The Sun.
London, England, 1832-02-23 00:00:00

BELGIUM.

Lord PALMERSTON, seeing the Hon. Baronet opposite in
his place, wished to ask him a question respecting a motion of
which the Hon. Baronet had given notice. That motion had
been postponed to a certain day; he wished. to know whether
the Hon. Baronet meant to bring it on upon that day, or whether
he intended further to postpone it ?

Sir R. VYVYAN, when he first postponed his motion, stated
that he should again postpone it before the day mentioned as
the period of his first postponement, the ratification by the three
Powers of the Treaty of Belgium not having arrived. Having
thus answered the question of the Noble Lord, he should wish
to put a question to the Noble Lord ; the object of which was,
to inquire when the ratification of that treaty was expected to
arrive ? He should like to put another question to the Noble
Lord. ' There were reports that an expedition was in the course
of fitting out at one of the ports of France ; the expedition, it
was said, was destined for the shores of Italy, and the particular
places designated were Civita Vecchia and Ancona. He wished
to know if these reports were true, for it did seem to him, that
if they Were, the amount of French interference in the ports of
the Mediterranean was becoming too extensive ?
Lord PALMERSTON certainly could not say that he had
any reason to expect that the ratification by the three Powers of
the Treaty of Belgium was likely to arrive before the 28th of
this month. Indeed he thought there would hardly be time for
it to arrive before that period. With respect to the second
question of the Hon. Baronet he could only state, that the Go:
vernmept had received information that preparations for send-
ing a srnall detachment of troops were in progress at a port of
France, and that these troops were to be sent to the. coast of
Italy, hut he did not, know to what particular part of Italy
they wee to be sent.

Sir R. VYVYAN wished particularly to know whether the
Noble Lord understood that Civita Vecchia or Ancona was the
place intended to receivethese troops ?
Lord:PALMERSTON could not take on himself to answer
as to what were the intentions of other Governments.

Mr. LEADER wished to take that opportunity of asking the
Nzible Lord whether the negociations of the Great Powers
were still going on with respect to the affairs of Greece ?

Lord PALMERSTON answered that these negociations
were still going on, and that he believed they would be settled
to the satisfaction of the country of which they were the subject.

Sir It VYVYAN, after the little satisfaction he had obtained
from the Noble Lord, could not say positively about postponing
his notice.

Lord 'PALMERSTON had given all the answer he could—
namely,tthat he had no information, and that he could not an.
sorer for the intentions of other Governments.
An ,HON. MEMBER asked whether the Noble Lord in-
tended to lay on the table any papers connected with the affair
of the death of Mr. Boyd P

Lord PALMERSTON had no intention of doing so. If the
Hon. Member desired to have any papers connected with that
affair, he had better make a motion to that effect, and then it
would be for the Government to say whether they could comply
with his desire, or to assign reasons which should induce the
House to refuse the information.

MASTER OF THE ROLLS (IRELAND).
On the question that the House go into a Committeeon
this Bill;

Mr. STANLEY opposed the motion, on the ground that the
Bill was, an invasion of what he most sincerely believed to be
the just rights of the Chancellor of Ireland. The Master of
the Rolla had never exercised the patronage he now claimed,
and the Chancellor had never ceased to exercise it. Re moved
that the Bill should be committed this day six months.

