Lords Sitting of 7 August 1832

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of the Duke of RICHMOND, the 23rd and 24th Reports of the Commissioners of Charities.
Bills. Read a first time:—Composition of Tithes (Ireland).—Read a third time:—Public Accounts (Ireland); Soldiers Families; Half Pay.—Received the Royal Assent; Reform of Parliament (Ireland); Boundaries Ireland; Ecclesiastical Courts Contempt; Appellate Jurisdiction.
Petitions presented. By the Marquess of LANSDOWN, from Henley and Shelton; and by Earl GREY, from several Places in England and Ireland, in favour of the Ministerial Plan of Education for Ireland.—By the Duke of RICHMOND, from certain Tradesmen of the Metropolis, and by the Earl of CLARENDON, from Watford, &c., for the better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Earl GREY, from a Dissenting Congregation of Chester, against Slavery, and against Infanticide in India; from three Places in Ireland, against the Punishment of Death for Forgery; and from Galway, for a Clause in the Irish Reform Bill relative to the rights of Freemen.—By the Bishop of HEREFORD, from Hereford, against the Punishment of Death for Forgery.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
The Duke of Richmondwished to call their Lordships' attention to a subject of considerable importance. It was known
1172
to them that the Speaker of that House was paid by fees, and it was desirable that the office should be paid by salary, and not by fees. Following the precedent which had been set in the case of the Clerk of Parliament, he wished to have a Select Committee appointed to examine and report the amount of fees and emoluments of the office preparatory for doing away the fees and substituting a salary. He begged leave, therefore, to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the matter.
The Committee appointed, and a Bill fixing the Speaker's salary was read a first time.

JURIES (IRELAND).
Viscount Melbourne presented the Report of the Select Committee on this Bill.
The Marquess of Westmeathinquired, if it was the intention of his Majesty's Government to press the Irish Juries Bill through Parliament during the present Session?
Viscount Melbournereplied, that certainly it was their intention to do so.
The Duke of Wellingtonwished to know if his Majesty's Government had received any Report upon the subject from the Irish Judges.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that they had not, but the measure was of such a nature that, nevertheless, they thought it their duty to proceed with it.
The Duke of Wellingtonunderstood, at an early period of the Session, that it was the intention of his Majesty's Ministers to consult the Judges of Ireland upon the subject of this Bill. He could not help saying, that it appeared to him most extraordinary that their Lordships should be called on, in such circumstances, and at the present period of the Session, to pass a Bill of this description, particularly when he coupled it with the circumstance that another Bill relating to the administration of justice in Ireland, and perhaps of still greater importance than this, was about, be believed, that very night, to be introduced into the oher House of Parliament.
Viscount Melbournehad never undertaken to obtain the opinion of the Irish Judges. The Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General of Ireland concurred in the expediency of passing the Bill, and, when it was printed, their Lordships would see that it amounted to little more than a consolidation of the existing laws.
Lord Wynfordcould see no necessity for pressing the Bill at this period of the Session, and in the present state of the two Houses of Parliament. It was impossible that the measure could be wanted immediately in Ireland, as the Circuits were nearly over. He submitted that, as his Majesty's Government had neglected to obtain the opinions of the Irish Judges, it was a little too much for them to press forward the measure in a state of the House in which to talk of legislation was an insulting mockery. [The average attendance of Peers for many nights back had not been above eight or nine.] It would be at least four or five months before the measure could be wanted. He had referred to the state of their Lordships' House, but what was the actual condition of the other House of Parliament? Was not a measure at this moment about to be introduced there in order to amend the all-perfect Bill of Reform? And would not this be quite enough for them to attend to for the remainder of the Session, without the additional burthen of this Bill which his Majesty's Ministers proposed to send them? He believed that not one, but several. Bills would be required to perfect the scheme of Reform; for, if he was rightly informed, there had never at any period been so much bribery going on as at the present moment.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that the Bill would not come into operation until 1834, and its object was not to alter but to preserve the present practice. Had the object been to alter the present practice, there would have been some weight in the noble and learned Lord's observations.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, that if the effect of the Bill would be to make the constitution of Juries more popular, he thought that, after the recent example of Kilkenny, the time was very badly chosen. Delay would not be injurious, as the Bill was not to come immediately into operation.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, that, as the Bill did not come into operation until the year 1834, there would be time enough, if necessary, to amend it. But, if it were not passed now, it would not come into operation until 1835.
