Lords Sitting of 18 October 1831

MINUTES.
Bills. Returned from the Commons; Bankruptcy Court and Interpleader; Crown Lands Inclosure.
Petitions presented. In favour of Reform. By Lord DOVER and the LORD CHANCELLOR, from the Inhabitants of Shefford, Dronfield, Knaresborough, Chapel-le-Firth, Peterhead, Royal Burgh of Tain, Fleshers Incorporation of Perth, Inhabitants of Stickney, Steeple Aston, and Dalmellington. Against the Reform Bill. By Lord FARNHAM, from the Corporations of Sadlers, Upholsterers, Coachmakers, Barbers and Surgeons, Cutlers; from

885
the Guild of Merchants, Dublin, and from the Coalmeters of Dublin, praying for Compensation; from the Corporation of Weavers, Dublin, praying for the establishment of a Board of Trade in that City; from Clowes, in Monaghan, for the extension of the Tithe Composition Act, and from the Inhabitants of Drumcliffe, for the continuance of the Grant to the Kildare Street Society. By the Earl of CAWDOR, from Nairnshire, not to be joined with another County under the Reform Bill:—By a NOBLE LORD, from Inhabitants of Fethard, Templetown, and St. James's, Wexford, for the Yeomanry to be disbanded:—By a NOBLE LORD, from the Landowners, Merchants, Freemen, and Freeholders of St. Nicholas, Galway, to extend the Franchise of that place to Catholics equally with Protestants.

EXCHEQUER COURT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The Lord Chancellorpresented nine Petitions in favour of the Reform Bill from Tain, Peterhead, and different places in the counties of Derby, Lincoln, and Ayr. On presenting some petitions for Reform, his Lordship took the opportunity of saying a few words respecting a Bill which had been by him lately brought into their Lordships' House, and which had passed there without a dissentient voice. The Bill to which he alluded was the Bill for the abolition of the Court of Exchequer in Scotland. The consideration of that Bill had been postponed from time to time in another place, in order to make way for what was there considered as business of a more urgent nature, and was ultimately thrown over for the present Session. He took the opportunity of stating his deep regret at this delay, and his deep sense of the inexpediency of that delay, and his thorough conviction of the total uselessness of the inquiry, upon the ground of the propriety of which the delay was attempted to be justified. It had been said, that an inquiry by a Committee was called for, since, without such inquiry, the House could not know that the Court was a sinecure. But, what was passing in Courts of Justice was matter of common notoriety. What passed in the Court of King's Bench, Common Pleas, Exchequer, or Chancery, or any other Court of Justice here, was matter of common notoriety, inasmuch as they were open to all his Majesty's subjects, and to which the public had a right of access, and upon the ground of that notoriety, he had always understood that Parliament had a right to legislate. To say that this, or that the other House had no right to legislate upon the open, broad, and notorious fact, without a previous Inquiry by a Committee, was the most extraordinary proposition that he had ever heard of. If, however, they thought fit to go into the inquiry, there need have been
886
no delay, for the inquiry might have been fully made in five minutes. The Lord Chief Baron of the Scotch Court of Exchequer was in town, and if they had called on him to attend there, he would at once have told them, that the Court in question only tried, on an average, two defended causes in the course of a year. He would not have troubled their Lordships on this subject, however, had it not been for the imputations that had been thrown out against the Lord Chief Baron, as if he had been the cause of this Bill being introduced, in order to procure a sinecure for himself; whereas, in point of fact, the only effect of the Bill, as far as it regarded him, was to reduce his salary one-half! His hon. and valued friend, the Lord Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer in Scotland, had nothing to do with the Bill. He (the Lord Chancellor) had not had the slightest communication with the Lord Chief Baron about it. He had had no reason to believe that his hon. friend was any otherwise than averse to the Bill, since it reduced the income of his sinecure from 4,000 l. a-year to 2,000 l. The whole was a sinecure, except as to the trial of the two causes, and he had had no reason to believe that his hon. friend would not have been very willing to try two causes in a-year for 2,000 l., being at the rate of 1,000 l. per cause. He declared most solemnly, that he himself had matured the Bill, without any communication with the Lord Chief Baron. To be sure, his hon. and worthy friend cheerfully consented to the arrangement made by the Bill; but that was an abandonment by him of 2,000 l. of his income; and yet, ignorant and factious men imputed to him that this Bill was a job of his, prepared by him for his own benefit. It was of great importance to the public to get rid of the expense of this Court, and it was of much more importance in another view than that of the mere money saved; for it was of the highest importance that the public should not be put to expense for the support of Courts where the situations of the Judges were sinecures, since an expense of that kind was derogatory to the judicial character, and Judges ought always to be not only without blame, but above suspicion. This last consideration was of more consequence than the mere saving, and he hoped that the Bill would be passed at the earliest period in the next Session. Having thus cleared his hon. friend,

