Commons Sitting of 15 December 1830

MINUTES.
A New Writ was ordered for Plympton Earle, in the room of Viscount VALLETORT, who had accepted the Chiltern Hundreds.
Bills. Mr. HUGHES HUGHES obtained leave to bring in a Bill, to amend the Building Acts. The Patents Continuation Bill went through a Committee. The Witnesses Examination Bill, the Interpleaders Bill, the Prohibition and Mandamus Bill, and the Arbitration Bill, were all read a second time. The Lords' Amendments to the Administration of Justice Amendment Bill were agreed to.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. MACAULEY, various Reports and Correspondence relative to the treatment of Slaves:—On the Motion of Mr. ELLICE, the Imports and Exports of Ireland:—On the Motion of Lord NUGENT, accounts of Cotton and Deal imported, and Ships mortgaged, belonging to the Port of London.
Petitions presented. For the abolition of Slavery, by Mr. EWART, three from Protestant Dissenters of Liverpool and its neighbourhood:—By Sir G. HEATHCOTE, four from various places in Rutlandshire:—By Mr. R. GRANT, eight from various places in Scotland:—By Mr. ADEANE, from a place in Cambridge:—By Sir A. CHICHESTER, from Belfast, praying for compensation:—By Lord BOYLE, four from Cork:—By Sir W. INGILBY, from Welbourn:—By Sir R. INGLIS, from a place in the East Riding of York:—By Mr. BURTON, from Beverley:— By Mr. MACAULEY, 200 from certain Dissenting Congregations in Somersetshire:—By Mr. BRISCOE, from several places in Surrey:—By Lord J. RUSSELL, from Dissenters in Bedfordshire. By the same noble Lord, from Tavistock, for the extension of the Franchise, and for Vote by Ballot:—By Mr. JOHNSTONE, from Inverkeithing, and another Burgh in Scotland. For the repeal of the Assessed Taxes, by Sir G. ROBINSON, from Northampton: —By Mr. BARTON, from Beverley;—By Mr. I. LEIGH LEIGH, from Wells. By Mr. ADEANE, from Wisbeach, praying that the Provisions of the Local Courts Bill might be extended to Cambridge and the Isle of Ely. For the extension of the Elective Franchise to the Catholics of Galway, by Mr. BLUNT, from a Parish of Galway: —By Sir J. BOURKE, four from Protestants and Catholics of Galway. By Sir W. INGILBY, from a place in Lincoln, for a repeal of the Duty on Insurances; from Spilsby, with a similar prayer; and from Spalding, against the Tax on Coals.

COMPENSATION TO WEST-INDIAN PROPRIETORS.
Mr. Ewartpresented a Petition from West-India merchants and others, praying for compensation if Slavery be abolished, and praying for inquiry into the condition of the slaves. The hon. Member said, he heartily concurred in the prayer of the petition, and expressed a hope, that whatever might be done, due regard would be had to the interests of the West-India proprietors. He was convinced that to produce favourable results the abolition of slavery must be gradual.
General Gascoynealso supported the prayer of the petition, and expressed a doubt whether the people would be will-
1184
ing to submit to be taxed to compensate the planters, though persons admitted that such compensation was necessary. The sum necessary for the purpose would probably augment the burthens of the State one fourth, though the amount was not yet settled, and he could not, therefore, speak positively. He would, however, be glad to submit even to that to have the question set at rest, and he was in hopes that the hon. and learned member for Yorkshire, who gave a notice, would have brought the matter to a conclusion. His zeal, it appeared, was checked by the Government; the wild elephant had been yoked to the tame ones of office, and he went quietly in harness like them. The hon. Gentleman gave notice, that when the question was discussed, he should move, "That an inquiry be instituted to ascertain what compensation should be given to the planters."
Mr. A. Trevorsaid, that he would cordially second the gallant General.