Report laid on the Table.

CHANCERY SINECURES BILL.
The Lord Chancellormoved, that this Bill be now read a third time.
Earl Greysaid, that he was instructed to signify the consent of the Crown to this Bill.
Lord Wynfordwas not opposed to the abolition of sinecure offices connected with Courts of Justice; on the contrary, he had proposed and carried into effect the abolition of all the sinecure offices appertaining to the Court over which he had once had the honour to preside. But he nevertheless thought it his duty to state to their Lordships the reasons which induced him to think that the Bill now before them, and which his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack had had under his consideration for more than a year, was one to which it was impossible for their Lordships to give their assent. The Bill, he was persuaded, could not, by any possibility, have been drawn by his noble and learned friend. If the offices to be abolished by it were sinecures, they of course had no duties connected with them; but if they had duties connected with them, then it was fit, before they abolished the offices, to make provision for the execution of those duties. The Bill, however, said that, on the 15th of April next, the offices should be abolished, without saying one syllable of provision for the duties, although it was admitted that very important duties were connected with the offices. Now, if it should so happen that Parliament did not, between this and the 15th of April, pass a Bill to ensure the performance of these duties, in what situation would the Court of Chancery be placed? His noble and learned friend felt the difficulty of the suspension of some of these offices, even for a few days, and very properly proceeded to fill up the vacancies which had arisen. He felt the difficulties so strongly that he took upon himself to fill up the vacancies, notwithstanding his strong opinion, a thousand times expressed, that the offices ought to be abolished. And he did right in filling them up, for the Court of Chancery could not stand still, and it was only by the exercise of his power under the existing laws that these indispensable offices could be filled up. Some of these offices the noble and learned Lord, by his own conduct, admitted to be most important. Now, suppose any of the holders of these offices to die before the 15th of April. They must be filled up, according to the doctrine of the noble and learned Lord, But, suppose the present Bill to

1175
pass, and no other Bill to have received the assent of the Legislature previously to the 15th of April, the vacancies could not be filled up. Was there, he would ask, any precedent for this sort of legislation? He defied any man to produce one. Was there any instance of the abolition of important offices—and these offices were admitted to be important—without any provision whatever, and leaving it purely to chances for the creation of instruments for the performance of the duties? He appealed to his noble and learned friend, than whom no man was better qualified to pronounce a sound opinion on the subject, whether anything of this kind had ever been done, and whether it ought ever to be done? His noble and learned friend had had the subject under his consideration for fifteen months. He knew all the while that these offices ought to be abolished. But neither he nor any body else introduced any measure upon the subject. His noble and learned friend had been much engaged during this interval. But his noble and learned friend might be much engaged, and Parliament might be much engaged, for the next six months, and then perhaps no Bill would be introduced to secure the performance of duties which were admitted on all hands to be indispensable. He thought the offices ought to be abolished, but, at the same time, effectual care ought to be taken to provide for the performance of the duties of these offices. Was there, he would ask, anything in the present measure which called on their Lordships to bring it to a conclusion? His noble and learned friend said, that perhaps he might not continue to be Lord Chancellor. He hoped that, for many years to come, his noble and learned friend would continue to fill his present situation. But, if not, his noble and learned friend surely did not suppose that he alone, of all the individuals in the three kingdoms, was the person, the single person, who was disposed to do what was fit and right to be done. His noble and learned friend had, he was sure, too much both of modesty and charity to entertain this opinion. His noble and learned friend seemed to imagine that nothing had been done towards abolishing the sinecure offices in the other Courts. In this his noble and learned friend was mistaken. The sinecure offices of the other Courts had been got rid of without noise—preserving only
1176
