Lords Sitting of 14 October 1831

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time, and passed through the other stages, the Standing Order, being suspended; the Relief and Employment of the Poor, and the Barbadoes Importation; also the Galway Franchise; Arms (Ireland); Prescription. Committed; Valuation of Lands (Ireland); Military Accounts (Ireland), Read a second time; Hop Duties. Read a first time; Distillation (Ireland.)
Petitions presented. In favour of Reform. By Viscount GODERICH, from Inhabitants of Havant and Aldborough:—By Earl GREY, from Stromness, Easter Ross, Salisbury, and Swanwick. By Lord KING, from the Political Society of Warwick, for the abolition of Slavery, and for the diffusion of Useful Knowledge. By Earl GREY, from the Royal Burghs of Scotland, praying for an alteration in the Scotch Reform Bill relating to the disfranchisement of the Fife district of Boroughs. By a NOBLE LORD, from the Rate Payers of St. Pancras, in favour of the Vestries Bill.

BANKRUPTCY COURT BILL.
The Lord Chancellor. —My Lords, I hold in my hand a Petition from a professional gentleman named Richardson, pointing out several abuses in the present system of Bankrupt-laws, and calling on your Lordships to pass the Bill lately introduced to amend them. My Lords, in presenting the petition, I cannot avoid taking advantage of the opportunity it affords me to state, that I have heard with great concern that, owing to misapprehension, some imputations have been thrown upon me—no, I should not state that, for I hope I am above them—but that some cavils have been made out of this House—where I will not say—respecting my motives in bringing forward the Bill to amend and correct the law relating to bankruptcy, which has received your Lordships' approbation, and is now before the other House of Parliament. It has been said by men for whom I entertain the highest respect—and by one, in particular, whom I have every reason to value on account of his professional and other acquirements—that I was establishing for myself the enormous patronage of 26,000 l. a-year. Now, my Lords, it is from an utter ignorance of my disposition and nature, as well as from an

761
utter ignorance of the Bill itself, that any such idea caw prevail—for, in place of my creating any such patronage, the Bill absolutely reduces places now worth 35,000 l. to a sum between 17,000 l. and 18,000 l. That, my Lords, is the kind of patronage I take care to secure for myself out of an office which has hitherto enabled the persons holding the Great Seal to provide for the several members of their families, and out of which the family of Lord Thurlow have been in possession of great advantages, having held a sinecure of 10,000 l. per annum for nearly half a century. All of that, my Lords, I have absolutely relinquished; so that if any person who ever held the Great Seal is liable to be charged with a love of patronage and a close adherence to the advantages of his place, I think I am not the person. I have further to observe, my Lords, that several of my predecessors in the office of Lord Chancellor have been enabled to bestow places upon their connexions and relatives of 3,000 l. or 4,000 l. a-year; this also I have not done. It has also been said, my Lords, that I as the Chancellor wish to have a hold over the bar; but I think very little of any such consideration. I wish, of course, to give satisfaction to the Bar; but my great object is, to give satisfaction to the suitors of the Court; and if I succeed in doing that, it will be the only hold which I desire to have on the Court of Chancery. The system of the Bankrupt-laws, which the Bill I introduced seeks to get rid of, certainly gave the Lord Chancellor a hold on the Bar by the disposal of seventy places, which he could dispense as he pleased to young men, who had but just drawn their gowns over their shoulders. That was a sort of patronage which was constantly dropping in, and, for the few months I have held the Seals, I have had no less than six such places at my disposal; but, when the Bill passes, and after it is set into action, I do not expect to have more than eight or ten places to give away all together. And so little do I care for the patronage that the giving away of them will throw into my hands, that I assure you I shall be heartily glad if any person will move, either in this or the other House of Parliament, that the Lord Chancellor should have nothing to do with them; and I dont care if the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London, or the benchers of any of the Inns of Court, or the Lords of his Majesty's Treasury—
762
who will, perhaps be more suitable than the Lord Mayor and Aldermen—shall be intrusted with the disposal of them without my interference or control. It is also said, that I set great store by the Bill, and am very anxious that it should pass, but that my colleagues in the Administration are against it. Now I speak in the presence of my noble friend at the head of his Majesty's Government—certainly a most insignificant sort of person in the Administration—and in the presence of my noble friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department—certainly another most insignificant personage in Administration; yet in the presence of those two most influential of my colleagues do I speak it—and I put it to them if, since I commenced these Law Reforms, I have not explained each of the measures I proposed to introduce personally to them? I ask them if, besides my communications in the Cabinet, I have not gone into the explanation of each measure separately, and in private, both of the principle and the minutest details? And I also ask them, if I have ever met their disapprobation, and if I have not altered one or two points at their suggestion? Because, though I am the only professional man in the Cabinet, I do not wish to stand up too much for my own opinion: and I put it to my noble friends, before your Lordships, if one single tittle contained in these Bills has not met the entire and cordial concurrence of his Majesty's Government? [Hear, from Earl Grey.] I did not mention to my noble friends that I should make any statement of this nature; but having done so in their presence, I confidently appeal to them to support and confirm it. My Lords, it has been said, in another place, that I am desirous of being as dictatorial a Chancellor as was Cardinal Wolsey. To this I will only reply, that I resemble him as much in my notions of British law, as I do in the rest of my conduct and character, and just as much, and no more, than I do in my deportment towards the Monarch whom I have the honour to serve—towards the colleagues with whom I am associated— and towards the people at large. I am most anxious with regard to the passing of this Bill. I do not deny it. I feel the strongest desire—a desire that I shall not lose but with life—to have this Reform become part of the law of the land. There is no sacrifice of private convenience,

