RECENT LAW APPOINTMENTS.

HL Deb 20 August 1846 vol 88 cc893-904

LORD LYNDHURST

My Lords, I have to request your Lordships' attention for a few moments to some statements that appeared in the morning papers of yesterday, assuming to report certain proceedings in the other House of Parliament, with reference to some recent law appointments. From the nature of these statements, my Lords, I feel it my duty—a duty which I owe my noble Friend (the Earl of Ripon) who is at present absent in a distant part of the country—a duty which I owe to myself—and give me leave to add, in reference to the situation which I lately had the honour to hold in your Lordships' House—a duty which I owe to your Lordships, to enter into some explanation with respect to those statements. I very much regret that your Lordships did not assemble yesterday, and that I had not then an earlier opportunity of meeting the charges preferred against the noble Lord (the Earl of Ripon) and myself. My Lords, I do not assume that the statements to which I am referring is a correct representation of what fell from the noble Lord in the other House of Parliament; I will not assume it, on account of the coarseness of the language which is imputed to that noble Lord, and on account of the character and nature of the imputation which he has cast upon the noble Lord and myself. It must be understood, therefore, that in the observations which I am about to make, my remarks are confined to the representations as stated in the papers to which I have referred. My Lords, I consider that upon all occasions, when particular charges of a grave character are brought against Members of your Lordships' House, the true course to be pursued by the party accused, is to state fully and plainly, and in detail, all the circumstances of the transaction—because, if the facts do not speak for themselves in a case of this nature, it is quite a vain endeavour on the part of those who are accused, to attempt to justify themselves by reasoning and by argument. Therefore, I shall confine myself strictly to a statement of the particulars of these transactions. My noble Friend, late the President of the India Board—of the Board of Control—applied to me early in the spring of this year, asking me to recommend a certain number of individuals whom I might consider competent to discharge the duties incident to the office of a Judge in India, and who at the same time would be willing to accept the office. I understand that the office had previously been offered to an individual of considerable eminence at the bar, who had declined it. In consequence of this application, I returned to my noble Friend the names of six or seven individuals, including the name of Mr. David Pollock, as persons whom I considered fully competent to discharge the duties of the responsible office of Chief Justice of Bombay, and who, I had reason to believe, would be willing to accept the appointment. I believe—I have reason to think—that the noble Lord did not confine his application merely to myself; but that he consulted other learned and eminent individuals on whose judgment he could rely, as to the qualifications of the different individuals whom I have mentioned. The result of all this was, that my noble Friend selected for the appointment Mr. David Pollock, the brother of the present Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer. That, my Lords, was the whole of the matter so far as I was concerned; I had nothing further whatever to do with the transaction. Mr. David Pollock was appointed, and, as far as I was concerned, there the matter terminated. I am quite sure that every one who knows anything of Mr. David Pollock must agree with me in opinion, that he was eminently qualified to discharge the duties of the office for which he was selected; and I believe on the 10th of June (as early as that day) Her Majesty's pleasure was taken as to the appointment, and She then signified Her approval. Thus the matter concluded as far as it is at present necessary for me to consider; presently I shall again advert to this part of the case, when I shall call to your Lordships' attention some other facts which I shall feel it my duty to mention. In consequence of the selection of the learned individual to whom I have referred, a vacancy was created in another office—in the office which he had previously filled—the office of a Commissioner of the Insolvent Debtors' Court. Mr. Phillips was appointed to that vacant office. Mr. Phillips had been appointed by me a Commissioner of the Court of Bankruptcy about three years ago. He had met with a severe domestic misfortune about a year since; and he had applied to me several times, entreating me, in consequence of the unpleasantness of his position, and the feelings of distaste which he had whilst he remained in Liverpool, to remove him, even at a considerable sacrifice of income, to some other situation. I had no other opportunity of doing so. His wife and daughter had left him, and were residing at Cheltenham. On this vacancy occurring, Mr. Phillips himself, or through the medium of my noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham), who is now absent, applied to the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the situation to which I have referred. I was not aware of that application. It was not made through me, neither was it communicated to me until after the application was made. Sir James Graham wrote to me asking me whether I thought Mr. Phillips qualified for the appointment. In answer to that letter, I replied, that I had appointed Mr. Phillips to the situation of Commissioner