Sitting of 12 March 1832

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time; Army; and Marine Mutiny.
Motion. On the Motion of the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, it was ordered that the Bishop of Winchester be requested to preach before the House on Wednesday the 21st of this Month, the Day appointed for a General Fast.

EDUCATION (IRELAND).
The Archbishop of Armaghsaid, he rose for the
90
purpose of presenting to their Lordships three Petitions against the proposed system of National Education in Ireland. The first was signed by 6,900 Irish Protestants, of all religious denominations, including one Archbishop, two Bishops, and many dignitaries and highly respectable clergymen of the Established Church. The second was from the clergymen and laymen of the county and city of Waterford, and was signed by the Bishop and Dean of Waterford. The third was from the inhabitants of the parish of Boviva, in the county of Londonderry. These petitions, which, he considered, deserved the serious attention of their Lordships, in addition to those already laid on their Table, would serve to convey the sentiments which were entertained, not only by Protestants of every class, but by members of the Established Church, in regard to the new plan of national education, so far as its principle had been announced, and was understood in Ireland. He had no desire to renew the lengthened discussion which took place on a former evening, when petitions of the same import were presented by a noble Lord. He must, however, beg leave to make one or two observations calculated to remove any erroneous impression which might have arisen from the part he took in that debate, with reference to what had been adduced from the reports of former Commissions, and mainly relied on as a precedent. He wished to observe, that it had not hitherto been found practicable to act upon those reports, and that two of his Majesty's Commissioners formally entered their protest against the report of 1826, which was signed by the other three, and in which an attempt similar to that now proposed was recommended. He must also again bring to their Lordships' recollection, that in submitting a selection from the Scriptures as a book to be used in the united schools, the late Archbishop of Dublin, in the name of his Episcopal brethren, expressly declared, that they did not consider that any portion of the Scriptures ought to be used to the exclusion of the Scriptures themselves; but that if any book of the kind were adopted in the common schools, the book submitted, as far as it then went, was, perhaps, as little objectionable as any other. It was well known that the clergy of the Established Church did not object to the use of approved extracts from Scripture in the religious edu-

91
cation of youth. It was their daily practice to make use of such extracts; nor do the petitioners object to them, if they were acknowledged as extracts from Scripture, and as resting on no other authority. But the clergy could not, without the concession of a Protestant principle, subscribe to any system of national religious education in which the right of reading the Scriptures should be either avowedly or impliedly denied, or even held in doubt. To Protestants of every class the Bible was the sole rule of faith; it was the principle which united the petitioners, differing, as they otherwise did, on many points, and they could not, consistently with that principle, send children four or five days in the week to schools in which the right of reading the Bible was controverted, or not acted upon. The right of every man to his Bible was the asserted right of Protestants; but, on the proposed plan, the right was suspended or taken away, and the Bible was virtually proclaimed to be a proscribed book, in connivance with, or in submission to, a dogma of the church of Rome, which was the fundamental point of the controversy between that and the Established Church. It was with a view to the preservation of this leading principle, and not to the utility of reading in schools every page and every chapter of the Bible, or to the unlawfulness of extracts and summaries, that he had said that the Roman Catholics were consistent in their demands: and therefore, it became the Protestants to be so too. If it were objected that his own name was not to be found among the signatures to the first petition which he had presented, he would cordially avow to their Lordships what he had submitted to the petitioners themselves, namely, that, although he agreed with them in substance, and in the objects of their petition, yet, there were expressions in it, which, he thought, required modification, and which, if interpreted, according to the letter, would, perhaps, lead to conclusions which they did not mean to profess.
Petitions laid on the Table.

THE EARL OF ELDON AND LORD PLUNKETT.