763
exhausted as I am with incessant labour, that I will hesitate to make to advance it, and I look with confidence to its speedy and successful accomplishment. My Lords, to my infinite astonishment and mortification, I find, that in the opening of the Bankruptcy Court Bill elsewhere, a Budget accompanied it; making a provision for the Lord Chancellor for the loss of emolument and patronage it inflicts upon him. I assure you that was not done with my consent. I knew nothing of it. I only knew that a compensation was to be made I for the family of Lord Thurlow, and for others whose rights were to be affected by the remodelling of the Court, but I had no idea that the Bill was to be clogged with any provision for the Lord Chancellor. I expect compensation, undoubtedly; I will not practise so much hypocrisy as to deny it; but I trust for that compensation to a future measure and to the justice of a future Parliament. Your Lordships are aware that I have brought down the salary of the Lord Chancellor from 16,000 l. a-year to 8,000 l., leaving it to the Legislature to make up a suitable provision in the manner it shall best think fit. Of course I cannot afford to give up all that sum; and, if I could, my successors have a claim to be considered, and I cannot be unjust to them; but I left the arrangement for another Session, as I was anxious that nothing which personally concerned me should clog the Bill in its progress. God forbid that I should not receive, or that I should prevent my successors from receiving, the just rewards attached to the high office I at present fill. It is wholly unreasonable to expect that the Lord Chancellor shall have but 7,000 l. or 8,000 l. a-year, while the Chief Justice of the King's Bench has 10,000 l., his office being for life, while the Lord Chancellor is only appointed during pleasure. I feel assured, however, that the justice and wisdom of Parliament will not permit the office of Lord Chancellor to be reduced in emolument from 20,000 l. to perhaps about 7,500 l. per annum, if it be only on the account of the policy of maintaining the Great Seal upon such a footing as to make it an object worthy of the ambition of lawyers in the very highest practice at the Bar. At the same time I must, repeat, that I postponed the consideration of the retiring pension for the Lord Chancellor, or, of the compensation which he should receive for the reduction of the emoluments
764
of his office, under the operation of these Bills, in order that the Bankruptcy Court Bill should not be clogged; for my great object is, to carry this Bill into operation, and to promote that Reform of the Law which I will sacrifice all personal consideration to accomplish. I beg pardon, my Lords, for having intruded upon your time; but perhaps you will agree with me, that when a man has an explanation to make, however safe he may be in the hands of his friends, it is better that he should make it in his own person.
Petition to lie on the Table.

EMBANKMENTS (IRELAND) BILL.
The Duke of Leinster The Duke of Leinster moved the third reading of this Bill.
The Earl of Roden The Earl of Roden moved, that it be read that day six months. In proposing this Amendment, he begged leave to assure the noble Duke, that his opposition to the Bill did not arise from any remarks made by the noble Duke during the progress of the discussion, but from the nature of the measure itself, which appeared to him calculated materially to affect the rights of private property. He regretted that on this account he was unable to support it, as the Bill had been brought forward to furnish employment to the poor of Ireland, who were very much in want of it, and for whose state he had the deepest sympathy. To shew the effects of the Bill as it appeared to him, he would put a case hypothetically. Suppose a man possessed a property worth 300 l. a-year, and his tenants formed a Joint Stock Company. They obtained a commission to proceed with their undertaking from the Lord Lieutenant; they then applied to Government for money to proceed, and all this might be done without the consent of the proprietor. The parties commence the work without reference to the owner, who may have opposed it, but whose land would become liable for the money borrowed, as the money would be advanced only on the security of such land.
The Duke of Leinstersaid, such an undertaking could not be commenced without the consent of the great majority of the landed proprietors in the vicinity.
The Earl of Roden. —Well, then, suppose such a Joint Stock Company fails, who would then be responsible? He apprehended the land would be liable to Government.
The Marquis of Westmeathsaid, he presumed the money would be secured in a manner which would obviate all difficulty, although he was ready to allow, the land might be ultimately liable, as was the case in all assessments of such, a nature. He should have wished to seethe provisions of the Bill less complicated, but at the same time, he could overlook that defect, in the hope that it would tend to furnish employment for the peasantry, which was so very much wanted in Ireland.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, he was of opinion a measure of this nature ought to be referred to a Select Committee. The subscription required by the Bill in order to constitute one of these Joint Stock Companies might turn out a juggle, and a lien might be thus obtained upon the land to the amount of the money advanced by Government, by means of an actual conspiracy. Reconsidered the whole principle of the Bill most objectionable.
The Marquis of Lansdownbegged to observe, in reply to the noble Duke, that no works could be undertaken without the consent of the great majority of the lauded proprietors in the neighbourhood, and it, would be found that every necessary precaution had been taken in the Bill to provide against any improper appropriation of the funds supplied by Government: further he wished to observe, that the measure had been thoroughly sifted and examined in the other House of Parliament, and it had there obtained the consent of the principal landed proprietors who were most, likely to be affected by its operations and provisions. It was obvious, that to complete any extensive drainage, there must be a compulsory measure where the consent of many persons had to be procured, or there would be no drainage at, all.
Viscount Lortonsaid, the Bill had been brought forward under the plausible pretext of furnishing employment for the poor: he feared it would fail in that object, while its worst feature, the invasion of private property, would be effectual. On that account he must object to it
The House divided on the Original Motion: Ayes 38; Noes 20—Majority 18. Bill read a third time and passed.