of Bankrupts three years ago; that he had been assiduous in the discharge of his duties; and that I had been informed that in no instance had there been any appeal from any one of his decisions; and I concluded by saying, that I considered him qualified for the office, as the duties of that office were analogous to the duties of the office which he had previously so well discharged. My Lords, I have nothing further to say with respect to this appointment. I had no other communication whatever with any one respecting it. I was referred to for the character of this individual, and I gave him the character to which I thought he was justly entitled; and, my Lords, no one who knows the man will say that the character which I gave him goes one step beyond that which he was authorized to expect from me. So far, my Lords, as to this transaction. In consequence of this appointment, the office which Mr. Phillips held in the Court of Bankruptcy became vacant. I placed in that office Mr. Perry, my principal secretary. Mr. Perry had served me long in that office; I have had continual epportunities of observing his conduct. He is a man of integrity, and a man of great industry, a man of great talent, and I may say with confidence, a man well versed in the laws of his country. I am sure there is no person whom I could have placed in the office, who would have accepted the office, more capable well and faithfully to discharge its duties, than Mr. Perry. If, under such circumstances, I had passed over that gentleman, I should have committed an act of injustice; and if, from the fear of any observations that might be made with respect to the appointment, in consequence of his connexion with me, I should have permitted that injustice, I should, my Lords, I say, have been guilty, not only of an act of baseness, but also of an act of cowardice. He is known to many noble Lords in the House, who, I believe, also know that he is well fitted to discharge his duties; and to think that the noble Lord, who knows nothing of this gentleman, should cast aspersions and imputations on him, and undertake to say that he is not qualified for the office! When a man goes out of his way to make assertions of that kind, he is entirely unworthy of attention in any reasonable assembly. But now to show what that noble Lord is reported to have done. The noble Lord is reported to have said, that— As regarded the appointment of Mr. Perry, he was bound to say that it was a gross job! Mr. Perry, he believed, had had no practice in the courts of law conneetcd with the description of business to which he was appointed; and he was informed that he had been accompanied to Liverpool by Commissioner Holroyd, as it were to dry-nurse him in those few duties he would have to perform. This noble Lord appears to cast out these imputations with a liberality quite unparalleled, quite unexampled in any public assembly. This puts me in mind of the phrase used by Mr. Pitt, who, when speaking of Napoleon, said that nothing was too great for his ambition, or too small for the grasp of his rapacity: so there is nothing which the noble Lord thinks it beneath him to descend to give vent to his slanderous and petty inventions. I will now state the circumstances connected with this part of the case. In consequence of Mr. Phillips coming up to London, and in order that the duties of the office should go on, it became necessary to procure some gentleman to perform those duties during his absence. Accordingly I requested Mr. Holroyd to go down. He went down on the 23rd of June. The day after Mr. Perry was sworn into his office, he returned to town. So much, my Lords, for the imputation of this gentleman having gone down for the purpose of giving instruction to Mr. Perry in the discharge of his duties. These are the kind of charges thrown out totally regardless of the character of the individuals against whom they are directed. I have now directed your Lordship's attention to these three points, to the appointment of Mr. David Pollock—to the appointment of Mr. Phillips—and lastly, to the appointment of Mr. Perry. I ask your Lordships to pause for the present, and to say whether there is the slightest foundation for the imputation cast on my noble Friend or myself in this transaction? But I now come to the most grave part—perhaps the only part of the matter which deserves any serious consideration. The noble Lord takes upon himself to state that he believes from representations made to him, that in fact the appointment of Mr. David Pollock was made by me in consequence of a bargain between me and my noble Friend at the head of the Board of Control, that I should present a friend of his to the living of Nocton. That was the charge made at the time to which I am now referring. What has taken place since? The noble Lord yesterday, as I am told, abandoned that statement; but he abandoned it upon a false ground; he abandoned it because he thought he had discovered in a book to which he had referred, that the presentation to the living of Nocton was not in the Chancellor, but in some private individual. Therefore, he did what he was bound to do—apologize for the charge which he had made. But the ground on which he recants is totally unfounded. The presentation was in the Chancellor. I presented to the living. I am ready to admit that I presented to the living, and I presume that the noble Lord will now retract his retraction, and revert to his original accusation. My Lords, why do I mention these circumstances? To point out the levity of this man—to show that he makes charges without investigation—that he retracts these charges