Life of Lord Lifford

Chapter XLIII.

Life of Lord Lifford, Lord Chancellor from his birth to the enrolment of the Irish Volunteers.

Truly may the biographer of James Hewitt say, ‘As the man is universally esteemed more praiseworthy who ennobles himself by a series of brilliant actions, than he whose title devolves from a long race of ancestry, without ever by any action of his own deserving it;’ we may respect such a man, and behold such an instance of commendation in Lord Lifford, who, from an attorney’s apprentice, rose to the station of Lord Chancellor of Ireland.

James Hewitt was born in Coventry, in the year 1709. His father, William Hewitt, Mercer and Draper, was unquestionably a man who stood high in the estimation of his fellow-citizens, for he was elected Mayor of the borough. It was no small feather in one’s cap to be the Mayor of Coventry, the ancient city famous through the courage of the Lady Godiva; and in later days for the wealth of its manufacturers of silk and velvet, of which articles of commerce William Hewitt, the Mayor, had great store. He was a worthy successor of Thomas Bond, Mayor of Coventry in 1506, whose thoughtful countenance is to be seen in a portrait, set in a richly-carved frame, placed as it surely ought, within the Institution for ten men, bachelors or widowers, and a matron, residents of Coventry, which embalms his name in association with the most ennobling of all virtues - ‘Bond’s Charity.’

It was something for a youth of James Hewitt’s intelligence, and love of relics of the past, to feast his eyes, and have his imagination quickened by the sights and scenes around his childhood’s home. Even in our more prosaic days few can traverse the narrow streets of this old historic town without acting in some measure the part of Peeping Tom, and gazing on beauty - but a beauty of the past - beauty in lime and stone - not living, breathing, moving, animated flesh and blood. The young mind of James Hewitt must have expanded as he gazed on the glorious Church of St. Michael and All Angels, the mellow tints of the stone giving to the pile in the sunlight a halo of antiquity. Then, as he grew older, and could appreciate more fully the beautiful in architecture, he passed much of his time admiring the mighty tower and spire, as it points heavenward, marking the effects of time in softening the angles, shading the hard outlines, and lending a sense of the respect due to age, in the creations of man’s art, as in humanity itself.

Some of the old churches of Hewitt’s native town have a wonderful longevity. There is the Church of St. Michael’s, dating from A.D. 1133, and Trinity from 1269, restored often, of course, but still preserving many of the old lineaments; though, as has been shrewdly remarked, ‘the mind at once seizes the point of distinction between these clever and suitable designs - done to order, and done on a pattern - and the fantastic, eloquent carvings in which each man’s hand wrought out the fancy, the moral, the satire, or the aspiration which arose in his own soul.’ This makes the difference between the old Catholic churches, preserved in their integrity, and those altered to suit the Reformed faith. The former in their stateliness and beauty typify the faith of the founders, where every object is symbolic and suggestive, preaching, as far as sculpture, or painting, or carving may, of man’s littleness, his brief time here, and the eternity and immensity of the great Being in whose name, and for whose worship, the Temple was reared.

Young Hewitt was early and carefully instructed in the usual branches of education, and then the Mayor of Coventry desired his son to make choice of some profession which would afford him employment, and, if it pleased God to bless his labours, subsistence in life. Well aware how necessary it is to have a vocation early, as it gives business habits and keeps young men out of mischief, the worthy Mayor readily seconded his son’s wish to be a lawyer. The future Irish Chancellor appears to have first applied himself to the attorney branch of the legal profession; coequal in point of date with that of the Bar. The different orders of practisers enumerated by Fleta are **- ‘**servientes, narratores, attornati et apprenticii.’ [Reeve’s History of English Law, vol. ii. p. 284.] The choice of a solicitor, in whose office James Hewitt could acquire that professional knowledge and skill which should enable the young attorney to be a safe adviser, competent to discharge his duties to his clients, was soon made. He served as clerk or apprentice to Mr. James Birch, an Attorney of Coventry, who was Receiver-General for the county of Warwick. After some time the young clerk resolved to devote himself to study the law in order to become a barrister; but there can be no doubt the professional training he received while in the attorney’s office greatly tended to his success when called to the Bar.

