Lord Chancellor Lord Wyndham

Chapter XXXIX.

Life of Lord Chancellor Lord Wyndham.

Thomas Wyndham was descended from a legal house, his grandfather, Sir Wadham Wyndham, Knight, was one of the Judges of the Court of King’s Bench at Westminster, whom contemporaries describe as ‘a learned and impartial judge.’ Siderfin, the Reporter, eulogises his calm and sedate temper on the bench. He sat as Judge for eight years, and was in all respects well qualified for his dignified and important position. Sir Thomas Raymond calls him a good and prudent man; and Hawles, Solicitor-General in the time of William III., says ‘he was the second best judge which sat in Westminster Hall since the Restoration.’ [Foss’s Judges of England, temp. Wm. III.]

Thomas, the future Lord Chancellor of Ireland, was third son of John Wyndham, Esq., of Norrington, county Wilts, who married Alice, daughter of Thomas Fownes, Esq. His connections, having had considerable success at the Bar, induced him to devote himself to the study of the law, with a view to his future profession. The business of the Courts in his student days was much interrupted by the disturbed state of England. For some time following the abdication of James II., and before William and Mary were firmly settled on the throne, there was no regular Government. The Lord Chancellor of the late King was a prisoner in the Tower, and his Chief Justice confined in Newgate, while the rest of the Judges were trembling for their own safety. Hilary Term of 1689 was not kept, and, when matters settled into a definite shape, one of the first Acts of the Convention Parliament was directed to prevent a lapse in legal proceedings by continuing all actions then instituted and pending, and to provide Judges without delay. This Act was passed on April 3, 1689. The Judges appointed by the King opened Easter Term on April 17, and the young law-student found a most beneficial change in the principles and practice of the law. The principles, to be sure, were but more strictly defined, but the practice was much improved. Instead of the Judges of England being dependent upon the will, often the whim, of the Sovereign, they held offices during good behaviour, the words in their patents being Quamdiu se bene gesserint,[12 and 13 Wm. III. C. 2, s. 3.] instead of, as formerly, Durante bene placito. [This was not extended to Ireland until 1782.] Their salaries were ascertained and fixed, and by a great instalment of fixity of tenure, they could only be removed upon the addresses of *both *Houses of Parliament.

The Bar now ceased to be regarded as almost an exclusive profession. This was regretted by Sir Henry Chauncy, an aristocratic Serjeant, who, alluding to the importance of training the nobility and gentry, by professional teaching, to dispense justice, laments, ‘But now mechanicks, ambitious of rule and government, often educate their sons in these seminaries of law, whereby they overstock the profession, and make it contemptible, whilst the gentry, not sensible of the mischief they draw upon themselves but also on the nation, prefer them in their business before their own children, whom they bereave of their employment formerly designed for their support; qualifying their servants by the profit of this profession to purchase their estates, and, by this means, make them lords and masters, while they lessen the trade of the kingdom, and cause a scarcity of husbandmen, workmen, artificers, and servants in the nation.’ [Chauncy’s History of Hertfordshire, p. 525.] Surely it must occur to every Irish reader, that many of the brightest names in’ the civil and military history of Ireland would have been lost to us if this monopoly existed and the brightest ornaments of the Bench and Bar of England, Ireland, and Scotland would have been unknown. But happily such reasoning was only the outpouring of a querulous mind, and had no weight. Shortly after Mr. Wyndham’s admission to the Bar, in 1690, he got into good practice, and his friends were not unmindful of him when a vacancy occurred on the Irish Bench.

The death of Sir Richard Levinge, in 1724, left the Chief Justiceship of the Irish Court of Common Pleas vacant, and Wyndham was appointed his successor. [Privy Seal, Kensington, Oct. 22, pat. Dublin, Nov. 9, 1724, 11 Geo. I. la par. d. R. 27.] The unexpected death of Lord Chancellor West took place in the latter part of the year 1726. There was considerable doubt as to who the successor of the late Chancellor would be, but Hugh Boulter, then Primate, a man of great talents and ability, who had no less than thirteen times filled the office of Lord Justice of Ireland, lost no time in recommending Chief Justice Wyndham should be promoted to the Seal. The Primate urged the appointment of either Chief Justice Wyndham, or Chief Baron Dalton, on the Duke of Newcastle, on Lord Carteret, then Viceroy, and on Lord Townshend, stating their great reputation, from the able and impartial manner they discharged their duties, and their knowledge of Irish affairs, which was important for the business of Parliament. The Primate states their claims as nearly equal. ‘I have,’ he writes, ‘no other reason for recommending my Lord Chief Justice Wyndham first, but his being the senior of the two. If either of them be thought of for Lord Chancellor, we may soon have the place filled. Your grace will receive what I have said as proceeding not so much from friendship for these gentlemen as a desire most effectually and speedily to promote his Majesty’s service here. [Primate Boulter’s Letters, vol. i. p. 87.] Wyndham was preferred, and got the Great Seal as Lord Chancellor of Ireland. [Pat. December 21, 1726. 13 Geo, I. 1a par. d. R. 51.] The character of the Primate, who possessed a voice potential in the Irish Government for many years is thus sketched: - [Life and Death of the Irish Parliament, by Right Hon. James Whiteside, pt. I.] ‘The polite Chesterfield laid down a maxim that it was surprising with how little wisdom a nation could be governed. It may be more surprising to find that a kingdom can be governed without any wisdom whatsoever. Primate Boulter, as the confidential agent of Walpole, ruled Ireland, not in the spirit of a statesman, but in the spirit of a jobber, and of the worst description, an ecclesiastical jobber. His candid letters prove he had a narrow, illiberal mind, little learning, less piety, no generosity, no love for the country he ruled and abused, and no admiration for the genius of her most distinguished sons. He passed his time, not in study or contemplation, but in watching the faces of his brethren on the episcopal bench. If he heard a cough from the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. King, he immediately informed the Secretary of State in London of the important fact, adding, “There may be occasion for speedily thinking of a successor for him, If it please God to remove him, your Excellency shall have my thoughts by the first opportunity.” And what were these precious thoughts? *Why, that no native should be allowed to fill the place.’ *The short-sighted and mischievous policy of British statesmen at this period was to maintain two factions in Ireland antagonistic to each other, an English and an Irish party. What was the object of this it is now difficult to conjecture, as it prevented all measures being carried for the general welfare of the country. We must remember that the great bulk of the people were altogether ignored because of their religious creed, and the rival parties were exclusively Protestants. This English and Irish interest divided the Church and the Law, as well as the State officials.