887
the Lord Chief Baron, from the unfounded accusations against him, he might be permitted to say a few words about some additional unfounded imputations against himself. It had been said, that he had called upon Masters in Chancery to retire, in order to have an opportunity of appointing others in their stead, who were considerably advanced in age. But he had never called upon Masters in Chancery to retire; he had no power to call upon them to retire, or at least he had no power to call on them to obey. But one did retire, and presented to him a certificate that he had served the office for twenty-six years, considerably more than the time required to entitle him to his retiring pension; and that he (the Lord Chancellor) was bound to admit, unless he could show, which he could not, that the retiring master was perfectly able to discharge his duties. But then it had been said, that he had appointed masters of sixty-five and seventy years of age. Well; what then? If they had been persons in high practice, and of acknowledged experience and talents, and were still in the full possession of their powers, why not appoint them? But at the same time he had taken care that they should not have their retiring pensions unless they served the office for the full period required by the existing regulations, and a minute of this had been entered in the Court of Chancery, so that his successor might be officially apprised that, unless the masters when they retired had served the office for twenty years, they were entitled to no pension. And this was what was called jobbing! Oh; but then it was said that one of the appointed masters, his old and valued friend, Mr. Henry Martin, had been retired from practice for fifteen years. The fact was, that it was fifteen months. He had been in practice in the Court of Exchequer, and at the head of that Bar, till within this year and a quarter: he had seen him there; and he defied any one to find a better Master; he was the very best that could have been found in the Court of Chancery for these last twenty years. With another Master in Chancery—the first whom he had appointed—he had never been in the same room till he had appointed him; and a gentleman more adverse to his party and to his political views, both as to Church and State, he could not have appointed. That gentleman was a friend of Lord Eldon's, and he thought that Lord Eldon ought to have
888
appointed him to be a Master in Chancery; and Lord Eldon not having done it, he had determined to do it. But the imputation upon him as to the appointment of this gentleman was not a bit more perverse and unfounded than the imputation with respect to Mr. Henry Martin, who was the fittest person that could be found. He hoped he did not improperly trespass on the time of their Lordships when he took the opportunity to repel these most unfounded imputations, which he did with perfect good humour, although it might at first be difficult to conceive the ignorance and perversion of understanding from which they had originated. But certain persons had successors, and these persons did not much like their successors, and were not very scrupulous about matters of fact when they endeavoured to vituperate and disparage these successors and to destroy the Government with which they were connected; and the hostility was the more embittered when they saw no reasonable prospect of succeeding their successors. Their position was, indeed, cheerless, and dark, and dismal, with scarcely the feeblest ray of light to comfort them, or alleviate the despair to which they were doomed. "But we," continued his Lordship, "cared less for this dark position; for we were intent upon plans of Reform in the Law, upon plans of Reform in Parliament, and upon projects for the advantage of our own country and the general benefit of mankind; and the contemplation of these subjects enlightened and cheered us in the long gloom in which we were immured. But now that our opponents are immersed in that dismal gloom, they have nothing like this to cheer them—nothing to dispel the dark horrors of their position, except a dim, twinkling, glimmering light, to shew them the way back to their old places. Under these sad and dismal circumstances, it is natural that they should resort to a little railing to comfort and cheer them; and hence we may account for these gross misrepresentations of fact, to some of which I have had occasion to call your Lordships' attention. I have returns to prove what I have stated in regard to the Court of Exchequer."
The Duke of Buccleughinquired whether the noble and learned Lord had any objection to lay those returns on the table?
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he had no objection.

SELECT VESTRIES' BILL.
On the Order of the Day being moved for receiving the Report of the Select Vestries' Bill,
The Earl of Falmouthsaid, that he had already given notice of an Amendment he intended to propose, and to induce their Lordships to adopt his views; he begged to repeat the observations he had previously made. There was a palpable difference between large and populous places, and small rural parishes, and they required a different method of management. He therefore thought it was inexpedient to extend the provisions of the Act before them indiscriminately, and he meant to propose an amendment from which he considered some advantage would be derived. He proposed to insert the following words as part of the clause, "And be it further enacted, that nothing in tins Act contained, shall extend to parishes where there is not a greater number of persons than 600 paying rates to the poor."
Viscount Melbournerequested that the consideration of this Amendment might be postponed, because he apprehended it must be a rider to the Bill.
The Earl of Falmouthhad no objection to the noble Lord's proposal.
The Bishop of Londonproposed an Amendment, to the effect that, when the places where Vestries had been usually held were found inconvenient, they might be held in other places.
Agreed to.
The Lord Chancellorstill thought that the adoption of this kind of Select Vestries should be in the voters who chose to attend. It would be utterly impossible to get 7,001 of the rate payers of St. Pancras to attend, so as to form a majority of the 14,000 in the parish. He would, however, postpone his amendment on that head till next year.