without investigation—that he is indifferent as to what he does—and that he scatters about his attacks without in the least considering how they may operate, and whom they may affect and injure. Now, as to the fact. I take upon myself to say, that when I presented the friend of my noble Friend to the living of Nocton, that circumstance had nothing whatever to do with the appointment of any judicial officer. For the truth of this, I pledge to you my honour, as one of your Lordships' House—I pledge you my honour as a gentleman—and, my Lords, I have no doubt that my noble Friend, if he were here present, would make precisely the same statement. I have already stated what led to the appointment of that gentleman, Mr. David Pollock, to the Chief Justiceship of Bombay. In that I had no farther concern than I have stated to your Lordships—namely, that I gave his name, with five or six other names, in order that my noble Friend might select out of them the person most fitted to discharge the duties of that office; and I say my noble Friend did make the selection accordingly, wholly uninfluenced by me. I pursued on that occasion precisely the course always pursued by my predecessors in similar circumstances. But now, my Lords, as to the living of Nocton — I must state to your Lordships the circumstances under which that presentation was made, and the grounds of that presentation. My noble Friend wrote to me on the sudden death of the Dean of Windsor, who before held the living, mentioning that circumstance, and asking me to present a friend of his to the living. The reasons on which he grounded his application were these:— I own," he said, "the whole of the parish, except a small portion of glebe land in the centre of it. I have recently laid out a large sum of money in building a new house as my future place of residence in the country, the former residence having some time since been burnt down. I have established and endowed a large school; and I pay the expenses of the schoolmaster and mistress. The church, a few years ago, was enlarged for the purpose of accommodating a greater number of persons. I paid two-thirds of the expenses of that enlargement. It is most desirable for us that we should have a person in whom we can place the most implicit confidence as our minister. The residence of the minister is within a few yards of our house, and the church is close by. I am, therefore, under these circumstances, most desirous that you will have the kindness to present the person I have recommended. In addition to this—and that was the only circumstance which in my mind created any doubt—I was told that, although the gift of the living was in the Crown, it had been the constant practice to present the person recommended by the owner of the estate now possessed by my noble Friend. Indeed, so constantly had this been the practice, that it had led to the conclusion that the right of presentation was in the owner of the estate; and I was apprehensive, therefore, if I continued to present the person nominated by the owner of the estate, I might by degrees impair the title of the Crown. I investigated the case, and I found that the title of the Crown was so well established, that on the statement made to me by my noble Friend, I presented his friend to the living—a gentleman of the greatest respectability, of unblemished character, and in every way fitted to discharge his duties. Not one word was ever said, I am quite sure, by any of the parties with regard to the appointment to this Judgeship. I am so desirous that this part of the case should be free from all doubt, that I must trouble your Lordships to allow me to read the correspondence, for all will see from that correspondence what the grounds were on which the appointment was made; and that in it you can nowhere trace anything that can justify the imputation—the foul imputation—cast on my noble Friend and myself, with regard to this part of the transaction. I am sure that your Lordships will not think that I am trespassing too far in calling your attention to these letters. The first which I will read is dated the 9th of May, 1846:— 1, Carlton-gardens, May 9, 1840. My dear Lord Chancellor—The death of Lady Ripon's uncle (yesterday), who was Dean of Windsor, and Vicar of Nocton, in the county of Lincoln, occasions me to trouble you with this letter. The living of Nocton is in your gift; and as the whole of the parish is my property (except the glebe), it is of the utmost importance, not only to myself individually, but to the good of a very extensive parish, that the vicar should be a person with whom I could act in perfect harmony for the benefit of the parishioners. This vicarage belonged for generations to the owners of the Nocton estate; and it was merely by an accident that the right of presentation lapsed to the Crown; but it has invariably been given at the recommendation of the owner of Nocton; and I feel sure that under these circumstances, your kind feelings will induce you to attend to the recommendation of a Colleague. If you wish for any explanation from me upon this matter, I will call upon you tomorrow at any hour you may appoint. I am really very anxious upon the subject.