Reluctance of appointing natives of Ireland to any station of dignity and emolument either in Church or State is fully shown in the Primate’s letter written to Lord Carteret on July 18, 1726, on the subject of a successor to Dr. Nicholson, Archbishop of Cashel, who had died of apoplexy. He says:- ‘My Lord Chancellor and I have been computing that if some person be not now brought out from England to the Bench, there will be thirteen *Irish * to nine *English *bishops here, which we think will be a dangerous situation.’ [Boulter’s Letters, vol. i. p. 113.]

The Lord Chancellor was engaged in 1727 about the affairs of the widow of the Duke of Tyrconnel, King James II.’s favourite, who succeeded Lord Clarendon as the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. This lady had powerful friends. She was sister of Sarah Duchess of Marlborough, and the Duke of Newcastle wrote to Dr. Boulter, Archbishop of. Armagh, to bespeak the Chancellor’s interest in her behalf, which he did, we may presume, effectually.

On the death of King George I. in June 1727, [His Majesty died almost suddenly, at Osnaburgh, the palace of his brother, the Bishop of that diocese, while on his way to Hanover. It is said his death was caused by eating a melon.] he was succeeded by his son George II., and the declaration by the new King in Council gave great satisfaction to his subjects in Ireland. ‘They did not doubt,’ says Primate Boulter, ‘but his Majesty would pursue those wise measures which would make him as great as his father, and his people as easy as they were under him.’ [Boulter’s Letters, p. 139.]

Patents were speedily made out to confirm the Lord Chancellor and the other Judges in their offices, as holding during pleasure, they were considered to cease with the life of the Sovereign, and therefore looked anxiously to the results of the change. The assiduity and attention of the Lord Chancellor to his judicial functions earned him the approbation of most competent judges, and he stood very high in professional and public esteem.

On August 20, 1727, Lord Chief Justice Whitshed, who had earned popular indignation by his conduct, especially on the trial of the printer of the Drapier’s letters, died, and considerable intriguing took place respecting the filling up of the vacant Chief Justiceship. The unfortunate division of the Irish executive fomented party spirit, and English interest was regarded as so antagonistic to Irish interest, that every influence was used to keep it in the ascendant. This is quite manifest from the confidential letters of Primate Boulter to various political leaders. When informing the Viceroy, Lord Carteret, then in England, of the death of the Chief Justice, he says:- ‘I must take this opportunity to press your Excellency that his place may be filled from *England. *I can assure your Lordship we have by experience found the want of two *English *Judges in the Privy Council since the removal of my Lord Chancellor [Lord Chancellor Wyndham had been Chief Justice of the Common Pleas.] to his present post; and I am confident when there is the least show of an affair between England and Ireland, or when there is need of impartiality between any contending parties that may be before the Council, we shall be in the last distress, if this vacancy be not filled from England. I do not speak this that I want to have the place filled immediately, since I rather think it will be of service to have it kept uncertain who shall succeed, till the approaching session of Parliament is pretty well over.’ [Primate Boulter’s Letters, vol. i. p. 157.]

Writing to the Duke of Newcastle, this wily politician says:- ‘When anything is transacting in Council that can be thought to be for the advantage of England, or when any persons of consideration here may be offended, the best we can hope for, from a native of this place is, that he will stay away from Council, instead of preventing the King’s service by his presence and debating.