The Earl of Eldon, in moving for returns of certain appointments he had made when Lord Chancellor, begged to say, that he regretted being obliged to come before their Lordships to explain any thing connected with his pub-
92
lic life. He believed that he should have acted more prudently if he had declined taking any notice of the attack which had been made upon him in another place; but he felt that, in honour and conscience, he was called upon to repudiate, in the most public manner, calumnies which he hoped he should be able, in a short time, to convince the House were altogether without foundation. He, therefore, appeared, in consequence of the notice he had given, to move for returns, which he trusted their Lordships would grant. He had had the honour of serving the Crown for above forty years, in various offices, and he should have been unworthy of the sacred trusts which had been reposed in him if, from the love of lucre, or, from art inordinate desire to promote the interests of those connected with him by the ties of relationship, he had done that which was imputed to him, or had been capable of acting in the manner which had been so unfairly alleged. No one regretted more than he did the necessity of occupying their Lordships' time to so little purpose, and no one was less desirous than himself to interfere with the freedom of debate in either House of Parliament; but the course he proposed to take would make his observations as brief as could be possibly expected, and he thought the matter was so circumstanced that he could submit a Motion without trespassing on the respect due to the House of Commons. It was painful for him to go into this explanation, but he felt that he could not overlook what was said in the other House; and if he bore those reflections without a reply, he should be obliged to submit to all the calumnies which persons might choose to direct against him, on no better grounds than that he had the honour to hold, for many years, the station of Lord Chancellor of England. It was fit here he should declare that he was placed in that high situation, not at his own desire, but, on the contrary, expressly against his private wishes and feelings. There were noble Lords about him who knew that the great object of his ambition had been the Chief Justiceship of the Court of Common Pleas. To that dignity he had for a long period anxiously looked up, and if he had attained it, he should have quietly terminated his public career in that capacity; but he was not allowed to indulge his wishes, and he was drawn forth by the command of his Sovereign

93
to relinquish them, and to accept another station, which he did, only from a sense of that duty which he owed to the commands of the Crown, whose servant he was. He never had made his office subservient to any improper gain or profit. He denied most solemnly the charge in the face of the House and of the public. He was represented as having, when he first came into office, given several places to his son. That matter he could easily set at rest; but, before he did so he begged leave to say, that he was not one of those persons who had joined in the attacks made against a noble and learned Lord (Lord Plunkett.) He did not think the accusations brought against that noble personage were justified in the least, and he had no doubt that the returns the noble and learned Lord had moved for, would clear him from every imputation. He (the Earl of Eldon) did not, however, mean to take the same grounds in his answer to the charges made against him; and he did not purpose relying on anything that had been done by former Chancellors, no matter whether they were alive or dead. He should be ashamed of himself if he could not on better grounds defeat the attempts that were made to vilify and injure him: and the course he was about to pursue was, not an appeal to the conduct of his predecessors, but an appeal to their Lordships, to agree to the production of papers which he moved for at his own hazard, and which would, when laid on the Table, prove whether what he advanced was true or false, for by them he was ready to stand or fall. In 1801 he was appointed Lord Chancellor; and at that time he gave no situation whatever to any member of his own family. In consequence, however, of the death of two out of three individuals who had been appointed to situations connected with the Court of Chancery, his gracious Majesty King George 3rd pressed him to accept the patents of those offices. He for a long time declined doing so; but his Majesty continued to importune him so much on the subject, that he at last thought it a matter of duty no longer to resist the wish of his Sovereign. But if it were necessary, he could prove at their Lordships' Bar, that, whether rightly or wrongly, he strongly grudged the payment even of the fees of the patents. So far, however, from having given appointments to members of his family as soon as he filled the situation of Lord Chancellor, it was
94
not until 1805, four years after he entered office, that any place was given to his son. Yet at this very moment the world was taught to believe, by various publications, that his son was in the enjoyment of an income of 12,000 l. a-year derived from those patents, though nothing but the reversion of the offices had been secured to him; and, notwithstanding that it was now almost twenty-seven years from the date of the reversions, he had not yet fallen into the possession of the offices, and probably never would enjoy them. Looking at the character of the individual who now held those offices, he had no hesitation in saying, that let it affect his son as it might, he had no wish that they should ever fall into his possession. He spoke in the hearing of the present Lord Chancellor of England, and he called on him to do him the justice to say, whether his statement was correct or not; or whether, in regard to these patent rights, he had not done every thing which was consistent with liberality and his character. It would doubtless be in the recollection of their Lordships, that