He entered the Middle Temple in Michaelmas Term, 1737, and became a barrister in November 1742. He soon got into practice, and did the best thing to secure his domestic felicity by selecting a wife. He married a daughter of the Reverend Rhys Williams, D.D., Rector of Stapleford Abbots in Essex, Dean of Worcester; and, induced by the desire of pushing his way to legal preferment through the avenues of the House of Commons, contested the representation of his native city in 1754. In this attempt he was unsuccessful, but not disheartened by defeat renewed the contest at the General Election in 1761, and was returned.

We can imagine how elated he was as Member for Coventry, on entering the great hail of St. Mary’s, grand and stately, with its gorgeous carvings, and tapestry wrought by fingers which have been dust for centuries. He looked with keener interest at those beautiful windows through which the sun streamed in meridian glory, and saw in the blazon of the Black Prince, and the names of Cressy and Poictiers, incentives to exertion - for he too might win a name. His legal knowledge and practice at the bar had already procured him the dignity of the Coif, for he was King’s Serjeant in 1759. He resolved to be no silent Member of the House of Commons. When an attempt was made to get rid of informations, filed *ex officio *by the Attorney-General, the motion of Mr. Nicholas Calvert was seconded by Serjeant Hewitt. The style of his oratory may be surmised by the anecdote that Charles Townshend, on leaving the House while Serjeant Hewitt was pounding away on some dull legal question, was asked ‘whether the House was up?’ ‘No,’ he replied very gravely, ‘but the Serjeant is.’ [Foss, Judges of England, vol. viii. p. 309.] From this we may infer his speeches were regarded as a bore!

When the Earl of Chatham became Prime Minister, Serjeant Hewitt’s great friend, Lord Camden, was made Lord Chancellor of England. Lord Camden was, at the moment the news reached him of his appointment as Chancellor, presiding as Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. Having despatched the business pending before him, he left Court to return home, and, when he reached his house sent at once for Serjeant Hewitt, and said as Sir John Eardly Wilmot would succeed him as Lord Chief Justice, the vacant seat on the King’s Bench was intended for him.

Hewitt hesitated to accept this proffered kindness, observing ‘that a Parliamentary appointment might be more useful for enabling him to provide for his sons, which must be closed by his accepting a Common-Law Judgeship, as its enforced seclusion from political pursuits or connections forbade any family promotion.’ He added ‘that Bowes, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, was upwards of seventy years of age, and if his Lordship’s friendship guaranteed that office, the place of puisne Judge would be accepted as an intermediate step to the expected elevation.’

Lord Camden acquiesced in this arrangement, and promised him the Irish Chancellorship in the event of its falling vacant while he held the Great Seal of England. Serjeant Hewett was accordingly sworn in as a Judge of the Court of Common Pleas at Westminster, on November 6, 1766. His labours as a Common-Law Judge did not extend more than three terms, and do not require any special notice from me.

On the death of Lord Chancellor Lord Bowes, the delay which took place in appointing his successor gave great dissatisfaction in Ireland. On a resolution being moved in the House of Lords on November 19, 1767, ‘That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, beseeching him of his paternal goodness and regard to the welfare of this kingdom, to appoint a Lord Chancellor, as the vacancy of that high office must obstruct the course of justice in her principal source, and be productive of numberless inconveniences to a loyal, affectionate people,’ the previous question having been carried, the following Protest was placed upon the Journals of the House:-

‘Dissentient. - 1. Because we conceive that, on the present occasion, when delay is the grievance of which we complain, the previous question is peculiarly improper, as it is merely a measure of procrastination.