‘I must likewise take the liberty to caution against suffering the present Lord Chief Justice of the King’s Bench [Rogerson, formerly Recorder of Dublin.] to remove to the Common Pleas, which was the game played last time to keep off a native from England, and played with success. There will be no difficulty in finding a lawyer of worth in England to come over to the Common Pleas, which is almost a sinecure, but it was then found, and will again be found, difficult, to get a person of any worth to come over to be Lord Chief Justice of the King’s Bench.’

Rogerson, the Chief of the King’s Bench, as the Primate surmised, did apply for the vacant place, and pleaded the case of Chief Justice Whitshed as a precedent for granting it to him, but he had a watchful and adroit opponent in the political Primate, who thus anticipated him, and informed the English ministers:- ‘I cannot but observe the cases are extremely different; Lord Chief Justice Whitshed had really broken his health by ten or twelve years’ service in the King’s Bench, and had brought on himself a great storm of malice by his faithfully serving his Majesty in that post. But Chief Justice Rogerson is so far from being worn out in the King’s service, that he has not yet once sat in the King’s Bench; and as he pleads the late precedent in his favour, I hope care will be taken not to suffer a second precedent, for fear it should by degrees be thought so much the right of a Lord Chief Justice of the King’s Bench to remove to the Common Pleas if he thinks fit, that it may be reckoned a hardship to pass him by; and as the post of Chief Justice of the Common Pleas is one of the most easy stations among the Judges here, I hope things will be so managed as to keep it free, at least to be disposed of to some *English *lawyer of worth.’ [These considerations, coming from so staunch an upholder of the English interest in Ireland, had due weight, and an English barrister, Mr. Reynolds, was appointed Chief Justice of the Common Pleas of Ireland.]

The state of the country in a religious aspect was a source of considerable alarm to the Chancellor and others, who had the support of the English interest at heart. We find Primate Boulter lamenting, ‘There are probably in this kingdom five Papists at least to one Protestant. We have incumbents and curates to the number of about 800, whilst there are near 3000 Popish priests of all sorts here.’ [Boulter’s Letters, vol. i. p. 169.]

This was in 1727; and instead of the penal code preventing the increase of Catholics, the same reliable authority states, ‘in many places the descendants of many of Cromwell’s officers and soldiers have gone off to Poper.’ [Boulter’s Letters, vol. i. p. 179.]

The Lord Chancellor felt hurt, when, in 1728, some changes were made in Trinity College professorships, without consulting him. The difficulty of procuring just and impartial magistrates likewise caused him much anxiety, as the Dissenters complained to the Lords Justices of the oppression to which they were exposed by the Justices of the Peace. [Ibid. 236.] The currency of Ireland was in a very precarious state in 1730; and the Privy Council and Irish House of Commons did not agree in the way to remedy matters. This is plain from the following letter addressed by the Primate, as one of the Lords Justices, to the Lord Carteret, then Viceroy, when in England:-

‘Dublin, April 25, 1730.

‘My Lord,

‘Since your Excellency left us I have done what I could to bring the Council to declare their opinion about the reducing of gold; but, though much the greater part think it is what ought to be done, yet they are so afraid of the House of Commons that I have not been able to bring them to say as much.

‘My brother Justices [Sir Ralph Gore, Speaker of the Commons, and Lord Chancellor Wyndham.] are both against the Council giving their opinion in the matter; so that at the Council held to-day on that subject, it was to no purpose to press it. It was almost with difficulty that I got the affair recommitted, in order to draw up a letter to your Excellency with an historical narration of what passed in Council relating to the coin since the year 1711, with particular orders to insist on the resolutions of the Committee in 1729, relating to the gold and silver coins, that the whole may be laid before his Majesty.

‘Sir Ralph Gore would fain have the game of last summer played over again, by hearing the merchants and receiving petitions, but my Lord Chancellor and I am resolved not to permit it.

‘The Committee are to meet on Monday, and my Lord Chancellor has promised to have a Council and send away these resolutions with a letter by Tuesday’s post.

‘I find by Sir Ralph Gore’s proposal to-day, that the merchants are now, as some of them last year were, for raising foreign silver, though nothing be done, about the gold; but, as the whole view of this is to carry on their present gainful trade of importing gold and carrying out silver by the help of foreign silver, now the trade begins to fail for the want of English silver, my Lord Chancellor and I shall take care to prevent any such application from the Council.” [Boulter’s Letters, vol. i. p. 3.]

In this year an event occurred which gave rise to a curious law point. An attorney named Daniel Kimberly had aided and assisted a Mr. Mead to carry off and marry a young heiress, Miss Reading, without the consent of her parents and guardians, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided. This crime had prevailed to such an extent in Ireland that the executive Government determined to make a signal example of the perpetrators; and, to avoid the penalty, Mr. Mead and Mr. Kimberly made their escape. Mead fled to Holland and Kimberly to London. His retreat being discovered, a warrant was issued for his capture. He was apprehended, brought to Ireland, speedily tried, found guilty, and sentenced to death.

There was great influence used in order to obtain a commutation of this capital punishment. Petitions were addressed to the Lords Justices, to the Viceroy, and to the King. When these were referred to the Lord Lieutenant, Lord Carteret, he coincided with the Lords Justices, that the crime had grown so common in Ireland, and was so heinous in itself, there was no room for mercy.

