Not long ago, every chief in Westminster-Hall had been promoted from an inferior judgeship. Every one of the arch-judges had been a common judge translated, as much as a matter of course as an archbishop was made from a bishop. A system so foul, that mocks all public decency, cannot do with men who have to confront the opinions of a watchful public and a jealous bar. An extreme case might be supposed of a dearth of talent at the bar, and of a puisne judge, whose integrity and wisdom might render all men desirous of seeing him in the chief justice-seat. If my amendment will exclude such a man from a translation to the higher judgment-seat, it will only prove the principle I advocate, to produce a case of an alternative between the general independence and integrity of the bench, and the exclusion, once perhaps in forty years, of a man from an office which he was so well able to fill of the two alternatives, who could hesitate which to choose? Speech on the Judges' Salaries, May 20, 1825. On the Irregularity of the Members of the House of Commons alluding to what has passed in the Lords. I have heard much of the irregularity of alluding to what has occurred in another place on this subject. According to strict parliamentary etiquette, it is out of order to do so; but what is the effect of such a rule? The members of this House are the only persons in the world who cannot make the proceedings of the other House matter for discussion. In every private society, every debating society, every tavern, in the smoking-room of every alehouse, all persons, in England, Ireland, and Scotland, can safely and securely, without apprehending the consequences of a breach of privilege, discuss the conduct and opinions of every individual member of the House of Lords. It is, however, the lot of the House of Commons to be tied up. Well, it is a case of necessity, and I must submit. Equal Justice to Ireland.-Warning to those who oppose the Catholic Claims. The opponents of the Catholics may send forth their military commanders, they may array against them their reverend prelates and their subtle lawyers, for the first time animated by the new light which appears to have broken in upon them, from the declaration of war falsely ascribed to a Royal Duke (York). They may, by the assistance of their proxies, and their forces from the west and the north, obtain a triumph-not over the House of Commons, for of ourselves we should not think for an instant-but over Ireland, over England, over right, and over justice. That triumph would, however, be but momentary. They may now exult, but their tone of exultation will soon be turned into another strain. Of one thing let them be assured, that they have not done with the Irish question by the vote to which they have come. It is not easy to stifle the cry of six millions of their countrymen, even if that cry is wrong, much less when it is the cry of right, of reason, and of justice, against mere brute powers and unreasonable obstinacy, which set all justice at defiance To the people of Ireland I would recommend submission to the law-bad, bad as it is-but I agree with my honourable friend in counselling union-above all things union. Let no little personal piques or local differences guide them-let not even considerable differences of opinion for one moment split those who should unite as one man, and who, if united, must conquer. The lords-the bishops the heir presumptive to the throne-the King upon the throne-all cannot defeat them; nothing could do this but their own disunion and violence. May 26, 1825. Duke of Cumberland.-The Prejudice against him.-His Income contrasted with the Duke of York's. There is certainly a prejudice against this noble duke throughout the whole of the country-it is felt by man, woman, and child. The Duke of Cumberland, it will be recollected, has already £18,000 per annum, and the 15th regiment of dragoons, which makes his income £19,000 a-year. He lives abroad, not because he holds an office, as the Duke of Cambridge does, but he lives abroad to please himself. He lives in a cheap country too, where his income of £19,000 is equal to £30,000 a-year, in this country. When, therefore, £6,000 additional is asked for him and his family, why does he not show himself amongst us? The House is called upon to grant an additional sum to sustain his and his family's dignity. Why does he not spend his income here, to maintain the dignity and splendour of the country from whence he draws his funds? How different is the conduct of his royal brother, the heir presumptive; how differently provided for, and I say so with regret, is the Duke of York, crippled as he is with debts. Yet, to liquidate these debts, he has never applied to Parliament. He resides in England. Why does not the Duke of Cumberland follow his example? What is there to prevent his living here? Duke and Duchess of Kent. May 27, 1825.. It is impossible for me to conclude without adverting to the great loss which this country has sustained by the death of the lamented Duke of Kent. No man who duly appreciated his talents, his enlightened opinions, but must regret it as a great national deprivation. His private virtues survive in his illustrious widow, who is most as siduous in doing that which a mother is best fitted to do; namely, superintending the education of the infant Princess. May 27, 1825. Mr. M. A. Taylor's Efforts to produce a Reform in Chancery. I will say that there is not a man in this House who deserves better of his country than that honourable member; and I should like to see the man who would sneer when I utter my conscientious opinion in favour of the honourable and learned individual. I see members whose learning amounts to no more than the capacity of counting ten upon their fingers, who presume to sneer at what I saymembers who never open their mouths in this House but to cover themselves with ridicule, and whose silence is the most prudent part of their conduct-I see these men presume to sneer at a panegyric which is echoed by every person who has the honour of knowing the individual to whom I refer. June 7, 1825. Lord Gifford's History.