PENSIONS ON THE CIVIL LIST (IRELAND.)
Sir John Newportrose to move "that an humble Address be presented for a copy of the grant of a pension on the Irish Civil List, to Charles Hooper and P. Martin, and their representatives, specifying the term for which it was granted, and the conditions, if any, thereunto annexed, as also the names of the persons to whom it is now payable." The circumstances connected with this pension, were these:—It was granted so far back as the year 1756, for what he knew not; but it was granted, with this condition, that it should be continued annually until the sum of 2,000 l. should be paid to the party at one payment. The payments had been continued up to the present time; out of what notion of economy he was at a loss to guess. It was paying for all that time, an interest of 10 l. per cent on 2,000 l., which might be easily obtained at present at three-and-a-half per cent. But the Irish Civil List had always been remarkable for its extravagance. As one instance, he might mention a case which occurred in the time of the Irish Parliament. The name of George Charles appeared for a long time on the List as a pensioner to the amount of 1,200 l. a-year, but no person knew who this George Charles was. At last a return was moved for, setting forth who the party receiving the sum was, and on what account it was

1185
granted; and from that return it appeared that George Charles was the Count de Veri, the Sardinian Ambassador, to whom the pension had been granted for some real or supposed services performed to this country in the negotiations connected with the Treaty of Paris. No doubt many other similar cases might be mentioned.

THE JEWS.
Mr. R. Grant Mr. R. Grant, in presenting a Petition from the Jews of London, in favour of the Emancipation of the Jews, stated that he should, on Thursday, the 17th of February, bring forward a motion on the subject. But that notice was to be subject to the passing or not of the bill for abolishing the Oath of Abjuration. That bill, if it passed, would, he believed, affect the condition of the Jews, and, with some slight modification, would accomplish all that he sought. Should that be the effect of the bill, though he did not affirm that it would, his motion would be unnecessary. He should rather, however, that the matter were considered above board than collaterally and incidentally.
Colonel Cradocktook the opportunity of asking, as it had been stated that the Jews were outcasts in the land, if a Jew, whose father, grandfather, and great grandfather were born in Monmouth-street, would be considered as a native of this country, and if he were taken with arms in his hands, fighting against this country in the service of a foreign State, would he be punished as a native-born subject? Would his plea that he was a Syrian be admitted? If it would not, then it was hard to deprive the Jew of civil rights, and extremely hard to recognize his birth only to make it a pretext for punishment. He would certainly support the motion of the right hon. Gentleman.
Sir R. Ingliswould not answer the question; but when the subject came before the House he would discuss it.
Mr. R. Grantwould be prepared to explain the situation of these people, naturalized in this country, when the question was discussed.
General Gascoynewould watch the Oath of Abjuration bill, after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. R. Granthad given no opinion as to the legal construction of the Oath of Abjuration Repeal bill.
Petition to be printed.

SINECURES IN SCOTLAND.
On a
1186
Motion that some Petitions be laid on the Table,
Mr. William Dundastook occasion to allude to the observations made by the hon. member for Ayr (Mr. Kennedy,) when he thought fit the other evening, to allude to the offices held by him (Mr. Dundas) in Scotland. The hon. Member had then stated the income of those offices at a sum of 7,000 l. a year, but he would find, on inquiry, that he had allowed himself to become the instrument of much misrepresentation and exaggeration on this subject. It was quite true that peculiar circumstances, to which he need not advert, had in one year made the total income 7,800 l., but on an average, the three offices of Lord Register, Register of the Sasines, and Keeper of the Signet, produced only 4,500 l. a-year. It should be recollected, however, that, as Register, the securities for the holding of the greater part of the landed property of Scotland passed through his office, and accuracy in the clerks was necessary; and that he (Mr. Dundas) was held responsible for every error they committed. So far, indeed, had this been carried, that the insertion of George 3rd, instead of George 2nd, had produced an action in one case, in which he was compelled to pay damages to the amount of 400 l.; and in another, the bare omission of a word had cost him 300 l. The office was not, therefore, without duty and responsibility, and he thought the hon. Member should have given himself some time for accurate inquiry before he made exaggerated representations to the House.
Mr. Kennedysaid, he had endeavoured to fulfil a public duty with as great a degree of courtesy to the right hon. Gentleman as circumstances would allow, and he had certainly not trusted so much to hearsay information as the right hon. Gentleman supposed. He had made diligent inquiries on the subject, and he begged it to be distinctly understood, that his object was not to bring any odium on the right hon. Gentleman, but to enable the Government to correct the errors which were visible in an important parliamentary paper, and to guard against their recurrence. At the same time, however, he must say, that supposing the right hon. Gentleman's statement respecting the income of 5,000 l. to be correct, he did not hear of any services required by the offices, nor did he recollect any services performed by the right hon. Gentleman, which entitled him to