Mr. KNIGHT had never understood there was to be any
opposition raised to this Bill, the object of which was to enable
thd parties to try the right. The Master of the Rolls claimed
the right•of appointing his own Secretary, but the Chancellor
at present exercised the power of the appointment, and the
Master of the Rolls had no remedy. The right to appoint the
Secretary was not such an old right as the Right Hon. Gentle-
man seemed to imagine. The office itself had not existed a
century. The fact was, that up to 1733, there did not appear in
the business of the Court a reason for the appointment of such
an officer ; but at that time his office was found to be necessary,
and he was then for the first time appointed. At the time of
the Union, judicial functions having been given to the Master of
the. Rolls by an Act of Parliament, that Judge appointed
a Secretary, and compensation was paid to the Chancel-
lor's Secretary, who complained that his einoluinents were
abridged by that appointment. In 1806 Mr. Curran was ap-
pointed Master of the Rolls, but the Lord Chancellor (Pon-
sonby) prevented him from appointing a Secretary, by making
an order that no petition should be received in his Court unless
signed by his (the Chancellor's) Secretary. When Sir A. Hart
was made Chancellor, in 1826, he had notice from the present
Master of the Rolls, Sir W. M`Mahon (who succeeded Mr.
Curran) of that gentleman's intention to try his right to appoint
a secretary. But Sir A. Hart put a stop to the proceeding, by
making an order similar to that formerly made by the Lord
Chancellor Ponsonby. Now, the present Bill was brought in
for the purpose of giving an opportunity to try the Master's
right to make the appointment.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL contended that no case had
been made out to justify the appointment of an official Secretary
to the Master of the Rolls in Ireland. If the Hon. and Learned
Person who now claimed the appointment conceived that he had
the claim, he ought not to have concealed his opinion from the
Commissioners.—(Hear.) There had really, in his opinion,
bee;iirr.moth,cinogNadsvEanedsoazirdt,hethoatth sideetrhe GboveyeroLd
Government
reofasslerertlaionil.
sought to place the Irish Lord Chancellor in a very unenviable
position. It placed him in the situation of a man who, having
the power to arrest the course of justice, used that power, and
did arrest the justicecourmsepoaofrL2iw.2it s
upontnho peheeotily
s,itethirn own
s: but 21. n case. When a man
h
was heard upon motion in the Irish Court of Chancery, the fee
was.pt
roet eight
e ea clearia
shillingsscompared
o ;
saving
when 10 .;tt
dt
ehi
d theng
er
one there
e Lordwtonde
would
be
oth d
uitor
what in
la the
Chancellor by his order ?. He gave an undue preference to the
one mode over.the other, and when the 21. 10s. was to be paid,
he decided that it should drop, into the purse of his own ap-
pointee. They might talk of Reform after that; but the people
of Great Britain would judge for themselves. He, as belong.
ing to the Irish Bar, and.as a Member of that House, felt it to
be his duty to give the question every degree of attention, and,
as a lawyer, it was his deliberate and conscientious opinion,
that the right 'was in the Master of the Rolls.
The ATTORNEY.GE.NERAL observed, that the Hon.
and Learned Member for Kerry had emphatically insisted upon
the impropriety of the Lord Chancellor deciding a question
which affected his own pecuniary interests, or those of a person
connected with him. But had no one else a pecuniary interest
in the result ? Was it not as much a matter of private and
personal interest to the present Master of the Rolls, as it could
be to the Lord Chancellor ? In fact, there were pecuniary in-
terests on both sides, and there they were in 1832. for the first
time called upon to legislate respecting a matter which Sir Wm.
M`Malion had allowed to remain'clormant during the time
which had elapsed from 1814, the time of his appointment, up
to the present moment. In .1801 the Mastership of the Rolls
'was made a judicial office, after an interval of 40 or 50 years ;
they had no evidence how the appointments to the office of Se-
cretary were made before that period. Some reference had been
made to what was done at the period of the Union ; but that,
he thought, formed no rule for any subject of the nature then
before the House, or taking place at the present time. It Was
before the House that in 1806 Mr. Curran was informed that he
could not exercise the right during the whole Chancellorship of
Lord Manners. In 1824, the sth of George tv. passed. That
Act recites, that the Ministerial officer, of the Court of Chan-
ins
ei ns
mightlrelan (hi
erequire
dr ehgyo
al ant i g
order, an
ed f tthhaeb
ct
eh
ea tt t
hs
eo
umgeh i nhc
n
others the interference of Parliament was requisite. If at
this
time the Master of the Rolls had made good his claim, one line in
this .Act would have.settled. the whole; and yet the Act was
passed without any notice of the question being taken by the Mas.
ter of the Rolls. But that very Act did still more; for it regu.
lated the fees to be received by limiting the Secretary of the Lorc
Chancellor to certain fees; so that, if it were now decided that

