence of a conflict which arose about retainers, he declined to act either for or against him. That was the extent of his private communication with Mr. Storks; and as to political connection, he need scarcely say, it was still more limited. Mr. Storks had been first put in the Commission by Lord Fitzwilliam, and he owed it to that noble family to state, that neither from Lord Fitzwilliam, nor from his noble friend Lord Milton—nor, in a word, from any one person connected with them—had he received any application in favour of Mr. Storks. He had, however, received applications on the subject of Mr. Storks from some who were connected with that noble family— strong applications against restoring Mr. Storks—nay, he had received even warnings that Mr. Storks ought not again to be put upon the Commission. But he had not attended to these warnings and these applications; he had adhered to, and had acted upon that rigid and inflexible rule, to which he had before adverted, and that, too, against his own political friends. At the same time he ought to state, that he had had many applications in favour of Mr. Storks—one of them a petition signed by 1,000 persons, and the whole of one town-ship had again and again addressed him, in order to procure the restoration of Mr. Storks to the Commission. It was not, however, in consequence of such applications that he had restored Mr. Storks, although, if he had wanted authority in favour of what he had done, he might adduce these applications. The fact was, that he felt he had no choice left in the matter, for if he had not restored Mr. Storks, it would have looked as though he was trying Mr. Storks in his private room for perjury, after Mr. Storks had
630
been acquitted by a Jury of his fellow countrymen. He was aware, that many of the Magistrates of Yorkshire did not like Mr. Storks, and did not wish to see him restored, but with their antipathies he had nothing to do; and, if he had refused to restore him, he should have sent it out to the world, that he thought Mr. Storks guilty, although the prosecution, as Mr. Justice Littledale had described it to him, was, he must say, one of the most ground less and abominable that had ever been brought into Court. What did their Lord ships think of calling upon a man to prove that he had sworn truly, in an answer to a bill in Chancery, respecting a most complicated affair, which had happened thirty years ago, and when all the persons who could have proved whether he had sworn truly or falsely were dead, with the exception of one person, and that person the prosecutor? Mr. Justice Littledale had told him, that as soon as he had heard the story of the prosecutor, he was instantly struck with the cruelty and injustice of letting the case go on, and, further, that even upon the showing of the prosecutor himself, there was no reason for supposing that if Mr. Storks had stated any thing contrary to the fact, he had done so intentionally. Now, perhaps, this learned Judge might be wrong, and perhaps the noble Earl, as he had attacked one Judge, would think it right to attack Mr. Justice Littledale for being of opinion that Mr. Storks was not guilty. But he had spoken with another Judge upon the subject—with Mr. Baron Bayley, whom he had consulted respecting the letter. According to the recollection of Mr. Baron Bayley, he had intended only; that Mr. Storks should be suspended during the trial, and had never meant to recommend that Mr. Storks should be struck out of the Commission. But he did not pray in aid, the authority of this able and upright Judge—for what did the case of the noble Earl amount to when the charge of perjury was removed? It was very improper in parties to write to a Judge (he spoke, however, in the presence of those who well knew that Judges could not help parties writing to them); and it was, perhaps, still more improper in parties to write to a Jury; but was that such an offence as should disqualify a man for the Commission of the Peace, or was it in candour and fairness to be set down to that interest, and indiscretion, and impatience, which persons felt in their own cases, and

631