—Believe me most sincerely yours, "RIPON. P.S. This letter was sent to your house in town, but as I find you are rusticating, I forward it to you by messenger to Turville. Two days after I received a letter from Lady Ripon. Now, this estate came through Lady Ripon; it is the estate of her family:— Carlton-gardens, May 11, 1846. My dear Lord Chancellor—I trust you will excuse my venturing to address you on the subject of the living of Nocton, lately become vacant by the sudden death of my dear uncle, the Dean of Windsor; for I cannot help thinking, that when made fully aware of the peculiar circumstances of the case, you will be disposed to accede to Lord Ripon's and my request on the subject. The circumstances of the case are indeed peculiar, for the whole parish of Nocton has long been in the possession of my ancestors. The glebe land is in the centre of the estate, and the parsonage within 100 yards of the house, and close to the church, where my dear father and all my family, for some generations, have been buried. Until the time of my grandfather, the churchyard extended to the house itself. With all these circumstances before you, you will not, I am sure, be surprised to learn that the living has been always given on the recommendation of the proprietor of the estate, so much so, that my father entertained the impression that the living was in the actual gift of the proprietor. It is our only place of residence in the country. The old house having been burnt down a few years back, we have built a new one, which we have just completed. You will, therefore, I think, concur with me that our comfort must greatly depend upon the clergyman continuing to be not upon merely good, but upon absolutely intimate and agreeable terms. Mr. Wilson is a well-known clergyman, of the age of forty, married to a particular friend of mine, and both husband and wife are most conscientious and active persons. Mr. Wilson is devoted to his duties, an upright single-minded man, who must be a blessing to any parish of which he is the pastor. I can now only throw myself upon your kindly feelings, and express my earnest hope that you will transfer to Mr. Wilson the favourable intention which you this morning entertained towards Mr. Bagley, as Lord Brownlow, well aware of the peculiar circumstances of the case, has withdrawn his recommendation of Mr. Bagley. I will add, that I shall feel truly obliged to you if you will accede to my request, and thereby enable us to reside with comfort on my old hereditary property.—Believe me, my dear Lord Chancellor, very sincerely yours, "S. A. L. RIPON. I should mention that Mr. Wilson was in the possession of a living in Dorsetshire equal in value to that of Nocton, and that it was merely from friendly feelings towards Lord Ripon that he gave up that living to which he had been presented by the Bishop of Bath and Wells, for the purpose of removing to Nocton. My Lords, I was extremely desirous to provide for Mr. Bagley, the son of one of the prebendaries of Canterbury, with whom I had been intimately acquainted at college, and I had mentioned Mr. Bagley as a person of whom I thought Lord Ripon would have approved. This gentleman's application had been supported by Lord Brownlow. I then received this letter from Lord Ripon:— India Board, May 13, 1846. My dear Lord Chancellor—In reference to the question of the Nocton Vicarage, I ought to tell you (what I believe I omitted) that the school is maintained entirely at my expense; I provide a school-room of adequate dimensions, an excellent house for the schoolmaster and mistress, whom I appoint, and whose salary I pay. No charge, therefore, has hitherto fallen upon the clergyman in respect to those material objects in every parish. I have already spent upwards of 10,000l. in rebuilding my house there, and before it will be finally completed it will have cost me from 15,000l. to 20,000l.; and some years ago, when the church was enlarged to accommodate the increasing number of the population, I paid two-thirds of the expense; and I can truly say that I have spared no expense (nor my predecessors before me), in promoting the comfort and well-being of the people there, every one of whom, farmers, shopkeepers, artisans and and labourers, are my tenants.—Most truly yours, "RIPON. Under these circumstances I acceded, as might be expected, to the application of my noble Friend, and I appointed Mr. Wilson. I afterwards received from Lady Ripon this letter:— Carlton Gardens, Thursday, Three o'Clock. My dear Lord Chancellor—I have just received your note, and though I considered my case a strong one, I am not the less obliged to you for your most courteous decision; and as you cannot know all the very peculiar circumstances attached to that living, nor the many reasons I have to feel so strongly on the subject, you cannot appreciate as fully as I can, the obligation you have conferred on me and mine. Again thanking you, I remain, my dear Lord Chancellor, yours very sincerely, S. A. L. RIPON. This, my Lords, is the correspondence on the subject; and I ask you whether this correspondence, written at the time, is not absolutely inconsistent with the charges preferred against my noble Friend and myself? The grounds stated for making this appointment must be completely satisfactory to your Lordships, for they are grounds which it would have been perfectly impossible for me not to have attended to. In consequence of my having made this appointment, now, my Lords, what is the charge against me, and the ground on which that charge is made to rest? It is the most extraordinary charge that ever was preferred against a public man, considering the evidence on which it rests. The noble Lord does not speak from his own knowledge, but he states what was communicated to him by some individual. But he does not name the individual. That individual conjectures or asserts that the fact is so without stating the grounds. Is it possible that any man filling a public situation, pretending to direct the Councils of the country, or, at