17, '.{,stet of the Rolle had the right of appointing this Se-
ci , the fees that this new officer might demand would be
u:)l.zoted, as no provi,sion was made for them in the Act; but
tbe Act passing, there had not been even so much as a re-
servatiob of-the right.' In 18'27, it was true, that a reservation
Lad been made; but then a different state of things was in ex-
istence. The Lord Chancellor Hart heard this claim, at the
request of the Master of the Rolls; and the Solicitor-General of
Irelnd appeared as Counsel for Sir W. McMahon. The argu-
ments on the question lasted five days; and the Lord Chancellor
was of opinion that the Master of the Rolls was not possessed of

the right which he claimed. He (the Attorney-General) did
not at all mean to say that it was desirable for a Judge to de-
citle in his own cause; but, nevertheless, he could feel that eases
might arise (and this was one of them) were such a duty ne-
cessarily devolved on the Judge; and it was his firm belief, that
if there had been anything like doubt in the case, Lord Chan.
cellor Hart would have given-it against himself, rather than in
his own favour. But shortly after this Lord Plunkett suc-
ceeded to this office; and then, for the first time, they heard of
such a Bill as this in the House of Commons—a Bill for which
he was not aware that there was anything like a precedent:
He was quite aware of the maxim contained in Coke—that
even an Act of Parliament would be void that required a man
to judge his own cause; and he acquiesced in the soundness of
that maxim.---(Hear, hear.) But this was not a proposition
parallel with the present instance. In this case the matter was
altogether incidental to the particular office, and referred not to
the, person, but to the Court over which that person presided.
This seemed to him to be a personal Bill altogether ; and he,
therefore, could not admit the justice of it ; it was equal, in
other words, to saying—here is a petition, and we will there-
fore frame a Bill by which the petitioner shall obtain all that he
is asking. If Parliament choose to say that no Judge of a
Court ought to have the power of appointing any officer at all,
there was something in that that he could understand ; but the
present Bill proceeded on no such grounds.--(Hear.)
Sir R. PEEL—I beg to say that I differ from the Hon. and
Learned Member for Kerry; for, until I hear the fact an-
nounced from the Chair, I will never believe that a majority of
this Houie will consent to stifle the Bill thus early, without even
allowing its clauses to be examined in a Committee.—(Cheers.)
I admit that there is in this House a general disposition among
Members to go with their party, and it is right that it should be
so ; for no party could exist unless the members are willing to
sacrifice their individual opinions on minor details, for the pur-
pose of combining together the more efficiently. But, Sir, by
this time I have had some experience of the House
of Comnions, and on a question of mere individual justice,
I have never witnessed the interference of political feel-
ing or party—(Hear, hear, hear)—and I therefore feel satis-
fied, that in the present case Members will be guided in their
votes by a sense of justice alone. The whole argument of the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite seems to me to have
been built on the hypothesis that the Master of the Rolls has
been guilty of negligence for not having claimed this right be.
fore, and that, therefore, we ought to punish him by refusing
him his right now. But I have
.nothing to do with the negli-
gence of Sir W. M'Mahon. If he has been negligent, let him
be punished with a fine, if you please; but I contend that this
is a matter of principle, and that we have no right to let the
negligence of the officer militate to the prejudice of the office.
—(Hear, hear.) Indeed, I cannot conceive a more dangerous
principle to act upon than that laid down by the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman ; for, if once admitted, it would immedi.
ately open the door to all sorts of collusion. The Hon. and
Learned Gentleman has told us, that there is no legal right in
this country without a remedy. But what we say in answer is
—here is a legal right without its remedy; for an action for
fees would not lie ; and by the Lord Chancellor a bar-has been
placed to the trial of the question at a fair tribunal—(Hear,
hear)—and I may here state, that Sir W. M'Mahon has taken
the highest legal opinions, and they all concur in saying that no
trial can be had as the law stands at present. After this, I ask,
will the Hon. and Learned Gentleman consent to stifle a Bill
which proposes a remedy for a legal right—and thus exemplifies
and carries into effect the very doctrine that he himself has