vested interests, and, what was more important still, the duties had been effectually provided for. By the present Bill they did not get rid of all the sinecure offices of the Court of Chancery. There was the Registrar of the Lord Chancellor, an office always executed by deputy; and there was another large class of officers, the twenty-four Cursitors of the Court of Chancery, a small proportion of whom did the duty for all the others. In the Court of Common Pleas, there was an office analogous to this, that of the Filacers. And with respect to them what was done? It was thought that a saving might be made, and accordingly the duty was thrown upon some of them; and, without any noise or boasting, a provision was made, after the death of the present possessors, for the extinction of the other offices. But, in the Court of Chancery, the Cursitors, who might do their duty by deputy, and many of whom did so, were left untouched. There was another sinecure office also, that of Receiver of Fees, which was not included in this Bill. The Bill he had shown to be imprudent and defective; it left important duties unprovided for, and with respect to the abolition of sinecures it did not act up to the principle it professed. There was another objection to the Bill. The noble and learned Lord intended, no doubt, that it should leave existing interests untouched. He was not sure that this would be the effect of the Bill. The Bill preserved the rights of persons who had held the offices before the 1st of June last. But the abolition of the offices would, as it seemed to him, destroy the rights of those who had a reversionary interest in the offices. This, he was aware, might be altered by the introduction of a few words, and he only adverted to the circumstance in order to show that the measure ought to receive a much greater degree of attention than, in the present circumstances of the House, was possible. Neither could it receive, in another place, the attention to which it was entitled, for there the pressure of business was extreme. There was no necessity for precipitation. This was a measure of destruction; it destroyed, and made no provision for building up. It was indeed much easier to destroy than to build up, and this he supposed was the reason why many persons were so much more ready to destroy than to build up. He objected to the Bill, that it made no

1177
provision for the duties of the offices it abolished, and that it made promises in the preamble which the enacting clauses did not fulfil.
The Lord Chancellor: When his noble and learned friend said, that the enactment in the Bill did not correspond with the promise in the preamble, he could not agree with him. He agreed that the Bill went to the destruction merely of the offices, but he did not agree that it did not come up to the promise in the preamble. The preamble was, that it was expedient to abolish the offices, and the enactments did abolish. But then his noble friend said, that they abolished without qualification, and, no doubt, the thirteen offices mentioned in the Bill were to cease on a day fixed; but the meaning was, that before that period Parliament would have necessarily assembled, and made provision for the performance of the duties in another manner; and if the 15th April should appear too early a day, then they might say any day in May or June, or the last day of the Session. There would, therefore, be ample time for making provision for the performance of the duties, and for the important object of appointing those with whom the responsibility for the performance of the duties should rest. In the mean time, this great advantage would be gained, that, by a certain fixed time, the offices must be abolished. It was a long time since a Committee of Parliament had recommended that the offices should be abolished. His noble and learned friend said, that the subject had been under consideration for little more than a year or fifteen months; but it had been under the consideration of Parliament for more than fifteen years, or for more than thirty years, for the abolition of these offices had been recommended by Lord Colchester's Committee in 1798; the offices had also been condemned by Parliament; yet they had been continued up to this hour, and it was now high time to get rid of them. The true and only principle of effecting that, was to abolish them prospectively, giving time to Parliament to make provision for the proper performance of the duties. His noble and learned friend talked of certain difficulties that might occur, but these supposed certain accidents which were very unlikely to happen; and the difficulties were of no great consequence, for temporary officers might always be appointed till the period came at which all
1178
the offices were to cease. Then his noble and learned friend said, that all the sinecure offices in the Court of Chancery were not included in the Bill, and he instanced that great office, the Registrar of the Court, which was executed by deputy. He should have been very glad, for his own part, to have laid hold of that twig, or rather great branch, also, although he thought it most advisable to proceed, in the mean time, with the offices mentioned in the Bill. He should have been glad to have included the offices of the Cursitors, but they were to be reduced by another Bill. However, if his noble and learned friend thought proper, he had no objection to insert them. As to the objection about the reversion, he was of opinion that the words, "now held," applied to reversions as well as to actual possession for the interest was present, although the office was to be enjoyed in futuro. But, however, in case there should be any doubt, that clause might easily be amended. In the mean time, until these offices were abolished, he was liable to suspicions and attacks; and he thought it the best plan now to abolish them at a day certain.