‘That delay in an affair of this nature may be attended with the worst consequences, we conceive, because the execution of the office of Lord High Chancellor by Commission, is a defective execution of it, inasmuch as the Commission being executed by the Common-Law Judges of the land, two at a time, taken each from different Courts, in a weekly rotation, is attended with the following inconveniences:- *First, *that though the inferior Judges were always of equal eminence with one who should be appointed Chancellor in his own person, yet they are not only not conversant with the practice of the Court of Chancery, but habituated to a different practice. *Secondly, *That they cannot fulfil the duties of another Court but by relinquishing their own. *Thirdly, *That in taking away one Judge from a Court is in some circumstances an irreparable loss; that, at best, but two can remain; [The Court then consisted of a Chief and two Puisne Judges.] that causes of the greatest importance will be deferred till the Bench is full; that even in such causes as are heard by the two Judges that remain, if there be a difference of opinion, there is not a third to decide; and that sickness, or connection with certain causes, may leave the Court with but one Judge, and sometimes without any. *Fourthly, *That long and important causes in Chancery can seldom be decided in a week; and, therefore, the arguments used in one week before one set of Commissioners. must be repeated before another set in a subsequent week. That by this endless protraction and expense, persons are discouraged from proceeding; and the more as the Commissioners cannot be expected to decide, inasmuch as reputation is more easily lost than gained in such circumstances, and as the cause would probably be but little advanced by their decision, since the party defeated would always apply to the Chancellor, when appointed, for a rehearing. *Fifthly, *That these inconveniences are aggravated by the state of business in that Court at the time of the late Chancellor’s death, whose great abilities had drawn such a redundancy of business into that Court that, notwithstanding his assiduity, a long arrear of causes remains undischarged, that therefore the execution of the office of Lord High Chancellor by Commission is attended with this great evil, that without supplying to effect the Court of Chancery, it dismembers and mutilates all the Courts of Law, and disturbs and obstructs the whole course of justice.

‘CHARLEMONT.

‘MOUNTM0RRIS.’

This well-reasoned and timely protest, put solemnly upon the Journals of the House of Lords, was not without due weight, and soon Lord Lifford was sworn into office. I may glance briefly at the Bar over, whom he, a perfect stranger to this kingdom, was sent to preside.

The Irish Bar at this period, 1770, was a curious amalgamation of qualities, good, bad, and indifferent; but the first had by far the largest share. Here men of all classes, of every rank, - from the son of the Peer to the son of the peasant, who was able to send his boy to the Temple, were united by the professional knot. All were free and accepted in the circle but the Papist. Except for him the Irish Bar had no exclusion, and welcomed the humblest-reared, if gifted with talents, as readily as the better-born. ‘The law,’ says Phillips, [Curran and his contemporaries.] ‘which in its suitors knows no distinction but that of justice, in its professors acknowledged none except that of merit. In other countries where this glorious profession is degraded into a trade, where cunning supplies the place of intellect, where in Curran’s peculiar phrase, “men begin to measure their depth by their darkness, and fancy themselves profound because they feel they. are perplexed;” no idea can be formed of that illustrious body, of the learning that informed, the genius that inspired, and the fire that warmed it, of the wit that relieved its wisdom, and the wisdom that dignified its wit, of the generous emulation that cherished while it contended, of the spotless honour that shone no less in the hereditary spirit of the highly-born than in the native integrity of the more humble aspirant; but, above all, in that lofty and unbending patriotism, that at once won the confidence and enforced the mutation of the country.’ The habits of the Bar, as was to be expected from their position, and the great influence they exercised over the society of Dublin, were closely akin to the habits of the gentry. A love of ‘pleasure which was indulged in at the moment, without a thought of the future, was the universal custom of the Irish gentry. No fear of days of terrible reckoning disturbed their dream when they were sowing the seeds of petitions which were reaped in the Incumbered Estates Court, and deprived their descendants of every acre they once held. The legal profession had its full share of fun and frolic, duelling and dissipation. Wager of battle was of frequent occurrence, and the ‘reports’ of the pistol showed familiarity with its practice.