While the applications in his behalf were under consideration, Mr. Kimberly, through the influence of Sir Ralph Gore, one of the three Lords Justices, procured a reprieve from Wednesday to Saturday, which included the day fixed for his execution. When the fiat came ‘that the law must take its course,’ the convict raised a point, which he stated was the opinion of his counsel, ‘that as the day lapsed, on which he ought to have been executed, pursuant to the sentence of the Court, he could not now be executed till there was a new order of Court made in his case.’ This puzzled the Sheriff, who sought the advice of Mr. Justice Bernard and others, who informed him the reprieve did not cancel the sentence, only suspended its execution. The point, however, was much discussed in legal circles, and the Lord Chancellor thought the matter worth considering. Accordingly he issued summonses for a Privy Council to assemble at the Council Chamber, and convened the Judges, the Prime Serjeant, [Prime Serjeant. The rank of the Serjeant-at-Law, or Narratoris Regis, dates in Ireland from A. D. 1326. The Prime Serjeant had precedence of the Attorney and Solicitor-General.] the Solicitor-General, and Mr. Serjeant Bowes, to consider what effect the reprieve had upon the sentence of death. They were inclined to hold that the execution was only deferred, and that the Sheriff might lawfully execute the convict on the day to which he was reprieved; but some of them saying ‘they had not thoroughly studied the point, the Lords Justices extended the reprieve, to give ample time for consideration; and at length the Law Officers, the Prime Serjeant (Singleton), the Attorney-General (Marley), Solicitor-General (Jocelyn), and Mr. Bowes, gave their opinions in writing, agreeing “that the convict could be lawfully executed at the expiration of the reprieve, without any new sentence.”’

The Lord Chancellor then, with the consent of his brother Lord Justices, intimated ‘that since the prerogative was so deeply concerned, that the granting of a reprieve for a few days should not be construed to reprieve a malefactor till the ensuing term, and since such a notion must probably have raised doubts and scruples in the mind of every sheriff in Ireland, whether after any reprieve they could, without a new order from the Judge, execute a criminal, would allow no further postponement, and Mr. Kimberly was executed on May 27, 1730.’ [Primate Boulter’s Letters, vol. ii. p. 14.]

The construction of an Act of Parliament also occasioned the Chancellor and his brother Justices some perplexity. An Act of 7th William III., intituled ‘An Act for the better securing of the government by disarming Papists,’ when attempted to be enforced by indictment at the Summer Assizes of 1730, for the county of Galway, resulted in an acquittal, although the fact of the accused being a Catholic, and having arms, was indisputable. Yet it was held the Acts only applied to Catholics living, and the arms they had in their possession *at the time the Act passed. *This caused a more stringent measure to be prepared, which prevented a Protestant servant to a Papist having arms, and excluded Catholics from serving on juries in any trials under the new Act. [Ibid. p. 56.]

While Lord Wyndham was Lord Chancellor, a very insidious attempt was made to prevent an Irish law-student being called to the Irish Bar. This was Mr. John Fitz Gibbon, who, though descended from Roman Catholic parents, had conformed to the religion then established by the State, and thereby most probably hoped to obtain that favour from the ruling powers which his birth and education could not confer. He had been educated in France, and was better versed in law and literature than most of the aspirants for legal distinction.

The grounds on which the authorities of the King’s Inns denied him admission in 1732, were because he had published ‘Notes of Cases’ decided at the Courts of Westminster [This work is entituled ‘The Reports of Several Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of King’s Bench at Westminster; with some special cases in the Courts of Chancery, Common Pleas, and Exchequer. In the I., II., III., IV., and V. years of his present Majesty King George II., by John Fitz Gibbon, of the Middle Temple, Esq.’ It was published in 1732, and displays very great knowledge of Common Law and Equity, for the points are stated with great clearness, and the judgments very lucidly and tersely given. The great objection was to their having been published by an unauthorised reporter, without the sanction of the judges, who complained very bitterly of having rank nonsense put into their mouths, and I suspect sent such representations to the Irish benches as nearly demolished Fitz Gibbon’s chance of being called to the Irish Bar. It is clear he would not be allowed to practise in England.] during his five years’ residence in England preparing for the bar. They display great ability and accuracy, but not having the stamp of official fiat by the Judges, were not recognised as entitled to the weight of authority; though Lord Hardwicke, while regretting their want of authority, admits their accuracy. It was by regarding their publication in the light of a contempt against the Judges of England, that several of the Irish Benchers endeavoured to justify Mr. Fitz Gibbon’s exclusion. In vain the Lord Chancellor, cordially supported by Lord Chief Justice Reynolds, [James Reynolds was born in 1684, son and heir of James Reynolds of Brimstead, Essex. He was admitted a law-student of Lincoln’s Inn, February 1704, and called to the English Bar 1710. He was appointed Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, Ireland, in 1727, and by his professional talents and accomplished manners gained the esteem and affection of all classes in Ireland. He held this office until 1740, when he was removed to the Exchequer in England, where he sat for seven years as one of the Barons. He was succeeded in the Chief Justiceship of the Irish Common Pleas by an able and competent Irish lawyer, Prime Serjeant Singleton.] resisted this attempt. They concluded that Mr. Fitz Gibbon, having done all that was necessary for a law-student to do, having strictly fulfilled all legal requisites, and the ordinances enjoined by prescription, had a right to be called to the bar.

