ment for what must be considered very culpable negli- CHAP. gence.

XLII. Debates in

the Irish

ment first

It was in the time of Lord Chancellor Bowes, in the years 1763 and 1764, the first printed reports of the Parliaspeeches delivered in the Irish Parliament were published. reported, They can hardly be considered very reliable, as they were 1763-4. given from the recollection of Sir James Caldwell, and few have memories so accurate as to recollect what falls from several speakers on the same, or on different subjects. The chief subjects of the debates were:-Prisoners; the necessity of a standing army in time of peace; addresses to the King; disturbances in the North; residences of the clergy; publication of libels; the duration of Parliaments; and the reporter observes, The debates were carried on Compliwith the deepest penetration, the most extensive know- terms of ledge, and the most forcible eloquence.' This was almost the Resuperfluous to state, when among the debaters were Sir Richard Cox, Edmund Sexton Pery, Dr. Charles Lucas, Anthony Malone, John Hely Hutchinson, Henry Flood, Philip Tisdall, John Fitz Gibbon, and William Gerard Hamilton. The reporter says, "I have visited many nations, and during an absence of many years I came into no kingdom where I did not find natives of Ireland in Success of every station who were preferred to many situations merely abroad. upon their merits.' He declared the debates he heard in College Green' would do honour to any age or nation.'

mentary

porter.

Irish

suits more tedious and expensive in Ireland

than in

England.

The proverbial tediousness of Chancery suits was thus Equity deplored by an Irish legal writer of this time: There is not any nation upon earth where law suits are so tedious and so expensive as in this poor kingdom, let the right be as unquestionable as it may. In England suits are generally determined in quarter the time they are here, and at one quarter of the expense; but there the Counsel are confined to Courts, and it is a rare thing to see more than three Counsel on a side, unless it be some very extraordinary case; in common ordinary cases seldom more than two. And the Courts there are not pleased at seeing Howard's Equity Side of the Exchequer, xxx.

CHAP.
XLII.

Counsel in

different Courts.

Intempe

rance

among

the

fession in

“They

many Counsel on a side, and will show it, saying,
are already possessed of the cause, and desire that nothing
more that is not needed may be added." But in this king-
dom the practice is for members of the Bar to take business
in any branch, and pass from Court to Court as if justice
was to be taken by storm.' So our author pathetically
says, 'what can the unfortunate suitors do? If they were
to employ but two or three Counsel, they may, when a
cause comes on in one Court be engaged in another, and
this is looked on as sufficient excuse, so that the Courts
must be kept in exercise by bringing some of the scattered
forces to the engagement until the main body may come
in, or the cause may be undone. Then every one must
speak in the cause, and so, as they are seldom in the way to
hear about what the others have said, repetitions neces-
sarily follow.' Having enumerated the expense to suitors
from refreshers, and the enormous length of pleadings, so
that the time of the Court is taken up without hearing
perhaps one cause of any consequence, to the manifest
ruin of suitors, the writer adds: 'By examining the books
of hearings and notes for twenty years past, this grievous
mischief will appear most evident.' He suggests that
when affidavits are referred for prolixity and impertinence,
and if reported, the attorney who drew it should pay the
costs out of his own pocket. So he should in all cases
where he puts his client to unnecessary expense, either
from a contentious spirit, mistake, or neglect.'

The intemperate habits of the time extended to the learned professions, and are censured by the same legal legal pro- writer,2 who says he has to mention an evil which he would fain have thrown a veil over, but for the degree of excess to which it was carried in Ireland, and among the legal profession-a profession which requires the coolest head, the clearest intellect a man can possess.' He does not wonder men should be incapable of transacting their

former times.

1 Mr. Howard was himself an Attorney. What if the pleadings were settled by Counsel? Ought the Counsel suffer the loss?

2

Gorges E. Howard.

'clients' business who filled themselves with strong wines, unless endowed with a capacity such as not one in a thousand is ever blessed with. I have had occasion,' he adds, 'to transact business in London several times, and I can affirm that there is no such thing practised there, as for men of business to sit whole evenings over their bottle, in the midst of Term; and I have myself heard several of them say they could not conceive how many of the profession of the law in this kingdom (Ireland) effected any business, for that they seemed there to do nothing but walk the Courts the whole morning, and devote whole evenings to the bottle.'

СНАР.

XLII.

The hints about selecting Judges are very pointed and Irish Judges. forcible: The people of England have one great advantage in regard to their Judges-they are there seldom taken from the Bar and placed on the Bench on account of their interest or abilities in the House of Commons. The gentlemen of this profession in England are but of small consideration in the House when compared to the country gentlemen, who excel them far, not only in the knowledge of the constitution, but in oratory also. Hence few other but lawyers speak in the House. Now should it ever come to pass (which God forbid) that Judges should be made for no other reason but to take them off (as it is usually termed), in what a wretched condition we should be as to everything in life that is dear to us-our lives, our liberties, and properties! Therefore, it is to be wished we may never want at least one Englishman knowing in his profession, and honest withal, a Judge on every Bench,' 2

The conduct of Lord Charlemont in suppressing disturbances in the north of Ireland in 1763 having been considered deserving of commendation, King George III. The King directed the Lord Lieutenant, Earl of Northumberland, offers an

This was written in 1759.