‘Lord Townshend’s Viceroyaity,’ says Mr. Hardy, [Life of Lord Charlemont] ‘forms a peculiar epoch in the history of Ireland. A gallant soldier, the military associate of Wolfe, frank, convivial, abounding in wit and humour, sometimes more than was consonant with the viceregal dignity; capricious, uncertain, he not unfrequently offended the higher orders.’ Highly sensitive of what was due to the station of Lord, Lieutenant, and the importance of maintaining one’s position, the Chancellor took exception to the pranks of the eccentric nobleman, and did all he could to check his exuberant mirth, but the Viceroy supposed. he was of an age to know his own business, and resolved to ingratiate himself with the natives after his own fashion.. He had heard so much of the hospitality of the Irish, he resolved to show that he too could cultivate this virtue, and gave parties on so liberal a scale, that the allowance then allotted for the office, of sixteen thousand a-year, went but a short way to meet expenses, and ere long the Viceroy contracted debts which left a heavy blister on his estates. One of his Excellency’s pranks is so amusing that I venture to give it a place in my pages.

On a bright May morning, a bashful stranger was seen entering the pretty grounds of the Chief Secretary’s Lodge, Phoenix Park, Dublin, where the Chief Secretary and Lady Clements then resided. Old MacMahon, the house-steward, who was enjoying the fragrance of the summer air, asked him what he wanted. ‘I hear her Ladyship wants a gardener,’ replied the stranger. ‘Have you lived in many places, my man?’ asked MacMahon. ‘A great many,’ returned the stranger; ‘and I am well acquainted with my business in all its branches. Can I see my Lady?’ ‘She was at a Castle ball last night;’ said th’e steward; ‘this Lord Lieutenant is beating the world before him with his grand parties; and it will be long before she leaves her room; but if you come and sit in my room, you can wait for her, and we can have breakfast,’ The stranger promptly consented, and MacMahon helped him liberally to the rare ham, and good tea, and toast, which the house-steward provided for his own proper use and refection. When her Ladyship’s bell rung, the steward went to her, and brought word, ‘Lady Clements desired to see the gardener.’ The stranger accompanied the steward, and entered her Ladyship’s room nearly convulsed with laughter, to the surprise of the steward, which was not diminished when he beheld his mistress make a most reverential courtesy, and he discovered, that instead of a horticulturist he had been treating on a footing of perfect equality no other than his Excellency Lord Townshend. The good-natured Viceroy enjoyed the steward’s confusion, but was resolved to dissipate it. ‘My worthy friend,’ he said, ‘I am your debtor. When I appeared at the Lodge you thought me a poor stranger seeking for employment, but unlike some of those who are placed in a little brief authority, you received me with the outstretched hand of hospitality and friendship. Such conduct deserves reward; I shall not forget you.’ Nor did he. A short time found the son of the steward Ordnance storekeeper in Cork, and this laid the foundation of the future prosperity of the family. [Ireland before the Union, by W. J. Fitzpatrick, Esq., p. 253. According to this work, Sir William MacMahon, Bart., Master of the Rolls in Ireland, was grandson to the hospitable steward.]

The Lord Chancellor laboured hard to discharge his Court duties. He found some differences, though none very formidable, in the procedure of the Irish Courts of Equity from those of England. One arose from the tenure of leases for lives, renewable for ever, which, however, is now much changed, the tenure being turned into fee-farm grants. The equity of redemption under the Ejectment Statutes, the mode of administering assets of deceased persons, and of administering real and personal estate of deceased persons, also present differences which require vigilance and care to deal with correctly: but with the assistance of the able Bar, who have always earned the respect and confidence of the Judges, these differences between the practice in Chancery in England and Ireland did not impede the decision of Lord Lifford.

A very laborious compiler of works relating to the practice of the Irish Courts of Law and Equity, published some books at this period. His name was G. E. Howard. He dedicated to Lord Lifford, Lord Chancellor, a work entitled ‘The Rules and Practice of the High Court of Chancery in Ireland, with the several Statutes relating thereto, and also several adjudged Cases thereon.’ If we are to judge of the difficulty of compiling law books at this time by what this author experienced, we must not wonder how few attempted their production. [‘There are some gentlemen very knowing in the rules and practice of this Court, but a very few who are pleasingly communicative. I have waited in the halls whole mornings before I could get two or three questions answered to my satisfaction, though it was well known I was about this work, which is not a little disagreeable to a compiler; but in truth, in general, the ignorance of this matter is great, for the thirst of knowledge is small, and I have met with no small portion of envy and unkindness for my former publications, by which I may with safety say, I not only never got a shilling, but lost several thousands of pounds.’] He complains much of the delay in hearing causes, - that Judges amid lawyers cannot be in Council, in the Houses of Lords and Commons, and in the Courts, at one and the same time, which he suggests might thus be remedied.