when the doctrine was broached, that reversions ought not to be granted, those which were attached to Courts of Justice were made matter of special exception. He had always thought it his duty to the Crown to insist upon the patent right to those offices, but, taking into view the probabilities of life, they were in fact not worth having, except, as marks of the favour of the crown, In 1806 he retired from office, and was again recalled in 1807; and so far from having conferred any appointments at that time on his son, it was not till the year 1813, that he appointed him to the situation of Receiver General of Fines, and, he appealed to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, whether any misconduct had taken place in his performance of the duties of that office. In 1813, it pleased Parliament to create the office of Vice-Chancellor. The salary of that officer was fixed at 5,000 l. a-year, and the individual who now addressed them gave up 2,500 1 a-year out of the emoluments of the office he held as part of that sum, and, he had continued to do this from that time till 1827, when he quitted office: and, this, he believed, ought to be considered as no small sacrifice. It had been thought proper to strengthen the Bankruptcy Office, where heavy duties were to be discharged, and for that purpose he had given up to those

95
on whom the weight of those duties fell, 1,800 l. of the fees. He might have given a certain appointment which fell vacant in 1816, for three lives, as his predecessors had done; but he had refused to take it for more than one life; and he ventured to say, that if all the value of all the offices received by his son were to be duly estimated, they would never reimburse him for the sums which his father had been out of pocket for the purposes which he had mentioned. And yet it had been said in another place, and published in the daily papers that he had all along acted from a love of filthy lucre—a thought which had never entered into his heart. When the document for which he should move should be laid on their Lordships' Table, they would see what the real facts were, and it would appear, that of the emoluments of the offices mentioned in the return of 1822, three-fourths had never come into enjoyment; and that the reversion would never reimburse to his family the expenses which he had been out of pocket. He hoped to be able to reserve his character from the imputations that had been thrown out against him, and to show that they rested on no solid grounds. With that view he concluded by moving, "that the Return made to the Commons, in the year 1822, of the offices in possession and reversion held by Lord Eldon and his family, should be laid on their Lordships' Table;" and if their Lordships, on viewing that document, and all the circumstances connected with it, thought that his conduct deserved condemnation, then let him be condemned; and if, on the other hand, they should think that he did not deserve the imputations thrown out against him, then let him be acquitted. He considered that he had some claims on their Lordships to rescue him, if he deserved to be rescued from these unjust imputations.
The Marquis of Clanricardecongratulated the noble and learned Lord on the answer which he had so successfully given to the charges made against him in another place. He felt assured that their Lordships fully concurred in the sentiments expressed by the noble and learned Lord when he said that, whatsoever his own personal feelings might be, he felt it necessary to repel the charge made on account of the credit due to the high situation he had the honour to fulfil. He did not understand how far the Members of the House of
96
Commons assumed the right of commenting on the characters of noble Lords, public functionaries, who were Members of this House; but, as he observed that the character and conduct of his noble and learned friend, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, had also been severely handled, he begged leave to say a few words, which would soon convince the House of the error and ignorance of those statements. It was remarkable that on the 7th of March, the day on which these charges were made here, a similar statement should have appeared in the Evening Mail, a Dublin newspaper. In looking over the debates of the other House he found the report of a speech, attributed to Mr. Dawson, which contained, from beginning to end, an attack on his noble and learned friend, though it appeared rather oddly to him that the main principle of the censures on the noble Lord proceeded on the fact that he had not, in the distribution of patronage belonging to his office, overlooked his own family. The charge was this, that the Plunkett family absorbed of the public money 27,000 l.; and this was made out in the following manner:—In the first place, Lord Plunkett was charged as Lord Chancellor, with having 10,000 l. a-year. It was the first time in his life that he heard an individual accused of the crime of being Lord Chancellor; but so it was set down on the occasion alluded to, and his noble and learned friend must be content with being accused of being Lord Chancellor of Ireland, though his emoluments were far short of 10,000 l. Next came the hon. Patrick Plunkett purse-bearer to his father, the Chancellor, 800 l. a-year; then the same gentleman, as Secretary of Bankrupts, 900 l. To that he had only to say that it was true Lord Plunkett had appointed his son as Secretary of Bankrupts, but it was not true that his emoluments were anything like the sum named. Then came the same individual again, as Counsel in the Chief Remembrancer's Office, with 300 l.; but to that he had but to observe that there was no salary, but that he received his regular fees as Counsel, which fees did not amount to 100 l. a-year. Then there appeared in the list "the hon. David Plunkett, Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas, with 1,500 l. a-year;" and the same hon. David Plunkett, Examiner to the Court of Common Pleas, with a salary of 100 l. a-year; to which the hon.