which frequently urged them beyond the bounds of regularity? Many of their Lordships had spoken to him about their own cases, and the cases of their friends, not asking that any very undue favour should be exercised in regard to such cases, but asking that which could not properly be granted; for instance, "Can't you give a little time?"—and so forth. Such conversations had always been put an end to by him as speedily as the rules of good breeding would allow, for they were not conversations which ought to be held between persons who were interested in a cause, and the Judge who was to decide that cause. He did not blame any of their Lordships for this, and still less did he say, that in consequence of it they were not fit to be Judges in the last resort, for he was sure that no harm was meant; but surely the meaning of Mr. Storks might have been as innocent. By the way, as the contrary might be supposed, he begged to state, that Mr. Storks had given him no assistance at his election for Yorkshire. Indeed, he wanted no assistance, for there was not a voice raised against him, with the exception of that of one person, who, he might add, was still in the Commission—though many persons he knew very much objected to his being there— he meant Mr. Martin Stapylton, his adversary. But, to return to the noble Earl's case. The noble Earl complained that he (the Lord Chancellor) had not made up his mind on the 14th of June. He did not see why he was bound to answer this objection, if he had made up his mind rightly at last. In fact, he had waited till he could communicate with Lord Lyndhurst, to whom he had, for one week, delayed to write. Allow him to say, that he had a right to take time for consideration, for investigation, and for all else which prudent men indulged in before they made up their minds, and which he was not very likely to overlook, as he had not failed to perceive in how very disagreeable a situation the noble Earl might place him if he should make up his mind not to restore Mr. Storks. He would ask, too, supposing Mr. Storks were such an unfit man to be in the Commission, whether the noble Earl had done his duty, when he neglected to advise the Lord Chancellor not to insert Mr. Storks's name in the Commission. Let their Lord ships see what his situation would have been had he not have restored that gentleman. The noble Earl had talked of
632
questions which might be put to him in the county, now that Mr. Storks was restored; but let him also suggest to the noble Earl, what questions might have been put to him (Lord Harewood) if Mr. Storks had not been restored. Suppose there were such people as "Storkites," in Yorkshire, and suppose they had come and said to the noble Earl, "why did you strike Mr. Storks's name out of the Commission?" The noble Earl might answer, "I did not strike his name out; on the contrary, I recommended Mr. Storks." "Who "did it then?" "The Lord Chancellor," must be the reply; and so it would go forth that Mr. Storks had been put out of the Commission in consequence of some spite or mistake of the Lord Chancellor. That would be very unfair, and very unjust, but it would be very natural for people to think that it was true. The noble Earl had, in the first instance, recommended Mr. Storks; and now, in the eyes of all men, he seemed to disapprove of his having been placed in the Commission. This, he thought, was a complete answer to all that had been said. He had no interest whatever in the appointment of Magistrates. If cause were shown to him why, in any instance, they should be changed, he would not hesitate to alter the Commission. As a proof of the humility with which he used the power of his situation, he would state to their Lordships, that he had not called to the Commission of the Peace the nearest relation he had, until he received a letter from a noble Earl, with whom he was upon no particular terms of intimacy (he alluded to the Lord Lieutenant of Cumberland and Westmoreland), expressing a wish that he should place that individual in the Commission, which intimation he of course complied with. His reason for not rejecting the name of Mr. Storks was, because he never knew, until the present evening, that the noble Earl had expressed any dislike to the renewal of that gentleman's appointment. Most assuredly, if any intimation of the kind had ever been made to him, he did not recollect it. He had therefore inserted the name of Mr. Storks in the Commission, without any immediate consultation with the noble Earl, because he deemed it superfluous and unnecessary. He had no connexion or personal acquaintance with this individual. Personal bias he had none in this transaction, He had acted in obedience

633
to a strict rule, from which, since he had been in office, he had never departed. He had felt it necessary to say thus much, because the case was one of great importance, both with respect to himself and to the Magistracy in general.