‘Suppose, then, that a certain hour for opening the Courts in the morning were resolved on by the Judges, and then to proceed; there are Counsel who want not eminence who would undoubtedly attend them, besides there are several growing young men, and a little time and perseverance would produce a general and proper attendance. I have often heard that Chancellors of England have sat in winter by candle-light in the morning; so they have sat in the evening; and no Judge there would postpone a cause when the suitor was prepared for the trial at the instance of a Counsel, for this only reason, “That he was a member of Parliament, and was to go to the ‘House,” The Judge that would ‘do it should instantly pay the suitors their damage.’ [Howard’s Practice of Chancery, Preface, p. xvi.]

Having enumerated several instances of hardship to suitors in respect to answering Bills, amending Bills after answer, costs upon a dissent, examination of witnesses, Bills to perpetuate testimony, he adds:- ‘I have known ten sheets in a brief of depositions when two might have contained the matter of the whole; and here I cannot avoid mentioning an instance in this way which happened very lately in the Hall of the Courts, as it may be productive of some relief to unfortunate suitors. A gentleman of eminence at the Bar, had three briefs tied together (one in effect) for a motion in a cause in this Court, which seeming a burden to him, led me and some others to inquire about it. They contained 180 sheets of large post paper, so widely written that two might well be included in one, and the gentleman who held it said. that six, or eight at most, might have contained the matter of the whole, and on this motion (I think he said) five Counsel were employed, so that at 3s. 4d. a sheet briefing, and 2s. the copy, the agent’s fees for these five briefs came to no less a sum than 120l. 13s. 4d.; then what must the five Counsel have had with their briefs! what fortune could stand it? If the Masters in taxing costs would examine the briefs, and also the copies thereof, and of pleadings and. other proceedings, it might prevent in a great measure these most horrid impositions.’ [Howard’s Practice of Chancery, Preface, p. xx.]

The notes of cases in this work are chiefly on points of practice, and show that the Court of Chancery was in full work, and took cognizance of a vast variety of litigation.

Considerable sums were expended from time to time in repairs to the Courts, but, about the year 1770, they became so dilapidated and decayed that the Lord Chancellor Lord Lifford and the chief Judges represented them as unfit for use, and Gandon, the celebrated architect, was employed to furnish designs for the Courts which now adorn the Inns Quay of the city of Dublin.

One of the chief political characters of this period was Doctor Charles Lucas. He graduated in Trinity College, Dublin, and practised first as an apothecary, then in the higher grade of physician in Dublin, with much success. He soon entered the political arena, and numbers of his pamphlets are on the shelves of the excellent library in which I now write. [The Library of the King’s Inns, Henrietta Street, Dublin.] He expressed his notions too strongly for his personal safety, and avoided unpleasant consequences by a timely flight to the Continent. When the storm had blown over he returned, was elected a Councillor in the Corporation, and set to work to resist the illegal encroachments of the Aldermen. Here his efforts were so successful that the united votes of his admirers resolved to afford him a wider field for his efforts, and he was invited to stand for the representation of the city of Dublin. He did so, but during the contest became so violent in his language and his printed addresses, he and his printer were ordered to attend before the House of Commons, and a Committee appointed to examine them. The Committee having reported against the addresses, the House declared the Doctor guilty of divers breaches of privilege of the House, and to escape the consequences he again thought discretion the better part of valour, and retired to England, where he resided for some years. A vacancy occurred in the representation of Dublin which caused his return, and, taught moderation by experience, he was not prosecuted, but elected, and soon became a very eloquent and energetic champion of popular rights. On the meeting of Parliament in 1761, he obtained leave to bring in a Bill limiting the duration of the Parliaments to seven years, as in England, but it was not then passed. He procured, however, a measure for the better securing the independence of Members. He adopted the views already noticed of the Irish patriotic party relative to right of the Irish House of Commons on the question of money Bills, and addressed a very able essay on the subject to the then Viceroy, George Lord Townshend. [‘The Rights and Privileges of Parliaments asserted upon constitutional principles against the modern anti-constitutional claims of Chief Governors.’ Dublin, 1770.] He died in 1771.