97
Gentleman sagaciously added, "nothing was too small for these Gentlemen." But the right hon. Gentleman did not add that these places were not in the gift of the Lord Chancellor, but were given to his son by him when he filled the office of Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. With regard to the former of these offices, however, it was reviewed by the Commissioners of Judicial Inquiry in Ireland, and the rate of remuneration was fixed by them. The two offices, moreover, had been consolidated, and the amount of money received by Mr. David Plunkett was 1,380 l. instead of 1,500 l. Then, said the right hon. Gentleman, "there were, besides, three offices under that gentleman, each worth 500 l. a-year; a second assistant 200 l. a-year; and five other clerks, whose united salaries amounted to 1,000 l." This was the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman made up his accusations—he classed together a long list of clerks necessary for the execution of the public business, and charged their salaries as money paid by the public to the Prothonotary, because he happened to be a son of the Lord Chancellor. It had been further stated that, the hon. John Plunkett filled the several offices of a Commissioner of Inquiry—an Assistant Barrister—and Crown Council—and that all these were places of considerable emolument, but the fact was, that that Gentleman had resigned the office of Commissioner of Inquiry, and there was nothing inconsistent in his holding the offices of Crown Council on the Munster Circuit, the emoluments of which were not large with the office of Assistant Barrister, the salary of which was about 400 l. a-year. It was strange how the right hon. Gentleman could have so misrepresented the facts of the hon. John Plunkett's emoluments, for Mr. Kemmis, the right hon. Gentleman's own brother-in-law, who was the Assistant Barrister for the county of Kildare, could have informed him that it was he that enjoyed the emoluments which the right hon. Gentleman would persuade the public were possessed by Mr. John Plunkett. A still more flagrant case of misrepresentation was the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman, with reference to Mr. M'Causland, jun. and Mr. M'Causland, father to the Secretary, and brother-in-law to the Lord Chancellor, put down at 1,500 l. The House would be surprised to hear that this gentleman did not receive one
98
shilling of salary from the situation to which he was appointed by the Lord Chancellor. Mr. M'Causland was a solicitor in large practice, and a most respectable agent; and it was a most ridiculous circumstance to find that the profits of his business were put down among the emoluments received by the Plunkett family. There was something, indeed, worse than foolishness in this proceeding, there was something of artful malevolence, in thus placing to the debit side of Lord Plunkett's public character, an estimate of the possible profits of the house of M'Causland and Company, the solicitors. The mere accident of a relative of Lord Plunkett's deriving a good income from his profession, was represented to the public as an abuse of official patronage by that noble and learned Lord. Was there ever such a flagrant instance of party spleen and party misrepresentation? Then let their Lordships consider the other items. Lord Plunkett was charged with having bestowed the Deanery of Down, worth 1,200 l. a-year, upon his son Thomas, and the vicarage of Bray, worth 800 l. a-year, upon his son Edward; but why was it artfully left out that Mr. John Plunkett gave up a very profitable living, which he had held for eleven years with exemplary diligence, on his promotion—conduct not exactly parallel to that of the holder of a much richer deanery—that of St. Patrick, which was held by a gentleman who also held a large living in Kilkenny. Then Mr. Edward Plunkett's emoluments were not fully 400 l. a-year, and he, besides, held but half the living of Bray, the other half being held by his co-curate, under the late vicar. And yet these reverend Gentlemen were represented as revelling in the public money. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman's doctrine on this head was somewhat strange; for he spoke of the emoluments of the Rev. Messrs. Plunkett as so much misappropriation of "public property." But the accusation, if it rested on anything at all, could only be founded on this, that as the Dean of Down and vicar of Bray received emoluments from their livings, this was to be considered as a direct and grievous tax on the public—a notion which could only be entertained by the most decided radical in regard to Church property. And what then did all these imputations amount to? Were any of the persons mentioned in the list undue burthens on the public, even supposing

99
they had all been appointed by the Lord Chancellor? Were their offices sinecures, or had they not all necessary public duties to perform, or were any of these persons inadequate to the discharge of the duties? The right hon. Gentleman forgot, besides, that these revellers in the public funds were in the exercise of these spoliating functions some two years ago, under an Administration which had had the incalculable advantage of the right hon. Gentleman's own services. It was worthy of remark, too, that his noble and learned friend had been more than a year in office, and that his family had only received one favour since. Then Lord Plunkett had been denounced a "political Judge," and as having thrown on the shoulders of the Irish Master of the Rolls duties which ought to have been discharged by himself; while the facts were the very reverse, for not a single case had been heard, or, indeed, according to the construction of the two courts in Ireland, could be heard in the Rolls Court which belonged to the Chancellor's immediate jurisdiction; and but one appeal had been made from the Irish Court of Chancery to that House since Lord Plunkett's accession to office. There had been no loss of time or money to the suitors from the conduct of his noble and learned friend, whatever there might have been to the lawyers. Then, besides being a political Judge, Lord Plunkett had been held up as a "venal politician," who was spending his time here in Parliament which ought to be devoted to the suitors in his court. Lord Plunkett had been called over here in 1825 to afford the aid of his invaluable services in carrying that great measure of religious liberty, with which his fame is imperishably and gloriously associated, and, perhaps, devolved on others duties which ought to have been discharged by himself. It was not merely to support the Government that his noble and learned friend came over, but to support a cause in which he himself, as one of the public, was warmly interested. For the same reason, his noble and learned friend had come over, when he was Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, to support—not the Government certainly—but a cause in the success of which he felt a warm interest, and on that occasion he paid 400 l. out of his own pocket, on account of his not having at that time gone the circuit. It was no light matter when men of high station
