Page images
PDF
EPUB

cult hereafter to cure: a Bill directed to the removal of an obstruction in the course of justice avowedly of a temporary nature; and effecting (or rather not effect ing) that object by a permanent dismemberment of the highest judicial office of the constitution.

Sir Samuel Romilly could not content himself with giving a silent vote upon this question, which if agreed to would effect a complete change in the character of future Lord Chancellors; and that the country would never again see such men as Somers, Camden, or Hardwicke. He could not support the present Bill; for although he must admit, and every body must admit, that the evil which was stated was a most serious one, yet he conceived that the remedy proposed was still more serious, and that it was an evil still greater than that which it purported to reform. The evil which now existed might, however, be considered as a temporary one; whereas, the remedy proposed would, if agreed to, bring upon them one that in his opinion would be permanent. They were now called upon to remedy an evil, which the other House had taken no step for many years to remove. The House of Lords, though the arrears had long been growing upon them, had never taken any active measures for removing the evil. They had not continued their sittings longer in order to diminish the arrear of causes before them, nor had they met earlier in the day, nor ever proceeded to the decision of any appeal in the absence of the Lord Chancellor. This it had been the practice of the House to do in former times, and in some cases it might be better that the cause should be decided on in his absence, as Appeals from his decisions frequently came before them. He thought there could be no difficulty in procuring the attendance of a sufficient number of lords to hear causes, in the absence of the Lord Chancellor, and by this means alone the evil might gradually be removed. He did not think any other remedy was necessary, and at least he thought what he had mentioned ought to be tried, before a measure like that now proposed were adopted. If their lordships had either met earlier in the morning for this purpose, or continued their sittings by shorter adjournments, or had decided causes even when the Chancellor was not present, there would not now have been such an arrear of business before them. The question however was not whether any

other remedy could be devised? but whether that proposed ought to be resortedto? He conceived that the present Bill would alter materially the constitutionalcourse of the business of the Court of Chancery, and the office of Lord Chancellor. After a few successions of Vice-Chancellors, there would be no more men found to discharge the high office of Lord Chancellor, in the manner it had hitherto been discharged by so many illustrious men. As to the great increase of business in Chancery, which had been so much spoken of, there was certainly a very great increase in the bankrupt business, but a very small increase in other respects. He denied that the business, strictly so called, of the Court of Chancery had increased since the year 1750. The number of suits was not now greater than in the time of lord Hardwicke, but they were perhaps heard at greater length. There might possibly have been less indulgence, or, as he might say, less invitation to frequent hearings, and rehearings at that time, and which were now equally injurious to the clients of that Court and to the public at large. As to the number of motions in lord Hardwicke's time, he did not know that they were much lower than at present, although less time might have been taken up in the arguments upon them. Lord Hardwicke had generally, besides his morning sitting, sat two evenings every week for hearing causes, and instead of closing his sittings at 2 o'clock in the afternoon, had frequently closed them at two o'clock in the morning, and therefore it was not extraordinary that in his time there was so small an arrear of business. If he were called upon to suggest a remedy to the evil complained of, he should say, that what appeared to him the most unobjectionable would be to separate the bankrupt business from that of the Chancery. It was said that as many of those bankrupt cases involved points of great difficulty and importance, and the decision was to be final and without appeal, it was absolutely necessary that the Lord Chancellor should determine them himself. He could not allow the justice of this conclusion. If they were cases of difficulty and importance, it certainly required that they should be decided by a man of ability, but he saw no necessity why this man must be the Lord Chancellor. Men could be easily found, of the highest professional eminence, who would be perfectly competent to this part of the duty; and