Finding that the heads of the law were so strongly in favour of the law student’s admission, caused a change in the sentiments of those who sought to exclude him; and they finally and silently yielded to the Chancellor and the Chief Justice, and John Fitz Gibbon became a barrister-at-law.

During the summer of 1730, a change of Viceroys of Ireland took place; Lord Carteret gave place to the Duke of Dorset, father of the celebrated Lord George Sackville. [The career of this nobleman presents some strange vicissitudes. When Lord George Germain, he incurred the displeasure of his Commander-in-Chief, Ferdinand Prince of Brunswick, for his behaviour at the battle of Minden. He was tried by court-martial and censured, but it was no bar to his political career. He possessed great statesmanlike qualities and filled many important offices in the administration of Government. George, fourth Duke of Dorset, came to an untimely end in Ireland. He was staying on a visit during the winter of 1815 with his stepfather, Charles, Earl of Whitford, then Lord Lieutenant, and while hunting near Ballybrac, about ten miles from Dublin, on February 14, 1815, fell with his horse from a high fence, and the Duke was killed.] The Duke was married to Elizabeth, daughter of General Colyear, brother to the Earl of Portmore. If his Grace’s political success was equal to that of his social, he must have been a munificent Viceroy. Mary Granville (Mrs. Delany) wrote, ‘Yesterday (Oct. 8, 1731) being the anniversary of the King’s coronation, we, like loyal subjects, went to the Castle; there was a ball,’ which this charming letter-writer well describes. [Correspondence, vol. i. p. 301.]

The very excellent manner in which Lord Chancellor Wyndham discharged the duties of his office entitled him to a mark, of his Sovereign’s favour, and accordingly it was intimated to him that his Majesty was desirous of conferring a peerage upon him. The Chancellor selected the title of Lord Wyndham, of Finglas, and letters patent were issued granting him the rank of Baron, on September 17, 1731.

At the meeting of Parliament on October 5 in that year, Lionel Duke of Dorset opened the session in great state, and made a speech in which the danger of Papists overrunning the country, and the illegal exportation of wool, formed the chief topics. When the great oration was concluded, and the House resumed its routine business, the new Peer taking in his hand the Purse, with the Great Seal, retired to the lower end of the House, and having put on his robes as a Baron was then introduced.

Sir Ralph Gore, the Speaker of the House of Commons, having died, on the re-assembling of Parliament, October 4, 1733, the Lord Chancellor, by command of the Viceroy, Duke of Dorset, directed the members of the House of Commons to elect a Speaker in his room, who elected the Right Hon. Henry Boyle. On presenting himself to the Lords the Chancellor addressed him thus:-

‘Mr. Boyle, - His Grace is truly sensible that by the death of the late Speaker his Majesty has been deprived of a most faithful and loyal subject and the country of an able and useful representative.

‘It is a misfortune that the place of Sir Ralph Gore, as a particular member, cannot yet be supplied out of his own family; that the Commons by electing you to succeed him in the Chair, have so well filled that vacancy, that they will perceive no other change than the person of their Speaker, they will still find in that Chair the same inviolable affection to his Majesty’s royal person and Government, the same sincere regard for the real interests of their country, the came application, integrity, and honour, and the same open and universal civility.

‘These amiable qualities, which have strengthened the extensive influence of your family, and often made you the unrivalled favourite of the greatest county in the kingdom, could not fail of recommending you to the unanimous choice of the Commons of Ireland for their Speaker. And though his Grace sets the highest value on your modesty, yet he cannot allow it to be indulged to the prejudice of the public.

‘His Grace therefore confirms the choice of the Commons and approves of you to be their Speaker.’ [Lords’ Jour. Ir. vol. iii. P. 225.]

The allusion made by the Chancellor to the native county of the Speaker, and the great influence, of the Boyle family in the county of Cork, show considerable tact and knowledge of the country.

There seems to have been some laxity with regard to the attendance of the Judges during the sitting of Parliament. From the attendance of them all, there grew to be the attendance of none, for in the Lords’ Journals, under the date of March 12, 1733, I find the following entry:- ‘It is ordered, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, that the Lord Chancellor do attend his Grace, the Lord Lieutenant, and acquaint him that it is the desire of this House that his Grace will please to order one of the Judges to stay in town from his circuit, to attend the service of this House.’ And on March 12, the Lord Chancellor acquainted the House that in obedience to their order of the 12th instant, he had waited on his Grace, and requested him to comply with the wish of their Lordships, when his Excellency replied:-’ I will give directions that the Lord Chief Baron do stay from his circuit to attend the service of the House of Lords.’ [Lords’ Jour. Ir. vol. iii. P. 273.]