yr:pounded ? And now let me request all those who are r< aly
to forget all political feeling on this occasion, which is
the object of the present Bill? The whole of that object
that this question may be fairly tried before an impar-
tial tribunal. Is that just, or is it not 2--(Hear, hear, hear.)
When this question was originally brought before this House
—long before Government took any part in it—long before any
heat or 'warmth on either side was displayed—by my Hon. and
much lamented Friend, the late Mr. North, several Hon. Gen-
t:e.nen took part in the discussion that ensued, and every one
appeared to agree that that this House was bound to facilitate
the decision of this question before a fair and unobjectionable
tribunal. From the list of gentlemen who spoke on that oc-
casion I' will select a few names ; and I will take on myself to
say, that if it were intended to refer the matter to arbitration,
not one of those names could be objected to by any Member in
this House. I find among the speakers on that occasion the
mimes of the present Solicitor-General for Ireland, the Hon.
tllember for Stafford, Mr. Cutler Ferguson, and Mr. Serjeant
Wilde; I believe it is not irregular to allude to those gentle_
men by Name, as the debate has now become a matter of his-
tory. The opinion of all these four gentlemen was unanimous
that inquiry ought to take place, and that thedecision of the
question ought to be referred to a competent tribunal.—(Hear,
hear.) But Ido not ask the House to act fully up to the prin.
ciple laid down by these Hon. and Learned Gentlemen ; I only
ask, that as there are great doubts as to the right, that it will
permit the matter to go before a competent tribunal.—(Hear,
hear.) The question now is that this Bill should be examined
in Committee—at all events, let it go there—let alterations be
made in it, if you please—let care be taken that there is not the
slightest word inserted to prejudice the question ; but do not
stifle a Bill that has only justice for its object. I say (without
at all intending to impugn the motives of Lord Plunkett) that
he ought to be particularly cautious how he places himself in an
invidious position, by presenting himselfas a bar or obstruction
to the course of public Justice.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. SPENCE said what he should like to see was a Bill that
should abolish the fees altogether, especially after the Master
of the lalls had stated that he should be willing to give them up.
Sir E: SUGDEN said, in his opinion, this claim for trial
was on& that ought to be allowed.

Mr. STANLEY begge..Ftosay one word in justice to Lord
Plunkett. His Noble Friend had over and over again ex-
pressed his willingness to submit the question to any arbitration
whatever, provided the Master of the Rolls would go to that
arbitration, on a question that should not involve the removal
;.f the individual who at this moment held the office. This
propositipn the Master of the Rolls, however, had positively
declined.'

Sir E. SUGDEN had never before heard what the Right.
Hon. Gentleman had just stated, and never had he been more
surprised by any statement? The fact was, that the Secretary
was removeable at pleasure ; and Mr. -Long, who had previously
held the 'office, had even been told to go by Lord Plunkett,
until thi gentlemen of the Chancery Bar had intimated the
treat convenience that would arise from his remaining, upon
.vhich ad arrangement was made by which his 2,00 W. a year was
reduced to 5001. and the remainder was given to a relation of
the Noble Lord ; whence arose the joint Secretaryship that had
been talked of. He thought, after this, that the country would
pretty well understand why the Noble Lord proposed that the
present Secretary should hold for life, and that after that he
cared but very little who had the appointment of the next
gecretary.