100
were thus attacked; if a Judge were corrupt, the Constitution pointed out a due mode of inquiry, and the nature of the punishment. He well knew that the conduct of his noble and learned friend had been rigorously examined, but without any discovery that could gratify his political enemies. He entreated their Lordships to consider seriously the consequences of personal charges like these, which were made to occupy so large a space in the public mind; if men of station, Privy Councillors, would lend themselves to such representations, the result must be injurious to the Aristocracy in the eyes of the country. For this reason, if for no other, he would not enter into recrimination. If he were disposed to do that, how easily might he state facts—not wholly unfounded assertions—in which two great right hon. names might not appear models of disinterested patriotism. But he would not imitate the bad example. He would only say, that the course pursued with regard to his noble friend had been most unjustifiable—least of all in these times, and in reference to such a country as Ireland, where the people were but too ready to be inflamed against those who were placed in authority over them. The attack in this instance had been made upon the head of the Magistracy of Ireland, and the charge was nothing less than venality and corruption. It would be impertinent in him to attempt the vindication of the high character of Lord Plunkett. It belonged to the history of his country, and would be written in her most golden letters among the mighty men whose eloquence and patriotism, and above all, whose labours in the cause of religious liberty, shed a lustre on their native land. If that learned Lord was a man who was the month-piece of the virulence of a party—if he was a man who had changed his opinions upon a most important question at the mere beck of an influential relation—if his views had ever a reference to self, no matter how exposed to conniving at corruption—if he was a man who was wholly indebted for his public station to the accident of an accident, he would not have been singled out, as he had been, for the base insinuations of the little-minded, the bigotted, and the malevolent. But as he was wholly indebted to his own transcendent abilities for power, and wealth, and honour, it was, perhaps, unavoidable that he should excite the rancour

101
of those who had neither the intellect to acquire such distinctions, nor the moral capacity requisite to their just appreciation.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, that after what had passed on a former evening, if he refrained now from addressing their Lordships, it would look as if, from the heavy displeasure of the noble and learned Lord (Plunkett) which he then incurred, he was afraid of again expressing his sentiments upon the subject. He begged to assure the noble Lord that any feeling that might on that occasion have been elicited from him had completely vanished, for he bore
"—Anger as a flint bears fire,
Which shows a hasty spark, and straight is cold Again."
He had on the present occasion no other wish in rising but to set himself right with the House as to the statements which had on that occasion been brought forward. In the first place he would observe that it was not with him, nor, indeed, in that House, that they had originated. Their Lordships would recollect that there had been a discussion elsewhere upon the conduct of the noble and learned Lord, with respect to the exercise of patronage, in which that conduct was justified by a majority of only four. He would ask why the noble and learned Lord had moved for papers relative to the appointments made by former Chancellors of Ireland. With respect to the speech of the noble Marquis (Clanricarde) he would make only one observation. It was from beginning to end, a reply to what had taken place in another House, and was, therefore, the whole of it, as disorderly as any speech which he had ever been accused of uttering in that House. If, instead of moving for those papers to which he had alluded, the noble and learned Lord had moved for a return of the emoluments actually received by himself and his family, there would have been no necessity for any of the discussions which had taken place. He begged to assure the noble Lord that he did not now entertain the smallest unkindness or although the attack of the noble Lord upon him was not the sort of one which ought to have been made in that House. The noble Lord had said, that his friends and enemies alike disclaimed him. He had, however, lived long enough to know that political friends after the manner of other friends, are
102
"here to-day and gone to-morrow." If any one thing more than another could cause him to regret the observations he had formerly made upon the noble Lord, it would be the effect which it had produced of bringing forward such a statement as had that evening been made in that House, feeling as he did, that private concerns were improperly made thereby the subjects of discussion. It was, however, the noble Lord himself who had occasioned it by moving for those papers. If the noble Lord would produce the return he (the Marquis of Londonderry) had suggested, it would be satisfactory to all parties; or, if not, perhaps he would have no objection to his (Lord Londonderry's) moving, that the salary of the Secretary of the Lord Chancellor, the duties of which had been so well performed by Mr. Long for 500 l. per annum, should be reduced to that sum. He believed his Majesty's Government, in their zeal for economy of the public money, could have no possible objection to the motion.
