The Statesman.
London, England, 1820-07-21 00:00:00

" The Cause for which FIAMI'DEN fell in the Field, and SYDNEY died on the finfold

1.41 P Elll.l I, P.l RLI AMEN 7.

Lord read over the statements made by the Gentleman
in question relative to his numerous and useful duties.
From these it appeared that he was a most useful offi-
cer; but it was impossible he could attend to those
duties if he came to attend his Parliamentary du-
ties in London. II: confessed be did not like to see
mica a return as this made by a great city ; it was far
from being a good symptom of political feeling in Ire-
land, whatever the Noble Lord might think of the
loyalty of those who made the return. With regard
to the übjeetion, that this was an ex postfire•to law, he
would ask, whether there were not many statutes
which had exactly the same operation ? Ihe statute
fur hulls...re, which prevented excisemen from voting
.at teeetions, was an er post fire-to law; and so was the
''law which excluded Roman Catholics. But the pre•
sent was not so much an ex poet facto law, as those to
which he had jest alluded ; for it declared, that after
the first of August, no Master of the Irish Court of
Chancery should sit in the House of Commons. By
animists melt a person to sit there, the purity and in-
dependence of Parliament were affected, as well as the
administration of justice. He concluded with giving
his hearty support to the clause.
The Earl of Lint:Amu explained.
The Earl of Livaitroos would not now inquire what
was or what was nut an ix post /orb, law. With that he
molting to ilo, his business being to consider whether
the measure at present before their Lordships was just
towards a partieulur individual or not. Ile believed It
was not a just, hut, on the contrary, a most unjust
measure. And was there, he would ask, any urgent
necessity for such a proceeding? No, it could not be
asserted that there was; yet, without any mutiott of
that stature to sanction it, their Lordships were railed
upon tn-sdo an art of direct and manifest injustice.
But then it was sail by the Noble Lord who had
spoken Ixst, that it was contrary to law that Masters
in Ch sr sloiald have seats in Parliament. If such
ap.
was • Weed to be the fact, why had not the op.
Janet the Gentleman in question petitioned against
his return, and urged that as an argument betore the
House of Commons? The Parliament would then have
decided upon the quest;on at once. But though he
was not prepared to deny that the law was against the
practice, still be should contend that custom had re-
cognised it for the last two hundred years, and it was
not therefore worthy of the Noble I,..ed's usual mode
of reasoning to swell out his arguments by such fee-
ble aids. He understood that a Noble Friend of his
(Lord Reslesslale) approved of the principle of the Bill.
Possibly he saw just grounds for such approbation,
and, (Lord Liverpool) did not mean to question its
genera! expediency. But he would ask their Lord-
ships if they slid not think it unjust in the extreme to
apply a prospective law to a measure that had taken
place, perhaps, before any law sin the snbjeet was fon-
ts-titillated ? If it cont.! hs justified by any plea of state
necessity, or that a rase could be made out of so urgent
a stature as not to admit of delay, he might indeed be
disposed to acquiesce in it. But here was nu such ilea;
here was no such case; no argument was adduces' to
show that the proposition could be supported upon its
own merits. He insisted that their 'Lordships ought
not to legislate retrospectively, unless front consider-
Guns of peculior urgency. It was a well-known fact,
that Masters in Chancery, of different political senti-
ments, hail set red in Parliament with credit to them-
selves and advantage to the public. When the Act
of the Ist of his late Majesty made the Judges inde-
pendent of the Prince of Waies, certainly a most wise
and salutary measure, would the Judges who had
been supported before that Act passed have been
justified in behaving in such a manner as to excite
the displeasure of the Prince of Wales, merely because
it hail passed ? Assuredly they would nut, for that
would have been to presume upon the retrospective ef-
fect of the law. lint It was to he obserssol, in the
case now before their Lordships, that the individual
had lawfully purchased the oifise, and it was very
hard that lie should now, by an e.r poi/fret, law, be
deprived of a place fur which he might fairly expect
an honourable remuneration under any other eirettun
stances. He said this, because, sitter the time he hail
purchased the office, a law had passed prohibiting
such purchases to he made in future, and consequently
he was not now at liberty to dispose of it. Ile con-
sidered this to be not only an unjust but a cruel mea-
sure. Ile was not influenced hy any principle of poli-
tical hostility to the Inmate of the father of the lien-
tleusan who stood opposed to this individual; on .the
contrary, though happening to slitter from the late Mr.
Grattan upon political subjects, he had invariably held
his character in the highest respect, and he was glad
to have this upportnnity of stating, that front some
private trans:it:li sits which hail passed between hint
and that gentlemau, be Was the better enabled to bear
testimony to his worth. In fact, he had never known
a ware honourable man.—(Cheers.)--lle knew no-
thing of the per•on against whom this clause was to
operate; he had never once seen him, but he should ne-
vertheless oppose any measure calculated to list a mani-
fest injustice, whoever might be the ob.;ect of it.
The Earl of LIMERICK contended, that the argu-
ments of the Noble Earl could nut justify the indivi-
dual in acting in two characters that were incompati-
ble with each other. If that individual had purchased
an office, he must have known that the duties of it
were to be performed.
The Earl of ENNISKILLZN said, he had purchased it
under circumstances less favourable to his interest than
Ise could have reason to expect.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE maintained, that even
upon the statement of the individual in question, his
present duties were of such a nature as to render it
impossible that he could be a useful Member of Parlia-
ment. The rase was quite otherwise with English
Masten in Chancery, who could perform both duties
at the sense time.
The Earl of Ltettnroot. said, he did not argue as to
the difference of facility with which English and
trig Masters is Chummy could serve as Members

HOUSE OF LORDS, TitURSDAY, JLLY to.