The Earl of Eldonlamented that such a Bill should have been brought forward at this period of the Session. He could not agree that all these offices were sinecures, and great inconvenience might result from their abolition before a proper provision was made for the performance of the duties. He had filled the office of Lord Chancellor for seven-and-twenty years, with only a very short interval, and he had been practising at the bar of the Court for many years; could, then, it be possible, for that which was called Chancery Reform, to have escaped his attention, and that of his many noble and learned predecessors; and their impression certainly was, that improvement in the Court of Chancery was not to be brought about by the sudden introduction of a ready-formed system; but by the propounding reforms, and making orders, as the necessity for them should, from time to time, arise. With respect to the present measure, it was one of the highest importance, and one which should not be urged forward through that House, without the fullest opportunity being afforded for the most minute and dispassionate attention.
The Lord Chancellorcould assure his noble and learned friend, that nothing could be further from his mind than not

1179
to afford the House the amplest opportunity for considering and examining into all the details of the measure, and making themselves fully acquainted with its probable operation. No change should be proposed by him in the law affecting that highest of all our tribunals, without the most careful and elaborate attention on his own part, and without affording every noble Lord the best opportunities for bestowing upon it similar care. He was quite ready to yield to the objection that had been urged against the 15th April, and, therefore, he thought of filling up the blank in the Bill with the words, "the last day in the next ensuing Session of Parliament;" but as circumstaces might possibly render a short Session before Christmas necessary, he thought that it would be the better course to fix such a day as must include the whole of the next Parliamentary year; say, until the 20th of August, 1833.
Those words being inserted, the Bill was passed.
The Lord Chancellorthen said: As the Bill has now passed, I trust your Lordships will indulge me for a few moments. The short remarks I have to make will be disposed of very speedily; but I purposely postponed them until this Bill should have passed. Some observations have been made in another place upon something that fell from me here. Now, I beg to say, with reference to that, that I never alluded to any individual in an unparliamentary or offensive way, and I regret to learn, that my observations have given pain, for it is, at all times, and under all circumstances, most deeply painful to myself to occasion pain to any other human being. I cannot say, that the observations made by me were uttered under the influence of irritation or of anger: I confess I have not that excuse; but I did feel contempt and scorn for the charge that was made—a charge in which the accuser stooped to insinuate, at the very moment of my life—at the very moment in the life of any public man when such an insinuation could be least merited—stooped to insinuate, at the very moment when I was doing an act of some imprudence, it might be called folly—an act, certainly, which, in the ordinary course of prudential conduct, I had no right to commit—that, at that very moment, I, under the influence of sordid motives, was departing from those principles to which I was then mak-
1180
ing a great and substantial sacrifice. It would be folly and childishness to say that it was not a great and substantial sacrifice; but it was one which I made, so help me God, without the slightest reluctance or discontent. I acknowledge that I did feel great scorn and contempt for such a charge so brought; and, in expressing my feelings with reference to the accusation, I might have gone further, and said that which, apparently, applied to the quarter from whence the charge proceeded; but it is not in my nature; on the contrary, it is most abhorrent to my nature, to utter anything calculated to inflict the pain of which complaint has been made. I repeat, that I should be, at all times, most averse from any such thing; though I did express, because I strongly felt, scorn and contempt at such a charge.