Earl Greywas sure that his noble and learned friend would have no objection to the production of any documents which it would be consistent with the usages of that House to produce; but he doubted very much whether the information sought for by the noble Marquis fell within the scope of those usages. He had listened with great satisfaction to the statement of the noble Marquis (Clanricarde), and was sure their Lordships would agree with him that it furnished a triumphant refutation to insinuations which were propagated with a rancorous assiduity and a malevolent perseverance only to be equalled by their falsehood. He did not feel himself called upon to vindicate the character of his noble and learned friend, for not all the assertions which had been, within the last fortnight, made in reference to it with such malicious pertinacity, could for a moment tarnish it in public estimation. He was not, therefore, called upon to bear testimony to its high merits, and had only to say, that the noble Marquis had not exceeded by a single jot strict justice in its praise. There was one fact connected with the noble Marquis's statement, which, having come under his own knowledge, he thought it but right to mention—he alluded to the appointment of the hon. Thomas Plunkett to the Deanery of Down. It was true, that that reverend Gentleman had given up a very considerable living on

103
his appointment; but it was equally true, that his promotion had been wholly unsolicited by himself or his noble and learned parent, and that the appointment was the free gift of his Majesty, after due inquiry as to his fitness for the office. He forgot whether it was he himself or the Marquis of Anglesey who first announced to his noble and learned friend his son's promotion, and their Lordships would, be was sure, agree with him, that so far from being ashamed of the circumstance, it must have been a source of pride and satisfaction to his noble and learned friend to learn that his son had received such a promotion without any application whatever on his own part, and solely on account of his personal merits. He need not add a syllable to the complete vindication of the noble Marquis from insinuations and senseless jargon, which it was to be hoped, after that evening, would never be revived, even to gratify personal or party malice.
The Duke of Wellingtonwas always disposed to deprecate allusions by their Lordships to statements made elsewhere, as likely to lead to mischievous inconvenience, but he felt that his noble and learned friend (the Earl of Eldon) was justified in the course he had pursued that evening. His noble and learned friend had been attacked for having, in the exercise of the patronage of his office, not overlooked the interests of his own family. To be sure he did not, and ought not. If he had overlooked his own friends, he would only have departed from the practice of all his predecessors. Let him remind their Lordships, that for at least a century and a half back the Lord Chancellor, and other Judges, had invariably dispensed the patronage attached to their offices in favour of their own immediate relations. So that his noble and learned friend, in providing for his own family as well as he could, was only acting according to the uniform and acknowledged practice of all his predecessors. The fact was, that the office of Lord Chancellor would be very inadequately remunerated, unless the individual filling it possessed such means of providing for his family; and he believed it would be found out ere long, that with this inadequate remuneration, and what with their stripping off so much of the Chancellor's patronage, and what with the surrendering up so much of his bankruptcy fees, that the remuneration would be so inadequate to the labour and change of
104
habits, that few eminent gentlemen at the bar would be disposed to accept of it. For the same reason that he justified his noble and learned friend, he would say, that the noble and learned Lord (Lord Plunkett) opposite was justified in the exercise of his official patronage. That noble and learned Lord had a large family, and was perfectly right in placing them in those situations to which their abilities and pretensions were adequate. The noble and learned Lord would only be to blame if he placed them in situations to which their abilities were not equal; and that had not been even insinuated in the course of the discussion. He would, therefore, say, that the noble and learned Lord was perfectly justified in the course he had pursued; and would say more, that his high office, and his great intellectual influence, fully entitled him to expect that the Government, of which he was a member, should give his family a preference in filling up any situations to which, as he had stated, their abilities were equal. He agreed with the noble Earl (Earl Grey) in hoping that that would be the last they should hear of this senseless outcry against public men for not having overlooked the ties of blood and nature in disposing of the patronage of office. The time of the House was but ill spent with such discussions; indeed he was sure that nothing could tend more to injure its character in public estimation, than these inquisitional investigations of the family affairs of men in high stations: at all events, they tended more to lower the House than benefit the public, and the sooner their Lordships put an end to them the better.