Lord Lyndhurstwished to say a few words as to the course which he had taken in the transaction alluded to, and he was the more desirous to do so, because, in one material and essential principle, he differed from the doctrine laid down by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. A communication had been made to him (Lord Lyndhurst) by Mr. Storks himself, on which he felt, that he was imperatively bound to act, and he thought that their Lordships would agree with him, that it was impossible for him, in accordance with any proper rule of conduct, to act otherwise than he had done on that occasion. Mr. Storks stated to him, by letter, what his proceedings had been with reference to the case which had been referred to. It appeared, that a bill had been filed in Chancery, to which he put in an answer, and certain allegations contained in that answer were made the grounds of an indictment against him for perjury. Mr. Storks stated, that the Grand Jury having been summoned to consider the indictment, he had taken upon himself to address them on the subject, in a letter, in which he stated the particulars of his case. He (Lord Lyndhurst) felt it impossible, in consequence of this statement, which came from an individual who had for many years held the office of Justice of the Peace, to place his name on the commission. Mr. Storks said in that letter, "that having received information that certain parties/intended to appear as prosecutors and witnesses on a bill preferred against me, I considered it to be my duty"—(and here their Lordships would observe, that this came from a Magistrate of twenty years' standing)—" I considered it to be my duty to apprize the Grand Jury of such intention, with a few remarks on the case. This, I understand, is an error; but, if so, I erred unintentionally; and my being made a victim is the real cause of my having thus acted." The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack admitted, that if this were done from a corrupt motive, it was most reprehensible. But could it arise from any other than a corrupt motive, when a proper tribunal existed to try and to decide on the merits
634
of the original charge, that he should address a letter to that tribunal? Was it possible that this act could proceed from any other save a corrupt motive? He contended, looking at the case on Mr. Storks's own shewing that he was right in excluding Mr. Storks from the Commission. But taking it as an error, as Mr. Storks stated it to be,—an error committed, be it observed, by a person placed in the office of a Judge, should he have been justified in reinstating him in that situation? He thought, that (he had acted correctly in taking the course which he had adopted, although his noble and learned friend had taken a different view of the case, and proceeded in a different manner. He (Lord Lyndhurst) also had received the letter which Mr. Storks had addressed to the foreman of the Grand Jury—a letter from, and in the handwriting of, Mr. Storks, who had been in the commission of the peace for twenty years. Thus ran that letter—"To the Noblemen and Gentlemen composing the Grand Jury of the county of York." After stating the particulars of the bill which was preferred before that body, the letter went on in this manner—" I have it from the best authority, that a number of persons have entered into subscriptions to support this prosecution. The ostensible prosecutor is James Wood head; but he is not in circumstances to bear the expenses of it. It is surely the most wretched and malicious prosecution that was ever brought before you; it is now thirty-two years since those circumstances took place, which affords a strong presumption of the malice of Wood head, I cannot think the Grand Jury of the county of York will thwart the ends of justice, but that they will allow this case to be heard in Chancery before they find a bill against me." Such was the letter of a gentleman who had since been restored to the commission. This was the letter which Mr. Justice Bayley, when it was placed before him, had thought it necessary, as his noble and learned friend had stated, to submit to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, together with other documents. His noble and learned friend had said, that if the letter had been written by an attorney, the act would have been more reprehensible. He could not agree in that opinion—he could not subscribe to that principle—because he could not forget that the offence was committed by an individual who had

635
been for twenty years in the commission of the peace. Another letter was also addressed to the Grand Jury, suggesting questions to be put by them to the witnesses. Some of the observations were as follow: — "Samuel Holds worth, of Halifax, butcher, one of the prosecutors against Michael Storks, will swear any thing, he having been prosecuted by Michael Storks fifteen years ago. Joseph Wood head, another of them, will also swear anything to forward this infamous design." Such were the reasons which induced him to exclude Mr. Storks from the commission. It was not on account of the indictment for perjury that had been preferred against Mr. Storks. So far from that being the case, such a circumstance would have made him doubly cautious in excluding that individual, because such a step might appear as if he were passing judgment on him. But he had deemed it necessary to exclude Mr. Storks because he had committed an indictable offence. Did not his noble and learned friend know, that it was an indictable offence to write to the foreman of a Grand Jury for the purpose of influencing him? And who was it that did so? Why, an individual who had been executing the duties of a Justice of