Mr. C: FERGUSON had been much disappointed when be
heard the Right Hon. Gentleman announce, that the Noble
Lord held out on the part of the present Secretary retaining the
office.—(Hear, hear.) He thought it was most extraordinary
that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland should insist upon trying
this question, or only leaving it to be settled hereafter by arbi-
tration, when he had no interest in it. The question had been
amply discussed. It was only whether an independent Judge
should hive the appointment of his own officer or not. The
convenience of- the Court, and the convenience of the suitors,
required that the Master of the Rolls should have the appoint-
ment of Ills own secretary.
Mr. STEVENSON said the only object of the Bill was fees.
It was to take from those who were entitled to fees under ass
Act of *ornament, and give those fees to others. He con-
tended that several Judges in England did not appoint their own
officers. It was only a dispute between tw•o Judges in Ireland,
Mr. SHAW admitted that it was a question of fees, but that
cl Ireland.lPeolarloroirif,amstnatitn g thatHe
hsn
aco
nef
e
question had been raised b
readFh aqtiexplanationquestion
'.
a already
v e given by the
decidedht eh elLord CA
:Cat
he had no objection to the arbitration, provided it did not in-
terfere with the fees of the present officers. The Hon. Mem-
ber also quoted the Master of the Rolls' reply, contending that
this right belonged to his office, and contending that the ques-
tion was a question of vested rights in him or the Lord Chan.
cellor. The Hon. Member added, that the Lord Chancellor of
Ireland admitted that the question ought to be tried, but the
interest of his appointee ought to be reserved, This was di-
rectly contrary to what the Right Hon, Secretary of Ireland
had stated. The Master of the Rolls only asked to have his
sight tried by unbiassed parties. He would consent, on the
part of the Master of the Rolls, to leave the decision to any two
Hon. Gentlemen opposite, even though they had spoken against
his right.—(Hear, hear, and no, no.)
Mr. STANLEY explained. He did not know that the do..
currents referred to by the Hon. Gentleman were public docu-
ments. He repeated that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland could
do no other than he had.—(Crlcs of spoke.) He was bound to
protect the interests of the parties under the Act of Parliament.
Mr. HUME could not
_allow that any high officer, particu-
larly a high officer who ought to set an example to others of
justice and equity, should decide a question affecting his own
interest. It was a dispute who should have 500/. or 600/. its
fees. He was astonished that his Majesty's Ministers should
stand as a bar in the way of doing justice between these parties.
—(Hear, hear.) That was preventing an important question
from being tried, and was acting as an active agent in injustice.
—(Hear, and question.)

Colonel TORRENS said the question was, that the Bill called
upon the Parliament to enable law officers of Ireland to deprive
a third party of his right.--(Hear, hear.) It was an ex post
facto law to do injustice.—(Question.)
Mr, J, CAMPBELL deplored that this discussion should
have arisen, from the reverence he entertained for our institu-
tions, and his respect for the individuals. The ofttr of tord
Plunkett was wholly unfair ; and he regretts that a mode Of
-ettiing the question had not been found, without bringing it
forward in that House. Lord Plunkett made an offbr to try
'he question when his interest in it would have ceased. That
was like a man in possession of an estate which was claimed by
'another man, who said to him, "Oh, let your claim lie over till I
am dead, and then I will allow the question to be settled by Sr.:iitration."—(Hear, and a laugh.) The House, he thought was
aoundtopass the Bill, and he should give it his support.
Mr. PAGET, while he thought it degrading to the character
if these two high law officers to permit their disputes to be con-
tinued, was of opinion, at the same time, that the present IMI.

was not the Bill which could bring the question to a satisfac.
tory settlement, but that another legislative measure should be
introduced of a very different complexion.
Sir JOHN BURKE agreed in the propriety of these obser-
vations, and opposed the Bill.
After a few words from Mr. GOULBURN, directing the
Holse to the real question at issue, and the point which they
had to decide, _ .

Mr. LEADER expressed his determination to vote for going
into the Committee.

Lord INGESTRIE was also determined to vote for the Bill.
Mr. HENRY GRATTAN opposed the Bill, and contended
that the Noble Lord (Plunkett) had invariably shown the
greatest indifference about fees.—(A laugh, and " Oh," from
the Opposition.)
Mr. NICHOLSON CALVERT, as one of those who felt it

his duty to support the Government, would, of course, support
their resistance to the Bill as a Government question.—(Hear,
and a laugh, from the Opposition.)
The House then divided—
For going into Committee B4
Against it BB
Majority for Ministers —4
The result was hailed with loud cheers by the Opposition.