Lord Plunkettfelt the irksomeness consequent upon obtruding his personal affairs upon the attention of their Lordships; but trusted that the peculiar circumstances in which he stood in relation to the present discussion, would plead his apology for detaining them for a few moments. He begged leave to assure the noble and learned Earl (the Earl of Eldon) that he never, on any occasion, gave utterance to an expression at all reflecting upon the noble and learned Earl's exercise of his official patronage, and that so far as he understood the reference to the noble and learned Lord's family made in the other House of Parliament, it was by no means intended to criminate the noble and learned Earl, but merely to exculpate him (Lord Plunkett.) He concurred, also, in the fullest

105
manner in the observations made by the noble Duke in reference to the manner in which the noble Earl had dispensed his patronage, and so strongly did he feel this that he begged the noble Duke would accept his thanks for the justice he (Lord Plunkett) had received at his hands, and for the candid manner in which he had supplied a full justification of his conduct, by citing the uniform practice of all his predecessors, in disposing of their official patronage. He could also assure the noble Marquis (the Marquis of Londonderry) that he believed him in all sincerity and truth, when he stated that he had dismissed from his mind all angry recollections of the passage at arms between them a few evenings since, and that he, on the other hand, entertained not a particle of ill-will towards the noble Marquis, and should regret if, in the heat of a reply to what he conceived a most unjust attack, he had given utterance to an expression likely to ruffle the calm serenity of the noble Marquis's understanding. With these declarations he would have resumed his seat, had there not been one or two points which only he himself, as the person most interested, could well explain, with reference to the attack which had been directed against him elsewhere. It had been stated that he was a "political Judge"—as one, therefore, in the sense of the calumniator, who prostituted his judicial functions for the mere purposes of party. Now, the expression "political Judge" was one of great ambiguity, meaning anything or nothing, according to the immediate object of the person using it. If it meant, as he believed was intended in the speech he was alluding to, that he was a man who carried his political opinions and political partialities with him to the judgment-seat, he need not observe that no conduct could be more unjustifiable, more base, or more unworthy. He would confidently appeal, however, to every candid man who knew him, whether he had ever permitted himself to be biassed by feelings of party or politics when discharging his duties as a Judge. In truth, when he approached the judicial seat, he knew not what party or politics were. He had but one object, one pursuit, one recollection—the administering impartial justice. But he took pride in saying, that in becoming a Judge he did not, therefore, cease to be a politician; and that he felt a proud satisfac-
106
tion in stating his opinions on political subjects when called upon by a proper opportunity. It so happened that the political opinions he then held were those he had advocated throughout his public life. He did not mean this by way of reproach to those who had best proved their consistent devotion to the public good by changing their line of policy; nor did he hold it up as a very rare circumstance, but merely as matter of honourable gratification that his early opinions were those which his mature judgment approved of. If, indeed, he permitted the politician in any way to prejudice the Judge—if he spent hours in Parliament which were due to the suitors of the Court, he should feel himself deserving of censure; but as he was confident he had not, he felt the insinuation to be unwarrantable and malicious. It was stated elsewhere, that he had absented himself from his Court whole Terms, and that the Master of the Rolls was, consequently, compelled to do his business as well as his own. A simple statement of facts would show the total falsity of the assertion. He was appointed Lord Chancellor of Ireland in December, 1830; and he commenced his sittings in the ensuing January. A very great arrear of business had been left to be disposed of by his Predecessor; and he sat the whole of that Hilary Term, till the 17th of March. On his rising on that day, not a single cause remained to be disposed of, except at the express instance of the suitors, in order to be more prepared at the next Term. The interval between Hilary and Easter Terms he spent in Parliament, and having been constantly engaged during Easter and Trinity Terms in his Court, he rose three days before the termination of the last-named Term, with not a single cause undisposed of, except one or two, which, as in the former instance, he consented to postpone at the instance of the suitors themselves. He might, if be had so thought fit, have devoted the four months of the ensuing long vacation to his domestic affairs; but, instead of doing so, he devoted them to the service of the public in that House, returning in time to his Court where he sat during Michaelmas Term. This brought him to the last Hilary Term, during which he had been charged with totally absenting himself, and of leaving the business to be discharged by the Master of the Rolls. By an arrangement which he had made with

107