the Peace for twenty years. That was the ground on which he excluded Mr. Storks from the commission; and after such misconduct, he should have considered it a disgrace if he had placed Mr. Storks in the commission of the peace. He had been traduced on account of the part he had taken in the papers published in the county of York, and in anonymous letters which had been sent to him. An extract from one of these he would read, as it contained a most unjust attack on his noble and learned predecessor in office. The letter was signed, "A Yorkshire Freeholder;" and it contained this passage:— "Surely you ought to look to his long services before you degraded an individual who was so bright an ornament of the bench." Then there was a letter, signed by Mr. Storks himself, in which he stated, that his (Lord Lyndhurst's) predecessor would not have pursued the same course; and that he had acted differently from what his noble and learned predecessor would have done. "I have not to learn (said the writer) that malignity the most rancorous and persevering will be exercised towards me by those parties. I could not expect anything like a fair and manly hostility from them. The same
636
point was pressed upon your eminent predecessor, but by him it was indignantly rejected." Now he was quite convinced that his noble and learned predecessor would not, under the circumstances which he had detailed, have rejected such a course of proceeding, but would at once have decided, that he had no other to follow. His noble and learned friend on the Woolsack had stated, with perfect correctness, what had passed between his noble and learned friend and himself. His noble and learned friend had written a letter to him, requesting to know why he had excluded Mr. Storks; and he had stated, distinctly, on that occasion, that the ground on which he had excluded him was, his own communication as 1o his interference with the Grand Jury, in a case respecting himself, and particularly in a case where an indictment was absolutely pending. The last words might perhaps, have-been mistaken by his noble and learned friend. Probably he had the note in his possession: but he believed that in substance he had correctly stated what he had written. Unquestionably the noble and learned Lord had a right to appoint whom he pleased to the commission; but he believed that, for the last forty or fifty years, it was customary on such occasions to consult with the Lord Lieutenant of the county. In this case it appeared that the list was sent up without any observation. It was the old list, and the information which he had received reached him through the son of the noble Earl. Now he, using his own discretion, and having this information before him, would not allow the name of Mr. Storks to continue amongst those who were in the commission of the peace. He, however, did not mean to say, that his noble and learned friend had not a right to act as appeared most proper to him. That right he fully admitted, and that he had acted, in proceeding as he had clone, to the best of his opinion he entertained not a doubt. Imputing nothing whatever improper to his noble and learned friend on account of his decision, he yet felt bound to say, that having had the same evidence before him as his noble and learned friend, he had found himself compelled to come to a different conclusion.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, with respect to the letter which had been alluded to by his noble and learned friend, he would endeavour to find it. He would also ob-

637
serve, that the decision of Mr. Justice Bayley was only of a Suspensory nature, and depended entirely on the issue of the trial for perjury, and that having been decided in favour of Mr. Storks, he (the Lord Chancellor) saw no reason for excluding him. Many of the matters mentioned by his noble and learned friend were new to him, and therefore, with his limited knowledge upon the subject, it was natural for him to suppose, that the omission of the name was caused by the trial alone. What his noble and learned friend knew so well, he (the Lord Chancellor)did not know at all. His noble friend had, however, awakened his attention to these details, and having known nothing of them previously, he had acted under a different impression. He knew nothing about the son, who was an attorney. Knowing only what he knew, he had put the natural and obvious construction on the course pursued by others. Perhaps it would have been better to postpone this discussion until he could look into all the circumstances—until after the fiat should be filed, as he should then make inquiry, reconsider, and, if he found it fitting, not allow it to be filed. It was a most inconvenient mode of exercising the duties of his office, if, before a resolution were taken such matters were to be discussed in that House. He did not know how the authority of the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Lieutenants of counties were to be preserved if matters of this nature were there discussed. He might be, and no doubt should be, exceedingly honoured, and edified, and comforted, if their Lordships would on such occasions assist him—and there was no tribunal whatever, that he would rather consult with; but then he could not do that without the interference of another party, for which also he had great respect—he meant the people of England; but it was not proper that they should be made parties to a matter purely relating to the Executive. The consequence would be, that they would become parties to the discussion, and public meetings would be held half over Yorkshire if such matters were to be brought under the consideration of their Lordships before they were adopted.