a sufficient compensation could be found out for them, in the emoluments from those bankrupt cases. He could not avoid, however, quoting here, the opinion of their committee," that it was highly objectionable that judges should be paid from fees, especially from fees ostensibly belonging to their secretary or some inferior officer." By this it appeared that the fees of bankruptcy, which were paid to an officer for the bankruptcy, were accounted for by that officer to the Lord Chancellor. This, in his opinion, was decidedly wrong-a judge ought never to be paid by fees. He should therefore most earnestly recommend that these fees should be abolished, and the salary of the Lord Chancellor proportionably increased, if it should appear that the other emoluments of his office did not afford him a sufficient remuneration. Next to taking away the bankrupt business, he thought the separating the office of Speaker of the House of Lords from that of Chancellor, I would be a far better mode than that which was proposed in the present Bill. He saw no reason why the Chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster might not be made an efficient situation, and why he might not sit in other courts. He knew that the present possessor of it (Mr. Bathurst) was eminent in the profession of the law while he practised it; and he did not see why the place might not in future be given to professional men, with duties annexed to it. As to the nature of this office, it was to be totally different from that of the Master of the Rolls, or of the judges sitting under a commission. They, when sitting in the place of the Chancellor, heard and determined every cause which came before them, whether important or not; but never was there such an indignity put before upon any judge, as to tell him that he was never to determine any cases of difficulty or importance. As the ViceChancellor was to be for life, while the office of Lord Chancellor was removable at pleasure, it might at some future time happen, that a Chancellor might have an unreasonable prejudice against the ViceChancellor. It was well known, that lord Thurlow had such a prejudice against his Master of the Rolls (lord Alvanley, than whom there was hardly ever a better equity judge), that he would never allow him to sit in his place. Such things might happen again, and instead of that mutual agreement and concord subsisting between these great law-officers which would tend

to the dispatch of business, a state of things might arise from which only increased, extended, and protracted litigation must ensue. He wished that ministers would really find out the opinion of the profession at large upon this subject, and not confine themselves to the opinions of a few of their parliamentary friends. It was said the public would pay nothing for this new officer, as he would be partly paid out of the interest of the fund of unclaimed money now in Chancery. He could not avoid noticing this fund, out of which part of this salary was proposed to be paid, called the Dead Fund, and amounting to 9,000l. per annum, being the interest of money put into that Court and never claimed: its very existence appeared to him a subject which called for parliamentary enquiry. It was the money of suitors placed in that Court for security; but which the suitors were often obliged to abandon from the great difficulties they found in bringing forward their cause. It was possible it would never be called for; but had they a right to assume that this would be the case? Considering the remedy proposed a greater mischief than the evil complained of, he must oppose the present Bill, which would do the greatest mischief to the Court of Chancery, and entirely alter its constitution, while it created a new and unnecessary officer to be subjected to every species of indignity, or else to be altogether useless.

Mr. Wetherall was strongly in favour of the measure. If two years discussion and consideration of it were not sufficient, he did not know what would be reckoned a reasonable time for enquiring into its expediency, nor what would satisfy the gen tlemen on the other side. The business of the Court, he maintained, had increased so much, that since the year 1750 the number of Appeals had been 'not only doubled, but trebled. This proved the evil complained of was not a temporary evil, and therefore, being permanent, it was one which called for the permanent remedy now proposed. The hon. and learned gentleman then entered more into detail, and contended, that the Bill offered the most efficacious and constitutional means for redressing the grievances under which the subjects of these realms now laboured, from the necessary delay and arrear of business in the Court of Chancery and House of Lords. He denied that the new officer would be either inefficient or degraded, and on the contrary, argued

that many men of competent legal knowledge, high character, and excellent abilities, would be found eligible to, and ready to undertake the discharge of, its important functions. He replied to the arguments for separating the bankruptcy business from the office of Lord Chancellor, which suggestion he condemned as most unwise, since it would be imprudent to give the power of finally adjudicating property of an amount so immense as that contained in these cases, to an inferior officer; and if appeal was allowed, then the separation would afford no relief. He also expressed his opinion, in common with the opinions of every lawyer and statesman who had turned their attention to the subject, to be entirely hostile to the idea of separating the duties of Speaker in the House of Peers from the other duties of the Lord Chancellor. This had been so universally held to be inexpedient by all men whose authority was of weight, that it would be idle in him to repeat their reasons for coming to the conclusion, in the propriety of which he most perfectly coincided. He justified the application of the Dead Fund to the payment of part of the salary of the new officer, and closed his observations by warmly approving of every part of the

Bill.

The Solicitor-General, (Sir W. Garrow) in a speech of great animation, gave his opinion in favour of the Bill, and against the Amendment. He insisted on the necessity of providing justice for the subjects of the realm, now exposed to many inconveniencies, by the delay in the courts of law; and replied to the various arguments which had been addressed against the Bill. He ridiculed the idea of taking a judge from each, or from either of the other courts, for the purpose of constituting or relieving a court of equity. The judges in the courts of common law had already more business to perform than, with their utmost diligence, they could get through, and it was absurd to look for relief to those quarters. What then were they to do? A great evil existed an evil which amounted almost, in many cases, altogether to a denial of justice to suitors and to the public. Were they to acquiesce in this state of the law, or ought not the House rather to declare that it wanted an instant remedy, which they would hasten to apply by passing a Bill of the description now before them. He did not mean to say but

the measure

that several amendments upon might be suggested in the Committee; but he contended, that in principle the Bill was most deserving of their unanimous support, which was the whole extent of the vote they were now called on to give. They wanted a prompt decision and an effectual remedy for a very crying evil, and in his opinion, the measure proposed would be found the best practical remedy that could be devised. It had therefore his most cordial support.