1187
receive so large a sum from sinecure situations, in the present distressed state of the country.
Sir G. Warrenderrecommended a revision of all the pensions and sinecures drawn from the resources of the country; and although he felt that no man would be willing to touch the pension of a Nelson, or the Conqueror of Waterloo, yet as the 5,000 l. granted to the family of the Duke of Marlborough had been reduced twenty-seven per cent, he thought every other pension and sinecure, should be subjected to a reduction at least to that amount. The right hon. Gentleman, after alluding to the noble example set. by the Marquis Camden, observed, that the late Earl of Stair, the moment he came to his family property, resigned a diplomatic pension of 1,500 l a-year—an example which it would be to the honour of many of the noble families of the country to follow at the present moment. For his part he was determined, if the Government failed to insist on ample reductions in the sinecures and pensions, to bring the subject fully and fairly under the consideration of Parliament.
The Petitions laid on the Table.

THE LIVING OF STANHOPE.
Lord James Stuarthaving presented a Petition from Cardiff, for a Reduction of Taxation,
Mr. Phillpottstook the opportunity to ask the noble Lord (Althorp) whether the Ministers had made up their minds with respect to the annexing of the Living of Stanhope, to be held in commendam by his right reverend relation, with the Bishopric of Exeter, as the noble Lord had declared on a former occasion, that the Government had felt it necessary to delay the issue of the instrument required for that purpose?
Lord Althorp Lord Althorp, in answer to the question of the hon. and learned Gentleman, begged to state distinctly to the House, and he hoped it would be also clearly understood in the country, that in any step which his Majesty's Ministers might feel it their duty to take with regard to the separation of the Living of Stanhope from the Bishopric of Exeter, they were not actuated by any personal considerations towards the right reverend Prelate; and that it was not on account of the person who was to hold the Living, but on public grounds that they felt it their duty to advise his Majesty to delay the issue of the instrument neces-
1188
sary for holding that living in commendam. They considered it a gross abuse to permit a Living of such importance, and requiring the constant attention of the incumbent, to be held by any person who must necessarily reside at such a distance from that Living, and they had, therefore, come to the determination of advising his Majesty not to give his sanction to the arrangement. In doing this, however, it was impossible for the Government not. to feel that a very great hardship was inflicted on the right reverend Prelate, because it was aware that he had accepted the Bishopric of Exeter, with the understanding that he was, as had been done before, to hold the Living of Stanhope in commendam along with it. His Majesty's Ministers felt regret that the determination they had come to would produce so much disadvantage to the right reverend person who now held the See of Exeter; and he was authorized to State, that it was their intention to compensate the right reverend Prelate for this loss, by adding to the See of Exeter the first Church preferment in the gift of the Crown which fell vacant, and did not involve in its duties that cure of souls which the Living of Stanhope required, and which had been the cause o the offence taken to the late recommendation. He considered, that the step now taken towards preventing the practice of the holding of many Livings, at a distance from each other, and under circumstances which precluded the performance of the sacred duties belonging to those Livings by the incumbents, was of the greatest importance, with a view to support the Church establishment at the present moment. He was sure that, the correction of the abuses of non-residence, and a rigid enforcement of the regular performance of clerical duties, would not endanger, but promote, the interests of the Church; and it was the determination of his Majesty's Ministers, in every case where such abuses came under their cognizance, to use their most strenuous endeavours to remove or to amend them.
Petition laid on the Table.

MAGISTRACY OF IRELAND.
O'Gorman Mahonthought it was necessary to preface the Motion with which he meant to conclude, by some few explanatory remarks. He wished to have a return of the number and names of the Magistrates of Ireland, distinguishing those acting by a

