HC Deb 09 June 1843 vol 69 cc1299-300
Mr. Wyse

said, that he would now repeat the question he had put to the right hon, Baronet the Secretary of the Home Department on a former evening, and which he then declined to answer without formal notice. Mr. Clanchy, of Charleville, in the county of Cork, in a letter, on the 24th of May, in- reply to a communication addressed to him by Henry Sugden, esq., secretary to the Lord Chancellor, asking him whether ha had attended a repeal dinner at Charleville on the 18th instant, had stated— That he did attend a dinner at Charleville on the 18th, given to Messrs. O'Connell and Roche, at which were persons differing in opinion on the subject of the Repeal, as well as on other matters of politics—that Messrs. O'Connell and Roche were the representatives in Parliament whom he had supported at the last general election, and purposed doing so at the next—that neither at this dinner nor at any meeting, had he given any opinion on the act of union, but that his intentions were to support such measures only as would promote the interest of Ireland, and at the same time strengthen and preserve the British connection. He had further been informed that at that dinner the usual toasts had been given, but not that of the Repeal of the Union. Now having this statement before him, the question be had to ask the right hon. Baronet was, whether Mr. Clanchy had received a supersedeas on the 28th, subsequent to this explanation, and on what grounds he had been thus peremptorily removed from the commission of the peace?

Sir J. Graham

had made inquiries on the subject, in consequence of the question which had been put to him on a former evening by the hon. Gentleman, and the result of that inquiry was the information that a meeting had been held at Charleville on the morning of the 18th of May, and that it was succeeded by a dinner in the evening, and that the only justice of the peace present at that meeting and dinner was Mr. Clanchy. That dinner and meeting had been designated by Mr. O'Connell as a Repeal meeting and dinner. In consequence of the attendance of Mr. Clanchy at that dinner the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had thought it necessary to remove him from the commission of the peace.

Mr. Wyse

wished to ask the right hon. Baronet was this course of proceeding on the part of the Government to be considered as the precedent by which they intended to rule their conduct in future, in reference to the magistracy of Ireland.

Sir J. Graham

had already stated that in each case of magistrates openly manifesting themselves in favour of Repeal, the decision would be made by competent authorities, and according to the circumstances of each case.