the Bar, he commenced his November sittings a couple of days before the usual period, by which means, and by sitting every day from the commencement of Hilary Term, he succeeded in disposing of every cause set down for hearing in his Court, so as to be able to rise four or five days before the Term was over. These four or five days he, in point of fact, spent in Dublin, having literally nothing to do in the Court of Chancery, so that he might, consistently with his judicial duties, have taken his seat here a week sooner than he did. And was this spending his time in Parliament, to the injury of the suitors in the Court of Chancery? With respect to the assertion that the Master of the Rolls was obliged to assist him in disposing of the arrears of the Court of Chancery, he begged leave to state that the Master of the Rolls never heard a case not belonging to his own immediate jurisdiction, except one, and that was a case in which he (Lord Plunkett) happened to have been originally employed as counsel, and, therefore, felt a delicacy to decide it as Judge. At his special request, and for that especial reason, the cause was heard by the Master of the Rolls. He trusted this unvarnished statement of facts would be felt to be a complete refutation of all the calumnious assertions which had been directed against his official conduct. After the manly declaration of the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) he did not feel it necessary to vindicate at length his having appointed his own relatives to the situation connected with the Court of Chancery. The papers which he had moved for on a former evening, would show that he had acted precisely as his predecessors had done. Lord Manners dispossessed the former officer, and appointed his own brother-in-law as his Secretary; Sir Anthony Hart dispossessed that gentleman, and appointed a friend of his own; he (Lord Plunkett) dispossessed that last appointment, and appointed his nephew, Mr. M'Causland, a young man of great promise, who was most assiduous in the performance of the duties of his office. On his making that appointment, Sir Anthony Hart, who fully recognized his right, recommended him to retain the services of Mr. Long, his Secretary. A negotiation was accordingly entered into, and Mr. Long's services were retained at a salary of 500 l., to be paid him out of the allowance of Mr. M'Causland, with the
108
title, at his own request, of "joint Secretary." It had been represented that he (Lord Plunkett) had made a double appointment, of course, with a double extension of patronage. But what was the? That he had only made one appointment of two persons, with 2,500 l. a-year between them, while the emoluments of the former single Secretary had been 3,000 l. a-year. There was another point which had been trumpeted forth in the newspapers, and to which he would draw their Lordships' attention. It had been said that a brother-in-law of his had been appointed to a living of 1,200 l. a-year, at his (Lord Plunkett's) recommendation; and, again, what was the fact in this instance? Supposing, however, that this was the case, it had nothing whatever to do with the charges made against him. However the facts were simply these. The gentleman in question, Mr. Oliver M. 'Causland, was now eighty years of age; he had been for forty years a clergyman in the diocess of Derry, and if the late Bishop, his old friend and schoolfellow, appointed him to a living now, with that appointment he had as little to do as any of their Lordships. The noble Marquis had alluded to certain fees taken by his (Lord Plunkett's) Secretaries, and had, no doubt, unintentionally, represented them as fees going to himself. With these fees he had nothing whatever to do. They were those accustomed to be taken, and belonging heretofore to the Secretary, the Train-bearer, and Purse-bearer. The noble Marquis had said, that it was represented as a hardship that these should be paid by Magistrates; but the only question was, were these fees legal or not, and if so, the Lord Chancellor could not remedy the hardship, were any suffered. But the moment he had heard that there was the slightest question of their legality, he ordered an inquiry to be made into the subject. A case was laid before the Attorney General, who was of opinion that the fees could not be legally demanded, but thought that compensation for them would be made by the Lords of the Treasury. He (Lord Plunkett), however, thought that if the fees were not legal, there ought not to be any compensation for them, and he had at once given peremptory orders to return them. In conclusion, the noble Lord begged leave to thank their Lordships for the attention with which they had heard him, and he

109
presumed that after this explanation there was no gentleman who would say one word more against his character upon these points.
The Marquis of Clanricardebegged leave to say, in explanation, that the grounds on which he had made his statement was on the authority of an article which had appeared in the public papers, and he believed it was not unusual for their Lordships to comment occasionally upon such authorities.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that as he had been appealed to by his noble and learned friend (the Earl of Eldon) upon this subject, he was bound to say a few words. He should then say, that in the communications which had taken place with respect to compensation for offices affected by the late alterations in the law, nothing could be more liberal, as well as more correct, than the conduct pursued by his noble and learned friend and those connected with him. The noble and learned Lord Chancellor for Ireland had made such a statement to their Lordships, as carried conviction with it to those who had heard him; but it was necessary that he should remind noble Lords, who did not take part in the legal business of the House, of what his noble and learned friend had omitted—namely, that his noble and learned friend, in cases of appeal and review which came before that House in the last resort, gave the assistance of his labour and talent which was invaluable.
The Motion of the Earl of Eldon "That there be laid before the House a return of all the offices held by the Hon. W. H. J. Scott, distinguishing those in possession, from those in reversion, with an account of their emoluments respectively for the last three years."—Agreed to.