The Earl of Harewoodsaid, if he had conceived for a moment, that the noble and learned Lord was not aware of ail the circumstances of this case—notwithstanding that the trial took place in the month
638
of March—he would not have introduced it at present. In the course of the noble and learned Lord's observations, one point was mentioned so often, and one particular word was used so often, that it led him to suppose, that the noble and learned Lord meant to charge him with inconsistency, or something worse. The noble and learned Lord said, that he (Lord Harewood) had "recommended" that this individual should be appointed to the Commission of the Peace, and that he afterwards acted against him. This word the noble and learned Lord had repeated several times. Now what was that recommendation so spoken of? Their Lordships would see that he could not act otherwise than he had done. The old Commission of the Peace was placed before him, and he sent it up to Government, as was usual, on his present Majesty's accession to the Crown. He had no reason to scratch out this individual's name; and the noble and learned Lord knew full well he could follow no other course than that which he had taken. What else, indeed, could he do? Under these circumstances, he considered the frequent use of the word "recommended" to be invidious; because it seemed to imply, that what he did with one hand, he was ready to undo with the other. It was not, however, in his nature to act thus. He admitted that the noble and learned Lord had been a most excellent advocate for Mr. Storks; but what he had said, and what he would say, was, that knowing the Magistrates of the county, and being aware of their sentiments, he felt, that if he permitted a Lord Chancellor to place an individual in the Commission of the Peace, unknown to him, without noticing it, he should have been guilty of a dereliction of his duty. Finding that such a course of proceeding had been adopted, he should not have done his duty if he had not interposed between the Lord Chancellor and the Magistracy. Therefore, in noticing this subject, he had not acted from any invidious motive. If it had depended on him, he certainly would not have had this individual restored; but at the same time he would say, that he entertained no private or personal feeling against him. He could not but complain that he found the proceeding was carried on in the Crown Office, and the fiat was issued without a word being communicated to him on the subject. He had no personal hostility, he repeated, to the man;

639
but he felt for the Magistracy, and if he had not brought this matter to light, he should not have done his duty. He must still say, that the noble and learned Lord had given him no satisfaction as to why he had, with the determination to re-appoint this gentleman, passed by him (Lord Harewood) and never mentioned his intention. That feeling he must still hold.
The Lord Chancellorthought, that he had explained fully in what sense he had used the word recommendation. The list of Magistrates of the county had been sent to him by the Lord Lieutenant and Custos Rotulorum of the West Riding of York, and when amongst the names upon it he found that of Mr. Storks, without mark, blot, or erasure, and when he at the same time received no letter, or intimation of any kind, pointing to that individual as an exception, he naturally took that name with the rest to be recommended by the Lord Lieutenant. Then, according to the answer which his noble and learned friend (Lord Lyndhurst) returned to his letter upon the subject, he supposed that the only objection to Mr. Storks's holding the Commission was, that the prosecution against him was pending, and that prosecution having resulted in an acquittal, the natural course was, to restore him. But now he (Lord Brougham) found, that there were other causes which he had not been acquainted with before, and that the indictment (the only cause referred to in the letter of his noble and learned friend) had not been the cause. Respecting the indictment, he would as soon have thought of consulting any other Lord Lieutenant in the kingdom as the Lieutenant of the county, whom he looked upon as functus officio, the Jury having decided that question. Did the noble Lord (Harewood) wish him to say, that he was sorry—to express deep contrition for having differed from him in his view of the case? The noble Lord held one opinion, and he another. Now he was sorry for that; and the more so, as it gave displeasure to the noble Lord, and caused the time of their Lordships' House to be so long occupied. For his part, he had never blamed the noble Lord for anything he had done respecting Mr. Storks. He had never heard any of Mr. Storks's friends complain of the noble Lord; nor did he think that they had any reason to complain. But still he would act himself in the same way as he had acted, were the whole transaction to
640
be gone over again. He looked upon what Mr. Storks had done as an impropriety, but still not deserving of the awful punishment with which the noble Lord thought it ought to have been visited. He should, however, take the whole matter into consideration, and ascertain the opinion of the learned Judge who presided at the trial; and he should be influenced in his final decision, partly by the opinion of the Judge, and partly by his own view of circumstances. He could assure the noble Lord that he no more believed him (Lord Harewood) to be influenced by spite to the individual, than that he himself had been governed by undue partiality.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, he did not know what his noble and learned friend meant by "awful visitation." What he had observed was, that writing to the Foreman of a Grand Jury was a grave and serious offence. He stated everything with great deference to his noble and learned friend, and had expressly said, that his noble and learned friend was as capable of forming an opinion as he was.