1189
commission from the Lord Chancellor, from those acting under other authority. He must disclaim anything like a desire to make any invidious distinctions between those parties. At a moment such as this, however, when the country was looking forward to the benefits which had been promised her—he trusted with all sincerity, —and entertained hopes which he had no doubt would be realized, there was no subject to which it was more desirable to direct the attention of the House than the administration of justice in Ireland, particularly to that department of it by which the resident gentry came immediately into contact with the lower orders. He did not mean to make any general observation upon the great body of the Magistracy; but, unfortunately, the experience of Ireland shewed, that in former appointments there had not been a proper scrutiny into the rank, station, and acquirements, and into the character of those appointed to be Magistrates, so as to have none but those entitled to respect in the minds of the people. There were persons in the commission of the peace, who however incredible it might seem in an English Mouse of Commons, were scarcely above the very lowest of the community over which they had to preside, and whose past, as well as present character was such as to make it utterly impossible that any respect could be entertained for them. Further, he could point out individuals in the commission of the peace in Ireland accused of the worst acts, guilty of fraudulent practices, guilty of defrauding their creditors two or three different times, and who had taken the benefit of the Insolvent Act, and had had a Commission of Bankruptcy issued against them. Such were some of the men who occupied a Bench, on which ought only to be seated men of unsullied character. Were he to detail some circumstances connected with the conduct of a part of the Magistracy of Ireland, which were well known to gentlemen acquainted with that country, he should almost be charged with practising on the credulity of the House. There were among them men who had connived at mal-practices which it was their duty to repress, and who had actually participated in acts which were infringements of the law. If, in addition to that, he could point out individuals who made it a practice to receive pay and bribes from criminals, protecting those whom they were bound to
1190
punish, it could not be denied, that such a return as he wished to have must prove useful to the Administration. He was only actuated by a desire that the magisterial body should be pure and sound, as intended by the Legislature. The hon. Member concluded by moving—"That there be laid before this House, a Return of the number and names of these at present in the Commission of the Peace in each County, City, and Town, in Ireland; distinguishing in each the number and names of clergymen and laymen; also distinguishing the names of those Magistrates in each department who have qualified to preside on Road Sessions; and specifying the number and nature of offices (if any), civil or military, under the Crown, or otherwise, held by each or any of such Magistrates, and the probable amount of salary or pay derived there from; also specifying the known profession, public employment or trade, heretofore or at present pursued by each; also, the number and names of those Magistrates who, in each County, City, and Town, have suspended payment, or taken the benefit of the Insolvent Act, or had missions of Bankruptcy issued against them; and stating how often such Commission of Bankruptcy have issued against the same individual; such Return to distinguish also the number and names of those Magistrates appointed under City or Corporate authority from those deriving their Commissions of the Peace from the Lord Chancellor; also, a return of the number and names of those who have been appointed Magistrates in each County, City, and Town, in Ireland, since the year 1810, with the names and number of those who have been superseded in that period, up to the latest period."
Colonel O'Gradywas sure that the Magistrates were so conscious of the unfounded nature of the hon. Gentleman's charges, that they would, if they knew them be the first to move for those returns. When imputations were cast upon the Magistrates generally of Ireland, he felt bound to say, that those of the county which he had the honour to represent, had set an example in putting down the disturbances which, now that disturbances prevailed here, it would be well if the Magistrates of England followed. They risked life and fortune in support of the laws, and their courage and firmness had had their reward; and he, as well as

1191
every other Irishman, owed them thanks for their conduct. It was with pleasure that he availed himself of that opportunity to do them justice. He had been informed that the new Lord Chancellor of Ireland meant to examine into the condition of the Magistracy, and put out of the commission any improper persons, and it would be better that the matter should be left in his hands than that it should be brought before the House. By the general practice in Ireland, a Magistrate who became insolvent, lost his office; and if there existed any such cases as had been stated by the hon. mover, they must be unknown to the Lord Chancellor. There could be no doubt that it was the intention and wish of that Officer to remedy whatever evils might exist in his department, and to him he wished the matter might be left. In what he had said, he had no other object in view than to rescue the Magistrates of Ireland from the unfavourable impression which the speech of the hon. Member might possibly create.
Lord Valentia Lord Valentia, had never heard any well-founded attack on the Magistrates of Ireland. He had always found them, in all cases and at all times, willing to do their duty. Perhaps the resolution of his hon. friend, the member for Clare, might be viewed as rather invidious, and he thought it would be much better to leave the subject altogether in the hands of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who had been so recently appointed to his situation, than to bring it before the House. If the papers were laid upon the Table they might bring into discussion circumstances which, perhaps, would not be altogether proper for the House to notice. If the hon. member for Clare thought that the Magistracy of Ireland had acted improperly, or that improper persons were selected, let him make a motion that would bring that opinion before the House, and allow it to be substantiated or refuted. He was satisfied that, taking them as a body, no charge could be brought against the Magistracy of Ireland. He certainly should not oppose granting the returns, but he did not believe that they would afford the hon. Member the information which he wished to gain. He hoped that the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion.
Mr. Maxwelldid not know a more honourable body of men —men more attached to the laws, or more humane in
1192
their conduct, than the Magistracy of Ireland. He was well acquainted with the situation of many Irish counties, and, therefore, could speak without hesitation on the subject. He doubted whether these returns could be procured, or whether any advantage would result from laying them on the Table. The hon. Member had better wait, and see the result of the revision which the Lord Chancellor was to undertake.
Mr. Jephsondid not see any great benefit that would result from having the returns, and if his hon. friend pressed his Motion to a division he should vote against it. The Clerk of the Peace was not obliged to know the profession or calling of persons in the commission of the peace; and, therefore might not be able to make the return required.
Sir Francis Burdettsaid, for his part, he had no objection to the Motion, nor had he heard any argument against granting the returns. If persons had been placed among the Magistracy of Ireland, who ought not to have been there, this return would merely show whether that were the case or not. He did not know how the officer could be directed to make these returns, but there might be some means of getting at the information required. Neither did he know how the Lord Chancellor, before a man was appointed to the commission of the peace, should inquire into all the circumstances of his life, for this would be both invidious and painful. He thought the returns of importance, and hoped they would be granted without opposition.
Mr. Calcraftsaid, that when returns were moved for, it was customary to state what parliamentary object the Member moving for them had in view. He saw no objection to granting these returns; but he wished to ask the hon. Member, what he intended to do with them. He felt, that if he were a Magistrate of Ireland, he should be entitled to know what the motive of the hon. Member was. He should be glad to know whether the hon. Member intended to attach blame to any quarter, or whether he thought that some benefit might be derived from having the names of the Irish Magistrates on the Table, to undergo the revision of the House. He was not aware, however, that the House would have any right to interfere, except in a case of gross impropriety of conduct in the discharge of the magiste-