Lord Lifford was Chancellor when the great struggle took place between the Parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland, which resulted in the short-lived independence of the Irish legislature. In December 1775, a young barrister, Henry Grattan, son of the Recorder of Dublin, through the influence of Lord Charlemont, was returned member for the borough of Charlemont, and took his seat in the House. The first step to the relaxation of the Penal Code against the Catholics passed the Irish Parliament in the following year. This enabled them to take land on leases for 999 years, and also to purchase on certain conditions. ‘The condition of the country,’ says a very competent authority on Irish affairs, [Right Hon. James Whiteside, ‘Life and Death of the Irish Parliament,’ part ii.] ‘was then deplorable. Trade was depressed, its shores were undefended, and her army was withdrawn. The policy and maxims of Swift were once more revived, and a spirit of discontent pervaded the nation. England was at war with France and with America, and Ireland was menaced with invasion.’ The Government had no troops to spare, and the Volunteer movement commenced. Soon the Minister stood face to face with an armed nation, and the Dungannon meeting was held in Dungannon Church. The temple of the God of Peace was not desecrated by the presence of men armed for the defence of their native land. Colonel Irwin, a gentleman of ancient family and firm loyalty, who united prudence with vigour, presided. Then the Ulster Protestants spoke out as men who felt they had a country. Resolutions were passed to this effect:- ‘That a citizen by learning the use of arms does not abandon his civil rights;’ ‘That a claim by any body of men other than the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland to make laws to bind Ireland is unconstitutional, illegal, and a grievance.’ They protested against Poyning’s Law, requiring the Privy Council’s assent to the Bills submitted to Parliament. ‘Resolved that trade should be free;’ ‘That a perpetual Mutiny Bill was unconstitutional, and should be limited from session to session;’ ‘That Judges should be independent;’ ‘That private judgment in matters of religion should be sacred;’ ‘That as men and as Irishmen, as Christians and as Protestants, they rejoiced in the relaxation of the Penal Laws against the Roman Catholics, and conceived the measure fraught with the happiest consequences to the union and prosperity of Ireland.’

This should ever be remembered by Irishmen. Toleration to the Catholics was declared cause of rejoicing by the Ulster Protestants on February 15, 1782, and on the same day Mr. Gardiner’s Catholic Relief Bill was introduced into Parliament. Other measures in accordance with the wishes of the Volunteers quickly followed. The country was permeated with the Volunteer spirit. Everywhere the tramp of marching men, the peal of the trumpet, the roll of the drum, resounded. Everywhere the glitter of weapons, the variety of uniforms, dazzled the sight. There were embodied and equipped over a hundred thousand men, consisting of cavalry, artillery, and infantry; the artillery numbered 130 cannon. [History of the Volunteers, by McNevin, p. 222.] This army was commanded by the Earl of Charlemont, whose devoted loyalty procured him the earldom, as a proof of royal favour. He was not as tolerant in his views towards Catholics as might have been expected from one of so large and accomplished a mind. The national militia was officered by noblemen and gentlemen of the highest rank; but loyal as the institution undoubtedly was, and willing, nay desirous, to keep up that ascendency of evil so long the bane of Ireland, it was looked on with deep suspicion by the British Government. [History of Dundalk, by D’Alton and O’Flanagan, p. 187.] In a letter from the Lord Lieutenant, Earl of Buckinghamshire, to Lord Weymouth, in May 1779, this is clearly shown:- ‘Discouragement has been given on my part, as far as might be without offence, at a crisis when the arm and goodwill of every individual might be wanting for the defence of the State.’

Chancellors Index. Chancellors 44, Home.