Mr. Ponsonby maintained, that the evil created by the Bill would be far greater than the evil it was intended to remedy. The measure would go to alter the judicial system of the country in its very basis; which attempt had never been made before, and was not in the power of the crown itself. He trusted the House would resist that attempt, and reject the Bill altogether, by voting for the amendment.

The House then divided upon the Amendment, Ayes 122; Noes 201; Majority against the Amendment 79. The original question for the second reading of the Bill was then carried without a di vision.

List of the Minority.

Abercromby, Hon. J. Althorpe, Visc. Atherley, A. Astley, Sir J. Aubrey, Sir J. Bankes, H. (Teller.) Barham, J. F. Baring, A. Barnard, Visc. Bennet, Hon. H. G. Birch, Jos. Blachford, B. P. Brand, Hon. T. Burrell, Hou. P. D. Broadhead, T. H. Byng, G. Canning, Rt. Hon. G. Canning, G. Calvert, I. Calvert, C. Carew, R. S. Coulthurst, Sir N. Courtenay, W. Cavendish, Lord G. Cocks, Hon. J. S. Cocks, J. Combe, H. C. Creevey, T. Dundas, Hon. L. Duncannon, Visc. Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. Ellis, C. R. Ellison, C. Ferguson, R. C.

[blocks in formation]

Lewis, T. F.

Protheroe, E.
Pym, F.
Ramsden, J. C.
Ridley, M. W.

Robinson, G. A.
Rowley, Sir W.
Russell, Ld. G. W.
Romilly, Sir S.
Simson, G.

[blocks in formation]

Smith, S.

Methuen, P.

Smith, J.

Miller, Sir T,

Smith, A.

[blocks in formation]

Smith, W. Smith, Robert Smyth, J. H. Speirs, A.

Taylor, M. A.

East India Company, and had contributed to maintain the high character by which it had been so long distinguished. On the other hand, there were instances of officers who had been originally in the service of the Company, having afterwards entered into the royal navy, in which they had risen to the highest rank and honours. Upon the whole, considering the character of the Company's naval officers, for nautical knowledge, skill, ability, and courage, of which many instances had occurred in the course of the present war, lord Hardwicke trusted that, whenever the subject of the East India

Tierney, Rt. Hon. G. trade was discussed, their case would re

Tighe, W.

Vernon, G.
Walpole, Hon. G.
Ward, Hon. J. W.
Warre, J. A.
Webster, Sir G.
Wellesley, Long W.
Western, C. C.

Whitbread, S.

Wilkins, W.

Plumer, W.
Ponsonby, Rt. Hn. G. Wrottesley, H.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Friday, February 12.

NAVAL OFFICERS IN THE SERVICE OF THE EAST INDIA COMPANY.] The Earl of Hardwicke rose and said, that the Petition which he held in his hand was from a description of persons who, whatever might be the ultimate decision of parliament upon the great and important question which was shortly to be submitted to their consideration, had as strong a claim to have their case considered with the most favourable attention, as any class of individuals whose interests were connected with the subject to which he alluded: he meant the officers employed in the naval service of the East India Company. Many of these gentlemen had received their education in the royal navy; and from the great extent to which the navy of this country was carried in time of war, had found themselves, on the return of peace, deprived of the profession to which they had dedicated some of the best years of their lives; in some cases, from not being appointed to any commission in his Majesty's navy, and in others, where they had received their first commission of lieutenant, from being disappointed of any further advancement or employment in the navy. In this situation, many officers had entered into the naval service of the (VOL. XXIV.)

ceive that degree of attention from parlia ment to which it is so justly entitled.

The Petition was ordered to lie on the table.

PETITIONS RESPECTING THE CLAIMS OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICS.] Petitions against the Catholic Claims were presented from the archdeacon, clergy, and laity, of the archdeaconry of Colchester, the archdeacon and clergy of Essex, the archdeacon and clergy of St. Albans, and the dean and chapter, archdeacon and clergy of the diocese of Worcester by the bishop of London; from the corporation of Chichester by the bishop of Chichester, and from the corporation of Ripon by the earl of Harewood.