Howard's Exchequer in Ireland, vol. i. xv. Whoever prepared the petition against the learned judge who tried the Waterford Election Petition in 1870, must have been reading Mr. Howard's work,

Earldom to Lord Charie

mont.

CHAP.
XLII.

to offer him an earldom. Lord Charlemont expressed to the Lord Lieutenant his gratitude to his Majesty for having overrated any trifling services which, as a good subject, it was his duty to perform to the utmost of his power, but as to the proffered earldom, he begged his Excellency's permission to consider the subject for a day or two. Lord Northumberland suggested that the offer of promotion having proceeded directly from the King himself, any declension of such promotion might possibly be construed into disrespect;' on which Lord Charlemont consented, with the understanding it was in no wise to be considered as influencing his political conduct.' His patent as Earl had, as usual, been laid before the Lord Chancellor Bowes. In the Preamble it was stated that this advancement in rank had been conferred unsolicited in any way whatever.' To this the Chancellor objected, as contrary to all usage, and struck out the words as contrary unsolicited, &c. Lord Charlemont said, 'that though it was no doubt contrary to precedent, it was exactly consonant to the truth; that he owed his earldom entirely to the benignity of his sovereign, and respect to his Majesty The Earl's alone prevented him from declining even then the earldom; but that he would, as he had a right to do, annex an engrossed testimonial to his patent, specifying the manner in which it was granted.'

The Patent

sent to

the Chancellor.

Objection

to the preamble

to prece

dent.

resolve.

The Chancellor's

health fails.

We now approach the conclusion of the Lord Chancellor's earthly career; the three-score and ten years had been reached, and illness prostrated the strong frame of the once vigorous Irish Chancellor. He suffered much from repeated attacks of gout, and in the spring of 1767 his physicians were very seriously alarmed about his health. He resolved to lose no time in settling his temporal affairs, Makes his and made his will in favour of his two brothers, Samuel

will.

Death on July 22, 1767.

Bowes and Ramsay Bowes, Esqrs., of Benfield, County Surrey. He did so in time, as on July 22 in that year Lord Bowes died, and the title of Lord Bowes of Clonlyon disappeared from the peerage. He was interred in the Cathedral of

Hardy's Life of Charlemont, p. 101.

Christ's Church, Dublin, where a handsome monument is erected to his memory.

CHAP.

XLII.

Buried in

the Cathe

Christ

of Lord

V.

The appearance and manner of Lord Bowes were extremely agreeable. His countenance was oval, with dral, handsome features, and a winning smile. His look in- Church, spired confidence and created trust. His voice was clear Dublin. Appearand resonant, the selection of his words happily chosen, ance and and his delivery that of an accomplished elocutionist. It manners is to be regretted no more than one decision of this able Bowes. Judge has reached us. The reason which guided his judgments now must remain unknown. I have only traced one judgment of Lord Bowes. In the cause of Rochfort v. Earl of Ely,' a petition in 1758 having been Rochfort presented to Lord Bowes, then Lord Chancellor, by a party Earl of claiming under a settlement to set aside certain deeds, Ely. fines, and recoveries, executed, levied, and suffered by the Earl of Ely, who was alleged to have been of weak mind, Commisand praying that a Commission be granted to enquire into the capacity of the alleged lunatic. A Commission issued, inquirendo. directed to certain parties therein named, 'to enquire and report whether the respondent, the Earl of Ely, was an idiot or person of unsound mind. The jury, having examined many witnesses, and also the Earl himself, returned a verdict that his Lordship was not an idiot, or person of unsound mind.' Whereupon Rochfort presented another petition to the Chancellor, praying that this inquisition might be set aside, and that his Lordship would be pleased to examine the Earl personally, or that a new Commission Petition might issue.' On the hearing of this petition the Lord Commis Chancellor, on February 11, 1767, delivered the following sion. judgment:

sion de lu

natico

The Jury

find the

Earl sane.

for a new

of Lord

Bowes.

"This was a cause of more importance than he ever knew Judgment in the Court. The value of the property was very great, Chancellor but the consequences as to the subject was much greater. No instance was produced to show that a finding in such a case against the Crown had been set aside, and that an Reported in Wallis's Reports, by Lyne, p. 172. The judgment of Lord Chancellor Bowes I give from Ridgeway's Par. Cases, vol. i. Ap. ii.