Lord Ardensaid, as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had in his speech adverted to a correspondence between them on the subject of the Magistracy of the county of which he had the honour to be Lord Lieutenant, he thought it incumbent on him to say, that from 'the attention the noble and learned Lord manifested on that occasion, and the civility he had shown him, he was confident, that the noble and learned Lord could not have intended any want of respect or civility to the noble Earl who had brought the case before the House.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, from the circumstance of his holding the office of Lord Lieutenant, he could speak with confidence of the general kindness and consideration of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to meet the wishes of those so circumstanced; but he thought in this case that the noble and learned Lord laboured under a mistake. He seemed to think that the charge against Mr. Storks was solely that he had been tried for perjury, under which impression he restored the gentleman when he was acquitted. But that could not have been the charge. It was not to be supposed that a man had been struck off the Commission of the Peace on the ground that he had been indicted for perjury. He would beg their Lordships to remember, that the gentleman

641
was to be considered as innocent until a Jury should have pronounced him guilty. Mr. Justice Bayley, who recommended that Mr. Storks should be dismissed from the Commission of the Peace, would not have done so because that gentleman had been under an indictment, but for some other reason. The predecessor of the noble Lord now holding the Great Seal omitted his name from the Commission, solely in consequence of his letter to the Grand Jury. But the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack referred only to the indictment, and said, that the acquittal afforded a full justification for his restoring the gentleman to the commission. The charge for perjury had not been the cause of his dismissal; nay, more, it could not have been so. How, then, did the case stand? Had it even been as the noble and learned Lord supposed, still, as a matter of courtesy between the person holding the Great Seal, and the Lord Lieutenant of a county—a courtesy, too, which he (the Duke of Wellington) had himself experienced from no Chancellor more than from the noble and learned Lord now holding the Great Seal—the Lieutenant of the West Riding of York ought to have been consulted, before the name of the individual who had been superseded, was inserted in the Commission. He (the Duke of Wellington) begged their Lord ships to bear in mind, that the making up the lists for the Commission was a very painful duty to those to whom it was committed. It required an intimate knowledge of the persons whose names should have a place upon it. With all the ability, learning, and eloquence of the noble Lord on the Woolsack, it. would be impossible for him to determine who were fittest for the Commission of the Peace, without consulting those who knew the county. It had often happened that a man, in other respects fit for the Magistracy, could not be appointed, because other gentlemen of the county would not sit on the same bench with him. Now, when a man had been tried for perjury, and had really committed other offences, surely it would have been no more than reasonable to consult the Lord Lieutenant as to whether or not there might be local objections to his appointment. It was with pain he made these observations, because he never had experienced more courtesy in his communications with the Great Seal than from the noble Lord.
Here the subject ended.

THE CORONATION.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that seeing the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government then in his place, he begged to ask, whether his Majesty had given any directions respecting the customary ceremony of a Coronation.
Earl Greysaid, in answer to the noble Duke, that he had received no commands from his Majesty on the subject.
The Duke of Wellingtontrusted, the noble Earl would excuse him if he asked another question on the subject; he wished to know whether his Majesty had taken certain oaths appointed to be administered to the King on his Coronation, for he believed these oaths ought to be taken within a specific time after his Majesty's Accession.
Earl Greywas aware that the ceremony of a Coronation was usual. He was aware that it had been provided by law that his Majesty should take certain oaths. If his own opinion were asked upon the subject, he should say, that it was necessary that the ceremony of Coronation should take place, but as long a time had, in former reigns, elapsed from the accession of the Monarch to the Coronation, as in the present reign. There were reasons at present for the postponement, which he should on a future day bring before the House. He should now only say, that it was at all times attended with inconvenience and expense. But means must, under any circumstances, be found, somehow or other, to ratify that solemn compact by which the King is bound to the nation. In what manner he proposed to obviate the inconveniences, he should have another opportunity of explaining to the House. He had not been prepared for the question of the noble Duke, and therefore had merely stated to the House what occurred to him at the moment. The fact was, he had received no commands from his Majesty as to when the Coronation should take place. On the subject of the oaths, he could only state his opinion, that, although the laws had not fixed any time or place in which they should be taken, it was indispensable that his Majesty should bind himself by them.

BEER BILL.
The Marquis of Camdenpresented Petitions from Wroth am, Ton bridge, Mailing, and seven other places

643
in Kent, complaining of the Beer Bill. The petitioners prayed their Lordships, either to withdraw the licenses under the Act, or restrict the sale of beer to be consumed on the premises. He was quite convinced of the evils complained of, and hoped Government would pay attention to the subject.
Viscount Melbournethought, that the mischief's attributed to the Beer Bill, originated in far different causes. He had determined, however, to institute an inquiry respecting its operation and results, and a measure was under consideration which he thought would remedy the evils complained of.