The Duke of Leinster spoke to the following effect :-I do not rise to oppose the Petitions lying on the table; but I am anxious to seize the first opportunity, lest I should be prevented attending the main question, of expressing my firm conviction of the justice and expediency of admitting our Roman Catholic fellow subjects to all the benefits of the British constitution. I am at a loss to discover what possible interest these petitioners can have, in excluding the great body of my countrymen from all share in the government. I am sure your lordships and the country have a great interest in giving them the same motives of attachment that Englishmen have. Give them these, and they will not only be loyal subjects, but an attached and grateful people. I live among them, and I am anxious to bear my testimony to their deserving the full enjoyment of those privileges, to which, as subjects of this great and free country, they are entitled by their birth.

A Petition to the same effect from the corporation and some of the inhabitants of (2 K)

Guildford was presented by lord Walsing- | judices from these than their being ex

ham.

The Duke of Norfolk observed upon an expression in the Petition, setting forth that the Catholics had repeatedly claimed "the right of enjoying political power," that his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects never had laid claim to political power, but only to the eligibility of attaining it if their merits should be found deserving of it. He could not, therefore, let such an unfounded assertion in the Petition pass without contradicting it.

The Petition was ordered to lie on the table.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, February 12.

cluded from parliament and public employments; and that by them the Protestant religion was sheltered from all the designs of the Roman Catholics against it, or against the public safety; and that these laws could not be said to carry any severity in them against the Roman Catholics upon account of their consciences, being only provisions qualifying men to be members of parliament, or to be capa ble of bearing office, by which they must declare before God and man that they were for the Protestant religion; so that indeed all this amounted to no more than a securing the Protestant religion from any prejudice it might receive from the Roman Catholics;" and that the petitioners, after thus expressing their real

PETITIONS AGAINST THE CLAIMS OF sentiments, beg leave further to observe

[ocr errors]

THE ROMAN CATHOLICS FROM THE
CLERGY, &C. OF CHICHESTER · ARCH-
DEACONRY OF LEWES-MAYOR, &c. oF
GUILDFORD-DEAN AND CLERGY OF SARUM,
AND ARCHDEACON, &C. OF WILTS-ARCH-
DEACON AND CLERGY OF SARUM-ARCH-
DEACONRY OF ESSEX AND CHURCH-
WARDENS, &c. or ST. LEONARD'S SHORE-
DITCH.] A Petition of the clergy and
certain of the laity within the archdea-
conry and diocese of Chichester, was pre-
sented and read; setting forth,

"That the petitioners have understood that their fellow subjects professing the Roman Catholic religion have an intention of applying during the present session of parliament for the repeal of those acts which exclude them from holding certain offices and situations of power and trust; and that they must begin by professing their strong and steady adherence to the principles of that Revolution which placed his majesty king William on the throne of these kingdoms; and they desire clearly to express their opinion that every degree of toleration compatible with the security of the established Church ought to be granted without hesitation both to the Roman Catholics and to Protestant Dissenters; but they crave leave to adopt the very words of that great and wise prince whom they have mentioned, who, though himself a zealous friend to civil and religious liberty, and a decided enemy to every species of persecution, declared however openly, that he could by no means agree to the repeal of those laws that tended to the security of the Protestant religion, since the Roman Catholics received no other pre

to the House, that even the strongest advocates for the repeal of the existing laws prfoess however not to wish for it unless in a way which should not be prejudicial to the established Church, which the pe. titioners humbly conceive implies a conCession that it might be effected in some ways which would be prejudicial; they conceive also that in such a case they who wish for the repeal of existing laws are themselves bound, prior to any discussion of the subject, to point out specifically the securities intended to be offered, in order that the establishments which have been hitherto preserved by means of those laws shall not be endangered by the repeal of them; but they observe, with real concern, that nothing of this sort has yet been attempted to be pointed out; on the contrary, they beg leave to remark that one of the slightest and least important of those securities, which even Catholic states and princes have found it necessary to adopt against the intolerable doctrines and pretensions of the bishop of Rome, has nevertheless been formally refused, and declared to be inadmissible by the prelates of the Irish Catholics; and that the petitioners also beg leave to submit it to the consideration of the House, as an undisputed fact of history, that many of these doctrines and pretensions of the bishop of Rome are directly adverse to the well-being of every independent kingdom, and have been so found and declared to be by many states and princes who have professed the Roman Catholic religion; and that the petitioners are not aware that any of these doctrines or pretensions have ever been

« PreviousContinue »