1193
rial functions. He should not, however, give a decided opinion upon the subject, until he heard from the hon. Member what object he had in view.
Mr. Ruthventhought, the hon. gentleman had put a most extraordinary question to his hon. friend. He had asked him what he intended to do with these returns, supposing them to be granted? and what object he had in view? How could his hon. friend answer that question until the papers were granted? It had been stated, that improper persons were among the Magistracy of Ireland. His hon. friend wished to find whether that was the case or not. There was nothing of more importance to Ireland than its Magistracy, and he was sure that this motion was not brought forward with a view of throwing on that class the least obloquy. Nobody supposed that the late or the present Chancellor had appointed improper persons to the commission of the peace. He was satisfied that Sir Anthony Hart, who was an excellent Lord Chancellor, would never have sanctioned an improper appointment; for the late Chancellor, fortunately for Ireland, was not a political character. No man could entertain a higher opinion of Lord Plunkett than he did, and he hoped that the noble Lord would not suffer the politics of Ireland to enter into his conduct with regard to the Magistracy of Ireland. He had a most important and difficult duty imposed upon him, though there was no doubt that he would perform it to the satisfaction of the country. He was a man of pre-eminent abilities, and of unimpeachable integrity; but there was some degree of alarm, that he might not be able entirely to get rid of feelings which influenced, in a slight degree, the conduct of the most honest men, but which would be attended with most mischievous consequences to Ireland, if they were suffered to give a colour to the conduct of Lord Chancellor Plunkett. For himself he must say, that he had no personal feeling to gratify; he knew the Magistracy of Ireland well; he was acquainted with them, having been long a Magistrate himself, and no man could speak more highly of a body of men than he was ready to speak of the Irish Magistracy. In his part of the country they had acted with the greatest advantage, both to themselves and the neighbourhood, and he did not hesitate to say, that the country owed a debt to the Magistracy of Ireland for
1194
preserving the peace of that country. He would even say, that they had set an example to the Magistrates of England. They never shrunk from doing their duty in seasons of difficulty; but when dangers appeared, they laid aside differences of political opinions, and thought only of preserving peace, and of supporting the law and the Constitution. He would further observe, that the country had derived the greatest benefits from the introduction of Petty Sessions; the beneficial effects of which were exemplified every day in the improved condition of the country; while the people were made aware of the benefits they derived from the Magistracy of Ireland. In the part of the country with which he was connected, the people entertained the greatest respect for the Magistracy, and the most perfect reliance on the administrators of the laws; and no evil could arise from these returns being made. He saw no objection to the Motion. It was somewhat invidious to insinuate that the hon. Member who moved for the returns must have some ulterior object in view. If, however, there were improper persons in the commission of the peace let them be removed. It had been stated that some had been bankrupts, and confined in gaol; but how could the Chancellor know this? or, how could he get at any information on the subject? No man ever held a public situation who discharged his duties more satisfactorily to the people than the late Chancellor of Ireland, and he trusted that the present Chancellor would also merit the approbation of the country. He admitted that much injury had been done by giving encouragement to carry whisperings to the Castle at Dublin; but he hoped the day of those practices had now passed away. He considered the subject one of vast importance to Ireland; he hoped the returns would be granted, and if any necessity were found for it, that the Magistracy would be revised and purified.
Mr. Calcraftdid not mean to say, that a Member was bound to state, on every occasion, the object which he had in view when he moved for returns? Although this was what was called an Irish question, he did not make any apology to the hon. Member for taking part in it, because he considered every question connected with Ireland of the same importance as a matter purely English. He knew no distinction or at least none ought to exist,