The Earl of Liniment'', moved, that a Committee
be appointed to search far precedents relative to the
otodt• of enforcin' the attendance of the Peers.
The motion was agreed to, a td the Committee ap-
pointed. Among' the Alettihers of the Conitnittee are
the Lord Chancellor, Earl of Liverpool, Lord Mel-
sire, the At.. libiNhop of Catitethury, Lord llolland,
Earl of Lauderdale, Lord Shaftesbury, Lord Wilts-
&e.
The Rank Niers Bill, the Irish Eislierie, Bill/ the
Lunatic Asylum Bill, the Turnpike Roads Bill, and
the Alien gill, were read a third time, and pae•ed.
Mr. Johnson, from the office of the Chief Secretary
for Ireland, presented certain papers to the House.

IltUSll )1 KT t►l' I.l..—The
Home having resolved itself into a Committee on this
1131,

laird REDESPALE made several remarks upon the
v :risme clauses in it, and proposed several amend-
ments. One of these !tad for its object to correct a
practice which had long prevailed in Ireland, and
which he had frennent opportunities of witnessing at
the time when he ha l the honour of presiding over
the Court of Chancery there. It was that of persons
isanitsg process, and not giving due notice to the
parties against whom it issues!, until sennestration
took place. The Noble Lord then came to that clause
which went to prohibit any Master in Chancery from
sitting as a ,Member in the Commons House of Parlia-
ment ; and after making some objections to the in-
jnstice of such a provision, particularly in as much as
i; would affect an individual who was lately returned
for the city of Dublin. Ile inured as an amendment,
that tlie clause be omitted f the Bill.
The Earl of Lista:nit t; maintained that the dance
was essential to the due administration of justice in
Ireland, as was evident from the declaration of the
:•r• Gentleman for whose sake it was now proposed to
reject this clause. That Gentleman. a Master its
ry in Ireland, had stated before the Coaumittee of
Iniptiry, that a great variety of business was attached
sii his office; that the duties of that other were of the
.nod important nature with regard to the administra-
thin of justice ; that be was often associated with
Judges in the Court of Deleg.a..s in Ireland, and that
his duties were so heavy as to occupy hint ten months
out of every twelve. Ile ...islicil to know then, what
hardship could this Genii/ n suffer by being excluded
(rot; Parliament ; the dn.; s of which he must be un-
able to perform, without ne.derting those attached to
his situation in Ireland. I s that Gentleman was am-
bitious of having a seat in Parliament, be had nothieg
to do but abandon his laborious duties. lie (Lord
L.) was decidedly au to any man 'ling in
himself the double characser of a high law officer, and
a legislator. The close attention required in the one
situation, was incompatible nith the ambition insepa-
rable from the other. The judicial and the political
character should never be malted in the same perS,lll.
1)114.4 the greatest evil. iwitierly attending the admi-
nistration of justice in Ireland was, that the Judges
At:tined their seats in i ousequence of being Nlenthers
,of the House of Co ttttt tons, and of their stiliserviency
to the Ministers of the Government. lint that prac-
tire was now happily done away, and none but
lan yera were made Judges. Ile was, therefore, an
enemy to any thing lik.• an union of judicial and poli-
tical power. Some persons might s iy, that it would
he a great hardship on the Gentleman lately returned
for Dublin, to he prevented fr taking his seat ; lint
it W 11.4 of more importance that the interests of five
millions of people should not he sacrificed by a neglect I
of those important legal duties, in whirls they must
he all interested, than that a Lingle individual should
hold a seat in Parliament. lie therefore lisped the
House would not reject the clause.
The Earl of ENNI3MILLEN said, he differed alto-
gether from the sentiments of the Noble [awl who
spoke last. 'I he clause its the Bill meat to exclude a
Gentleman from his seat in Parliament, and would be
a must cruel thing to try hint by an ex post facto law.
This Gentleman (Mr. Ellis) was returned by a very
great majority of the electars of Dublin, and particu-
larly by the loyal part of the eiectors; and it would be
great injustice to those electitrs, as well as to the ob-
ject of their claim, to render that choice null and void.
Ile Noble Lord spoke of the great interest which he
felt in the welfare of five millions of people in Ireland :
but he could assure the Noble Lord, those people would
think he was much more friendly to them, and would
be very happy, if he would give them a little more of
his company.
Lord HOLLAND seldom recollected a provision in
any Bill on the table of that House, for which so many
just reasons might be given as the present. Indeed the
provision did no mure than enforce the law of Parlia-
ment, which said, that plasters in the Court of Chan-
cery should nut sit in Parliament. In England they
were the servants of that House, and of course they
could not sit in any House. (Here some Noble Lord
exclaimed—" Some of them sit in the House of Com-
'awns.") That, resumed Lord W, was done by con-
nivance in the saute manner as the Attorney and So-
licitor-Oeneral sat there; although by law they should
he excluded. There was another circumstance which
ought to induce their Lorilithips to retain this clause;
that was, a deference which was due to the opinionasf
the House of Commons on a point Immediately con-
nected with the constitution of their own body; be-
canoe this enactment in the Bill was conceived by the
Members of that House, as necessary for the preser-
vation of their independence. It waisasked why should
a Member be deprived of his right to sit in the House
of Commons t the answer was, because his sitting
"there would be injurious to the independence of the
House. Besides, his seat in the House would inter-
fere with the duties of a very imitortant office which
.ibis individual filled in Ireland. Here the Noble