Petitions laid on the Table.

OVERSEERS OF THE. POOR.
Lord Teynhamlaid on the Table, a Bill to alter and amend the laws, regulating the office of Overseer of the Poor, for defining his authority, and for making better provisions than at present, for administering parish relief. He conceived this measure to be of very great importance, for he was sorry to say, the general aspect of the attempts made to improve the Poor-laws since 1795, was that of violence. Our poor were now treated as bad as the Irish, and were taught to love their country by whipping, banishment, and hanging. He would not have brought forward this motion, if the Committee of last Session, moved for by the noble Marquis (Salisbury), which had made no report, had been re-appointed. He wished to introduce a plan of conciliation towards the poor, for he was concerned to state, nothing had yet been done in those districts towards attaining this end, which had been of late disturbed and convulsed. God forbid, that he should ever be opposed to a legal provision for the poor But when it was considered that one million of families, making in all five millions of persons of our whole population, were supported by the Poor-rates, it was plain that there was a necessity for the greatest care and kindness in the administration of the Poor-laws. He should be ready on the second reading to explain the provisions of the Bill, and answer all objections.—Bill read a first time.

LIEUTENANTS OF COUNTIES (IRELAND).
Viscount Melbourne Viscount Melbourne, rose to move the second reading of a Bill, to appoint an officer who was to be invested
644
with the powers and duties at present exercised by the Governors of Comities. That officer was to be called a Deputy Lieutenant, and was to be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. It was found necessary to obtain a legislative enactment, for the creation of the intended Officer, because the Office of Governors had been sanctioned by an Act of Parliament. The effect of this measure would be, to establish in each county in Ireland, an Officer, through whom there should be a settled communication between the Government of Ireland and the Magistracy of each county. The want of such a connection occasioned great evils. The Government was compelled to rely upon the statements of a single Magistrate, or of a body of Magistrates, on matters in which those Magistrates themselves were interested—they being persons of whom the Government could know little or nothing. From these circumstances, the Government was necessarily liable to fall into great mistakes. He proposed this Bill as one step towards introducing into Ireland, the Constitutional Government of England; which could never be done without assimilating the institutions of the two countries. Another advantage would result, in the formation of the Magistracy. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland would, by this Officer, secure the means of informing himself of the qualifications of persons recommended for commissions of the peace. At present, a strict inquiry into the state of the Magistracy of Ireland was necessary, and this could be better effected by having a channel that could be relied on for obtaining the necessary information, than by the present means. In calling upon the House for its sanction to the appointment of another link of communication between the Government and the counties of Ireland, he did not question the discretion or the integrity with which the powers of the Lord Chancellor were exercised in that country. From the time of Lord Redesdale to the present day, the Lord Chancellors of Ireland had continually kept the happiness and the improvement of Ireland in view. It was but justice to the late Lord Chancellor, Sir Anthony Hart, to observe, that there never went into a country a public officer more free from prejudice, more disposed to kindness, or more devoted to justice, than that learned Judge. But yet, the

645
very pains which he had taken to secure the responsibility of those who recommended gentlemen as Magistrates, were found to aggravate rather than to diminish the evils which Sir Anthony Hart was desirous to remove. It was far from his intention to complain of Sir Anthony Hart, when he made that observation; but he made it, merely to show the necessity for having in Ireland a responsible person of known property, local knowledge, and integrity, to communicate with the Government respecting the persons who should be appointed to the Commission of the Peace.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that he entirely concurred in the reasoning' by which the noble Lord had supported the principle of the Bill. He was most willing to give the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland all the assistance in the power of Parliament to give him, to enable that great Officer to do his duty. He agreed with the noble Lord in thinking, that the present system, according to which there were in some counties five, in others three, and in others two Governors (there were very few in which there was only one), could not by possibility work well. They acted on no settled plan, and were sometimes in each other's way. Besides, many of these Governors were absentees, and yet persisted in retaining a power which they could not properly use, refusing, as they did, to discharge the duties of their office by Commission. On these grounds, he was disposed to approve of the present measure. He had certainly, at first, looked upon this Bill with much jealousy, fearing lest it might, have as an ulterior object, the abolition of the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, which he knew to be a subject on which strong' opinions were entertained. He thought, that the greatest misfortune for this country which could happen in Ireland would be the removal of that great Officer. In Ireland, it was necessary to bring the Government as it were home to every man's door—it was necessary that Government should be on the spot to protect every individual— to be ever present and ever active to put down that bane of the country—the acts and power of the Demagogues. As he before said, he looked with jealousy on the Bill, and hoped it was not intended to introduce officers whose power would be such that they might be hereafter told there was no necessity for a Lord Lieutenant.