In April 1737 the Lord Chancellor and other Lords Justices were informed that the Duke of Dorset was being replaced in the office of Lord Lieutenant, which he held for some years, by the Duke of Devonshire. [This gave very great satisfaction, for the Duke of Devonshire was very popular. His Grace was the third Duke, and had been Lord Steward of the Household in 1729, and was married to Miss Hoskins, by whom he had several children. Two of his daughters married Ponsonbys, a family very dear to Ireland. Lady Caroline married William, second Earl of Besborough; and Lady Elizabeth, in 1743, married the Right Hon. John Ponsonby, Speaker of the Irish House of Commons. She was mother of William Ponsonby created Lord Ponsonby, of Imokilly, and what more nearly concerns this work, of the Right Hon. George Ponsonby, Lord Chancellor of Ireland.]

The legislation of the Irish Parliament at this period was not of a very exciting or important nature. Turnpike Bills, Game Laws, Fishery Bills, with occasional questions of privilege, addresses to the Throne, and restrictive laws against Papists, constitute the sum-total of Irish legislation. On April 2, 1734, *hodie secunda vice lecta est Billa, *entitled, ‘an Act to prevent persons converted from the Popish to the Protestant religion, and married to Popish wives, or educating their children in the Popish religion, from acting as Justices of the Peace.’ [Lords’ Jour. Ir. vol. iii. P. 277.] The Bill was committed and quickly reported, read a third time, and passed. A useful measure was introduced by the Earl of Cavan, October 24, 1735: ‘That all proceedings in Courts of Justice within this kingdom shall be in the English language.’ This Bill received the Royal assent in 1737.

As Chichester House, where the Parliament was held, grew dilapidated and dangerous to the members, a Report was made by a Committee on January 10, 1728, that the erection of a new House was absolutely necessary, and steps were at once taken to carry this Report into execution. The Lord Chancellor, the Right Hon. William Connolly, and Primate Boulter, Lords Justices, with several Peers and Commoners, laid the foundation-stone of the new House on February 3, 1728-9. [A silver plate was placed in the centre of the stone, thus inscribed:-

Serenissimus et Potentissimus Rex Georgius Secundus, per excellent.

Dominum Johannem, Dominum Carteret et Baron De Hawnes Locum

Tenentem, et per excellent. Dominos Hugonem, Archiep. Armachan.

Thomam Wyndham, Cancell. Guliel. Connolly, Dom. Com. Prolocut.

Justiciarios Generales, Primum hujusce Domus Parliament.

Lapidem posuit, Tertia die Februarii Anno Dom. MDCCXXVIII.]

The works were completed in 1739, under the superintendence of Arthur Dobbs, and the Parliamentary Committee having expressed themselves fully satisfied with the great care and frugality with which he acquitted himself, voted him 250l. [Gilbert’s History of Dublin,. vol. iii. p. 77.]

Thomas Malton, an English architect, writing in the last century, fully described this beautiful Senate House.

We have not had many trials of Peers in the High Court of Parliament of Ireland, therefore I give some particulars of them, and the mode of procedure observed on these solemn occasions.

Some time after the completion of the Parliament House in College Green, Dublin, in the spring of 1739, Henry, fourth Lord Santry, was tried for the murder of one LaughlIn Murphy, at Palmerstown, in the neighbourhood of Dublin. This wild young nobleman belonged to a class of men, who, happily for the present time, have disappeared with other savages. Drinking deeply, obscenity and profligacy, marked the orgies of these roués, and the name of the Hell Fire Club was not badly chosen as the meet resort of those who were doing their best to get a warm reception in the world to come. Then abduction clubs were formed, the members drawing lots for young heiresses to whom they had never spoken, means being taken to effect an introduction and make a favourable impression; but the great feature consisted in the abduction. If the young lady was a resisting party, and did not see the * fun *of the thing, she was harassed and ill-treated until she consented to become the wife of her abductor, and a degraded clergyman was ready to do his unworthy ministry. The habits of the gentry were very rude. There was no refinement - little education - books on farriery, or the racing calendar, were those most in use in country-houses; and the vices of the town were imitated by the rustic squires. It was the prevalence of these abductions that caused the execution of Kimberly, already mentioned.

This young Lord Santry, with several of his profligate set, were engaged drinking in a *public house, *as places of entertainment somewhat lower than taverns are called in Ireland. The day was a fair day in Palmerstown, a small village about five miles from Dublin. Many persons were about the place, going in and out, and as the fumes of wine mounted into the head of his Lordship, he grew quarrelsome, and the persons who had been drinking with him, finding him in bad humour, showed their sense by leaving him and going away. Lord Santry then vented his anger by abusing a man named Humphreys; and, as at this period men in the rank of gentlemen carried swords, he proceeded from words to inflict blows, and twice attempted to draw his sword on Humphreys, but happily for him was unable to do so. He was in a violent passion, and left the room. On proceeding along a narrow passage leading to the kitchen of the public house, he met Laughlin Murphy, a poor industrious man, who earned a precarious subsistence by carrying parcels and messages between Palmerstown and the neighbourhood. Finding his way impeded by Murphy (for the passage was very narrow), Lord Santry gave Murphy a push, on which the latter retreated to the kitchen. Hither Lord Santry followed him, swearing ‘he would kill any man who spoke.’ Murphy rashly said something, whereon the violent Peer was true to his vow, and succeeding this time in baring his sword, plunged it into Murphy, who cried out ‘I’m killed!’ No attempt was then made to arrest the criminal, who gave the landlord a four-pound piece, but with no direction what to do for the sufferer of his drunken rage.