—His sudden Elevation to the Peerage. Lord Gifford, who has just been elevated to the peerage, owes his advancement to the favour of the Lord Chancellor. I never saw any man raised to eminence in so extraordinary a manner. He is seen practising at the Exeter sessions, and three weeks after he is Solicitor-General. The man who has been raised in this extraordinary manner certainly owes a great deal to the architect of his fortunes, being in no respect the architect of them himself. He has been raised to his present eminence upon the credit of possessing abilities which he never exhibited he has got everything upon tick. I have not spoken to an individual in the profession who does not consider the noble lord's rise the most extraordinary flight upwards of anything, except a balloon, that has ever been witnessed. After the noble lord had been raised to the highest point, not of royal, but of chancelarian favour-after having sat for a short time in the Common Pleas (and I believe he is the youngest judge who ever sat on that bench), he is, by a sort of legerdemain known only to the Lord Chancellor, advanced to the office of Master of the Rolls, the most lucrative and the easiest of the law appointments. Then, as if to make assurance doubly sure, and that no latent seed of partiality should lurk in the noble lord's mind, which might bias his judgment in favour of his patron, he is made a sort of deputy Chancellor to the House of Lords, to do the Chancellor's journeywork. In order, if possible, to make this person the victim of what Sir Robert Walpole called political ingratitude, he is pointed out as the individual to whom the Lord Chancellor means to leave his office by way of legacy. It is understood that the learned lord means to make him his heir and legatee, by devising to him the Great Seal for the term of his natural life-that being the term for which it appears the office in future is to be held. June 7, 1825. The Duke of Sussex. The Duke of Sussex, except the allowance made to him by Parliament as one of the royal offspring, has never received one shilling of the public money, in any manner or form whatsoever. It is the lot of this illustrious Prince to have married a lady in a foreign country, and by that most unfortunate of all Acts, the Royal Marriage Act, such foreign marriage is illegal in England, by the very worst of all human laws-that same identical Royal Marriage Act, which has been well described by Mr. Wilberforce as the most unconstitutional Act that disgraced the Statute-Book; and for the violation of such an Act has his royal highness suffered by a heavy diminution of his income. The pecuniary effect of this step (his marriage) has been to reduce his income to £13,000 a-year. Duke of Sussex has never applied for an increase of income-he has never dreamed of applying for it; never has he compounded with his creditors; always has he ensured for them 20s. in every pound of debt which was contracted. By his royal highness's excellent management, with the assistance of a learned person who superintends his affairs, his debts have been reduced from £100,000 to a very inconsiderable residue. They have now sunk to a sum hardly worth mentioning; and this has been effected without exposing his royal highness to any circumstances whereby the royal dignity could be degraded in his person. The June 14, 1825. Difference between Church Property and Private Property. -Right of Government over Corporate Funds. God forbid that I should contend that the church has the same power over its property that individuals have over theirs! I admit the existence of a church known to the law as a corporate body having rights, and to which wrongs might be done. But I contend that both the mode of establishing church property, and the mode of dealing with it, are very different, both in argument and practice, from the mode of establishing and dealing with private property. I will first say that the property of the church must be regarded, in the strict sense of the word, as public property, if the church is considered, not as individuals only, but as a large body of 2,000 persons and upwards, having duties depending upon their situations. Another material difference between church and private property is, that the private individual may do what he likes with his property; he carries it about with him; no person has any control over it, except the Legislature, and of this he has no right to complain, for he gives his assent, or is supposed to give his assent, to its measures. His private property is inseparably attached to his person; he may transfer it, sell it, burn it, break it up in parcels; in short, do with it whatever he likes, without any control, except that imposed by settlements, and this is the act of a person disposing of property which he holds in fee. He may bequeath his property by will, or he may allow it to go to his eldest son, to his nearest of blood, or to anybody he pleases. But to whom can the parson leave the property of the church?―to the next succeeding parson, a person whom he probably never saw, and who may be his mortal enemy! He has no power to dispose of this property; it must go to his successors. The control, therefore, which the church and which individuals have over their property cannot be called the same. The next point I will mention is the consequences of the Legislature meddling with private property and with the property of the church. By taking away the property of an individual, he is deprived of his means of providing for his family and children. But if the Legislature were to say to the priest of some parish, containing 500 Catholics and one Protestant, "After you are dead, there shall be no longer any parson in this parish," who would be injured by this? A person who never enjoyed it! Is there in this case the same injury inflicted as in the other? In the one case, you deprive a wife and children of the means of subsistence; but in the other, there is nobody to suffer but an unknown, and, perhaps, unborn person. There is, therefore, no analogy between the two cases. The last difference I will mention, and it is an important one, is, that private property is held on no condition whatever; there is no duty imposed or annexed to the enjoyment of the right; but the church consists of 2,000 office-bearers, clothed with a sacred character, indeed, extremely useful to the state-a body of men set apart for a particular service, but who receive their property on condition of performing those services, fulfilling those duties, and who may be stipendiaries, or who may be paid by salaries, instead of tithes and land, as they are in most countries of Europe. But it suits the policy of this country to pay them by tithes. This does not make them different from other public officers, or other public servants. There is no sort of analogy then between church property and private property which should lead to the conclusion that the former possesses the same sort of inviolability as the latter. The church receives its property for the performance of certain services, but private property is held unconditionally. As well might the pay of the army, as the property of the church, be called inviolable and private property. The army is a corporate body, larger, indeed, and more numerous, than it ought to be it is a great public body-it has Chelsea Hospital; and the navy has Greenwich Hospital, richly endowed with land, for the use of the navy under certain conditions; but is it even supposed that either of these bodies could regard their pay, or the property of these hospitals, as theirs, and to be held inviolably sacred? I contend that the property of the church is conferred by the State for the performance of certain services, and that the Legislature may deal with it, when it is necessary, for the benefit of the church and the State. House of Commons (Established Church of Ireland), |