least, of the party to which he belongs, could come forward with accusations against the character of public men, founded on such evidence? It is totally condemnatory of the individual; it shows him to be utterly unfit for any public situation—it destroys his fitness and his character. It is not only weak, low, and silly; but its weakness, lowness, and silliness only, are equalled by its folly and baseness. Having justified myself fully as to these grounds, I come to the remaining point, the question of law, with which, however, I had nothing to do, but which, in the absence of my noble Friend, I feel bound to state—the question I mean, with reference to the Bill brought in by my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack. The facts are these: Sir H. Roper sent in his resignation, to take place on the 2nd of November. My noble Friend sent to the Colonial Office, after he had fixed on Mr. David Pollock as his successor, requesting the patent to be made out as from the 2nd of November. My noble Friend is no lawyer. My noble Friend was told by the Colonial Office that it was irregular, and that such a prospective appointment could not be made, for that it would, in fact, be the grant of an office in reversion. In answer to this, my noble Friend directed the patent to be made out in the usual form. The patent was made out. I admit that it was incorrect; for by the patent given to Mr. David Pollock, the office of Sir H. Roper in India was thereby at an end, and he was discharging the duties of a Judge when he was no longer a Judge. Nothing, therefore, could be more irregular. But that was not peculiar to the Colonial Office; it was not peculiar to my noble Friend. It had been the constant course of practice. The same circumstances occurred in the appointment of Sir H. Roper, in the appointment of Sir Robert Comyn, in the appointment of Sir Charles Grey—I believe in every instance where an appointment was made on the surrender of a Judge in India, and the consequence would be, that all intermediate acts done by the Judge in India would be invalid; and this has led to the Bill which has been introduced by my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack. That measure is retrospective, and refers to every one of the instances to which I have referred, for the purpose of doing what is necessary to be done for giving validity to the acts done by the Judge who, in this irregular way, had been superseded. This, my Lords, is the whole case, as far as it refers to my noble Friend. I do not say this in justification of my noble Friend. It was not his duty to make out the appointment in point of form; it was the duty of the Colonial Office. The blot has now been discovered—it has been hit for the first time, and it is intended to be cured by the Bill which has been introduced by my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack. My Lords, I have now gone through and met every one of the charges preferred against me and my noble Friend; and I ask your Lordships with confidence, whether there is any foundation whatever for any part of this accusation? I confess, that, for my own part, I am at a loss to account for the course pursued by the noble Lord. I do not know to what principle I am to refer it. Does it accord with his sense of justice that he should bring forward charges of this description without requiring first some explanation from the parties against whom they are directed, or without giving any notice of his intention to bring them forward? Is that the conduct of a discreet public man? My Lords, can any person justify such conduct? Perhaps the noble Lord thinks that everything is fair in party politics—that to blacken and traduce the character of political opponents, by means however base or foul, is perfectly justifiable. The noble Lord may, perhaps, have acted on that principle, or perhaps from his early associations and his early habits he may have been led to form so low an opinion of the principles on which mankind act, as to suppose that every man in his transactions of life must be directed by some base, selfish, sordid, motives. I cannot ascribe it to any other principle but one of these to which I have referred. It has been said, and well said, that to be praised by a person who is the subject of praise, adds tenfold to the value of the acknowledgment. The same principle will apply to calumny, and the best antidote to calumny will often be found in the character of the calumniator. I do not know with respect to the noble Lord's slander, that it is, as the poet says, "sharp as the point of a sword;" but if "his tongue does not out-venom all the worms of Nile," it is not from the want of will or inclination, but from the want of power. A distinguished writer has this allusion in reference to persons unjustly assailed: "The sting of the wasp may fester and inflame, though long after the venomous insect has left his life and sting in the wound." Venomous, my Lords—I should say, little, vexatious insect, for that is the correct expression. Yes, my Lords, although refuted, these attacks are not harmless; they have a public effect—sometimes a lasting effect. Persons remember the attack—they do not always remember the defence. To me, my Lords, it is most humiliating, at the close of my public life, and at the close, I may say, almost of my natural life, to be called upon to repel accusations of this kind. I know your Lordships will bear with me on an occasion like the present. I rely upon your Lordships to come to a correct judgment; and I throw myself upon your Lordships' consideration, and the consideration of the country.