Murphy did not die immediately. He lingered from the fair day, August 9, to September 25, on which day he expired in Hammond’s Lane, in the city of Dublin.

Shortly after the death of Murphy, a warrant issued for the apprehension of Lord Santry, and he was speedily arrested and indicted for the murder. A true bill being found against him, a writ of *certiorari *was issued to remove the case from the King’s Bench to the House of Lords, that the prisoner might be tried by his Peers; and April 27, 1739, having been fixed for his trial, the preparations for this solemn event commenced as early as six in the morning.

The heavy and regular tramp of a regiment of infantry in marching order, disturbed the slumbers of drowsy citizens of Dublin, and the soldiers having taken up their position in College Green, as the clock told seven, a company of battle-axe guards lined the avenues leading to the Parliament House. There was also a strong *posse *of city constables present; and at half-past seven the noble prisoner, who was only twenty-nine years of age, was conveyed in a hackney coach by the High Sheriff of the city of Dublin to the House of Commons, which apartment affording much more space than the Peers’ Chamber, was solemnly prepared for the State trial.

This early conducting the prisoner to the Court may have been proper to avoid publicity, or any popular demonstration for or against him, as it seems unnecessarily early, for it was not until ten o’clock that Lord Wyndham, the Lord Chancellor, to whom the Commission issued, appointing him High Steward, proceeded to the Parliament House from his house in Stephen’s Green, in great state, Indeed the pageant merits some detailed account.

On the morning of the trial, the Judges in their scarlet robes, together with the King-of-Arms, Mr. Hawkins, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, and the Serjeant-at-Arms, repaired to the Lord Chancellor’s house in Stephen’s Green, to wait on him as Lord High Steward, and escort him to the High Court of Parliament. The King-of-Arms was in his full robes, the Usher of the Black Rod, on this occasion, bore a *white *one, and the Serjeant-at-Arms had the Mace.

The procession from the Lord Chancellor’s house to the equipages drawn up in front of it was a sight worth seeing. Twelve gentlemen marched bareheaded

• two and two; then the Serjeant-at-Arrns and Seal Bearer, also uncovered - one carrying the Mace, the other the Purse. His Grace the High Steward in his robes, with train-bearers, was supported on the right hand by Ulster King-of-Arms, and on the left by the Usher of the Black Rod, with the white staff of the High Steward; then followed the Chief Justices and other Judges in their ‘robes. In this order also moved the coaches. Those containing the Gentlemen-in-Waiting, three in number, having two horses, while the State carriage, containing the Lord High Steward, Ulster King-of-Arms, and the Seal Bearer inside - the Usher of the Rod, and Mace Bearer outside - was drawn by six horses. The coaches of the Judges followed. When the cavalcade reached College Green, they were met by four other Serjeants, with their maces; and, in the same order as before, they entered the Court, in which the Peers were already seated. A chair of State being prepared for the Lord High Steward, beneath a rich canopy, a step higher than the seats of the other Peers, Lord Wyndham, bowing right and left as he passed the Peers, took his seat. The Purse was laid on a small table near his right, and the Serjeant-at-Arms bore the Mace to the lower end of the table.

Then the Clerk of the Crown of the King’s Bench, and the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, bearing the King’s Commission to the Chancellor to act as Lord High Steward in his band, made their reverences before his Grace, and, approaching him, knelt. The Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, then, on his knee, presented the Commission to his Grace, who handed it to the Clerk of the Crown of the King’s Bench; and he, having received it kneeling, they bowed thrice and returned to the table. The Serjeant-at-Arms having called aloud ‘Oyer’ thrice, the Clerk of the Crown of King’s Bench read the Commission, the Lords standing uncovered while it was being read aloud.

The Commission being read, and his Grace bowing to the Peers, who returned the salute, and sitting down again, the King-of-Arms and the Usher of the Black Rod, with three reverences, jointly presented the white staff on their knee to his Grace, who, after a little time, redelivered the same to the Usher of the Black Rod, to hold during the trial. Then the King-of-Arms returned to the right, and the Usher of the Black Rod, holding the white staff, to the left of his Grace’s chair. And proclamation was made of all persons, except Peers, Privy Councillors, and the Judges, to be uncovered, Then proclamation was made that the person or persons to whom any writ or precept had been directed, for the certifying any indictment or record before the Lord High Steward, his Grace, should certify and bring in the same forthwith, according to the tenor of the same writ and precept to them or any of them directed. Whereupon all forms and ceremonies being duly observed:

After this the Peers’ Triers took their places on the benches on each side, according to their respective degrees. Then the indictment having been read, the Clerk of the Crown asked his Lordship to plead, whereon he pleaded ‘not guilty.’ He was then asked how he would be tried. He replied, ‘By God and my Peers.’ Then the Lord Steward gave him a charge to his Peers, and the Attorney-General, Robert Jocelyn, detailed the circumstances as I have narrated them. The defence set up for the noble prisoner was ‘that Murphy’s death was caused by disease.’ But this was so untenable that it was demolished by the able address of Bowes, the Solicitor-General. The Peers found the prisoner GUILTY, and he was sentenced to death. They, however, unanimously recommended Lord Santry to the mercy of the Crown, which was strongly seconded by the Lord Lieutenant.