646
Adverting more particularly to the Bill before their Lordships, he begged to observe, that the office was military, and not judicial as had been insinuated, and he objected to having such military Officers distributed over the counties of Ireland. At the same time, as he was ready to admit there was no officer there equivalent to the Custos Rotulorum of this country, there might be some expediency in the proposed appointment. But there was one point which required explanation. The noble Lord (Melbourne) had omitted to state why the Lord Lieutenant of the County should have the appointment of Officers in the Militia; and gave notice, that he would move an Amendment in the Committee, to the effect that the Lord Lieutenant should enjoy no power to the prejudice of the rights of Militia Colonels actually existing. Great sacrifices had been made, and great expense had been incurred, by persons holding this situation during the war, and it would be extremely unjust to legislate against them upon the present occasion. In conclusion, he recommended, that the office of the Lord Lieutenant of Counties should be held by a patent during pleasure, and not for life.
Earl Greysaid, that as no objection was made to the general principle of the Bill, he would not take up their Lordships' time by any general defence of a system which was found to work so well in England and Scotland. He hoped no prejudice would be entertained against the Bill, because it might be supposed to be directed to an ulterior object. Upon the question respecting the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland he would express no opinion. But he was ready to admit, that, at the present moment, and under existing circumstances, it would be highly inexpedient to give up the office. On what might be done hereafter he would not venture to speak; but he felt, that it ought not to be an objection to the Bill, that it would induce such a state of things as would enable them safely to dispense with an office, which, however useful it might be, and necessary at present, was undoubtedly attended with considerable expense. He himself, however, had no settled opinion upon the subject, further than to say, that at the present moment, the abolition of the Office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland would be inexpedient. With respect to what had been observed by the noble

647
Duke as to the case of the Militia Colonels be stated, that he had no objection to lend his best consideration to the question when it should be brought forward in the Committee, and he would give it all the attention to which everything was entitled which came from such a quarter. He, however, begged to remark, that he had a great aversion to considering such things as vested rights. In answer to the concluding observation of the noble Puke, he declared, that it was not intended that the Lord Lieutenants of Counties should hold their office for life. It would be contrary to all precedent and usage to make these Officers independent of the power which created them.
The Earl of Limericksaid, as an Irishman deeply interested in the prosperity of that country, he must express his entire approval of the measure proposed by the noble Secretary of State. He was aware that many difficulties and obstacles would interpose themselves to prevent the success of the Bill, and he had felt considerable difficulty as to the expediency of the appointment. He was still of opinion that other officers of great importance could not be entirely extinguished. The good to be attained by the Bill, would mainly depend on the persons appointed. If they were men of judgment, residents in the counties, and not connected with the political parties which existed, great benefit would be derived. He was the more free to make this declaration as he was no candidate for the office. He must also beg to say, that he did not in his conscience believe, that the establishment proposed to be abolished would have worked well if it had been continued. He entirely agreed' with the noble Duke (Wellington) on the point, and trusted with him, that the appointments of these Officers would not lead to the suppression of the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland. That he should consider a dangerous measure, which ought not to be adopted from any notions of short-sighted economy. The habits of the people were such as frequently to require the most decisive steps to be instantly taken.
Viscount Melbournebegged to remind the noble Earl, that it was not proposed to abolish the office of Custos Rotulorum, but unite that office with the other.
Lord Plunkettsaid, he must bear testimony to the zeal and ability with which his predecessors had discharged their duty,
648
and he had endeavoured by every means in his power, by moving for Returns and otherwise, to shew the great services they had rendered the public. He should be happy if his endeavours to imitate them were successful.
Bill read a second time.