The right reverend Dr. Rendle, Bishop of Derry, wrote the following graphic account of this solemn trial:- ‘Poor Lord Santry was tried on Friday by his Peers. I never beheld a sight so awful and majestic and dreadfully beautiful in my life; and nothing was ever performed with so much solemnity, silence, and dignity before in any country. The finest room in Europe filled with the nobility and gentry of the whole kingdom, and both sexes; the High Steward, every one of the Judges, the Lords the Triers, and the noble prisoner, young and handsome, most decent in his behaviour, and with a becoming fortitude in his speaking, could not but compose the most affecting scene. All were so attentive that silence was not once proclaimed. The King’s Counsel did admirably, but Bowes (the Solicitor-General) had an opportunity to show himself to the highest advantage. I always thought him an admirable speaker, but never imagined him half so great a man as I do at present, though I always loved and esteemed him, He did not use one severe word against the unhappy Lord, nor omitted one severe observation that truth could dictate. I never heard, never read, so perfect a piece of eloquence. Its beauty arose from true simplicity and unaffected ornaments; from the strength and light of his reason, the fairness and candour and good nature of his heart; from the order and disposition of what he said, the elegance and fulness of his expressions, the shortness and propriety of his reflections, the music of his voice, and the gracefulness of his elocution. They were all wonderful indeed, and even those who were concerned and grieved, were charmed with his most masterly performance. But if they did well, I think the Counsel for the prisoner acted detestably. They only prompted him to ask a few treacherous questions, and spoke not one word in his favour, though I have the vanity almost to think I could have offered a point of law that would have bid him fair to save him. When the twenty-three Peers returned to give their opinion, their countenances astonished the whole House; and all knew from the horror of their eyes and the paleness of their looks, how they were agitated within before they answered the dread question, “Guilty, upon my honour;” and he was so most certainly, according to the law; nor could they perhaps have brought in their dreadful verdict otherwise.’

There was great influence used to obtain a mitigation of sentence in the case of Lord Santry. He was reprieved, and ultimately pardoned.

In the year 1739 great changes took place on the Irish Bench, On September 7, Lord Wyndham resigned the Great Seal, and ROBERT JOCELYN, then Attorney-General for Ireland, was nominated his successor, and shortly received the title of Lord Newport, John Bowes replacing Jocelyn as Attorney-General.

What was the reason which caused the resignation of the Chancellor does not appear. He had filled this high and important position of Lord Chancellor of Ireland with the confidence and to the satisfaction of all classes for thirteen years, a long time for a Chancellor, and possibly felt the duties, increased by the necessity of attending the House of Lords as Speaker, too much for his failing health. He might not have liked the dictatorial manner of Primate Boulter, who assumed almost the whole government of Ireland during the frequent absence of the Lord Lieutenant. It redounds much to the Prelate’s character for generosity, that during this period, 1739-40, when the frost was so unusually severe that the poor were terribly afflicted, his bounty was of the most liberal nature. Every indigent person in the city of Dublin was relieved, chiefly at his cost. [Stuart’s History of Armagh, p. 428.] The House of Commons expressed their sense of his humane conduct by a public vote of thanks. Had the Primate confined himself to works of piety and charity which were befitting his profession, and left law to the lawyers, and politics to statesmen, he would not have deserved the harsh criticism which he has received; but he was so bent on having Ireland for the English, that whenever a vacancy occurred in any office, be it lay or ecclesiastical, he put up at once the notice, ‘No Irish need apply.’ He seems to have entertained the conviction that any native of Ireland, Protestant or Catholic, was *ipso facto *an enemy to England, or, as he termed it, the *English interest, *and therefore rightly excluded from any position of station or emolument. Such notions most likely were not shared by Lord Chancellor Lord Wyndham, and may have led to his resignation. A very handsome compliment is paid to his memory by the historian of the King’s Inns. He says, ‘Lord Wyndham resigned, to the regret of every honest or intelligent Irishman, having rendered a name memorable in England for wisdom, public spirit, and eloquence, a subject of grateful regret to the Irish nation. His retreat was also unmarked by pension, place, or reversion. He lived a few years after his ceasing to be Lord Chancellor, and passed his latter days in his native country.’

Lord Wyndham died without issue, November 24, 1745, and with him the title became extinct.

Chancellor Index. Chancellor 40 Home.