1195
As an English Magistrate, if a return had been moved for, relating to that body, he should have demanded an explanation. If there were grounds of complaint against any specific Magistrates, the returns moved for ought to be respecting those only, and not such as to throw an imputation on the whole body of Magistrates.
Mr. Hudson Gurneythought, that the returns moved for would be almost useless, unless the hon. Member had some great object in view regarding the public convenience. It would be a cruel thing to drag gentlemen before the House without such an object. It could serve no useful purpose to have the record of any man's misfortunes laid on the Table. It would be infinitely better, therefore, for the hon. Member to limit his Motion.
Mr. John Campbellhad not the honour of being an Irishman, but he trusted that he might offer a few words on the present question. The Motion of the hon. Member was not only applicable to all Magistrates really in the commission of the peace, but would include all Municipal Magistrates, or those who had to discharge the duties of that office in any town or city of Ireland. The hon. Member must be aware that the Chancellor had no control over this latter class of Magistrates. The return, then, would be highly objectionable, as it would state, perhaps to the ruin of many of those city Magistrates, that at one time of their lives they had been bankrupts. [O'Gorman Mahon explained, that his return was confined to those actually in the commission of the peace.] In what a painful situation would the House place a Magistrate by putting such a question to him. He had no doubt that such a return might lead to the ruin of many mercantile firms which had now the highest character. He should therefore oppose the Motion.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, that the hon. Member, in endeavouring to discover extraordinary grievances, had moved for extraordinary returns. It was impossible for him to discover what object the hon. Member could have in view in endeavouring to obtain these returns; but they would expose to the world the private affairs of the Magistracy, which would not even be creditable to the Inquisition in Spain, still less to a British House of Commons. He certainly should oppose the Motion, as it was highly improper. What a situation would the House place
1196
many respectable persons in by ordering these returns! A man at some time might not have taken up a bill of exchange on its becoming due, or he might have been unable to pay his tailor immediately on demand, or any other trumpery debt: and, for this, was he to be dragged before the country? If a man had refused to pay a bill, was he to be pointed out in this paper as an insolvent? If there were a single man in the House who would divide on this question, he would be with him; but if he went out of the door alone, he would certainly oppose the Motion. In that House, and in most of the good society of England, there was an absence of this prying into the personal or private affairs of individuals, and a contempt for an inquiry whether any misfortune had befallen a man in his previous career in life. It was the duty of the House to abstain from such proceedings, and to discountenance such inquiries. Every rule of law or moral conduct was against adopting such a course; and every man must see the evils which would arise from such a proceeding. For that House to institute such an inquisition would be most dangerous; and he meant strenuously to resist the hon. Gentleman's Motion.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the hon. Member had asked him, before he proposed his Motion for the returns, whether there would be any objection to it; and he answered, that he was not aware of any; but he must add, that tins Motion differed from what he (Lord Althorp) expected it would be. It would not be desirable to drag the name of every Magistrate before the House who had been a bankrupt; and the hon. Member, he was sure, would not desire to attach a reproach to a man because he had been in pecuniary difficulties. Any information with respect to the Magistrates of Ireland, he should be happy to afford, but he did not think that these returns would be desirable. There was a great objection to making inquiries into the pecuniary circumstances of the Magistracy. The feeling of the House was decidedly hostile to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, and he therefore suggested to him the propriety of withdrawing it.
O'Gorman Mahonwould acquiesce, readily in the recommendation of the noble Lord; but he could not see any objection to making the returns. He was surprised at the language which had been used, and

1197
he could not allow the opportunity to pass without replying to the observations of some hon. and learned Gentlemen, who had been pleased to insinuate that he moved for these returns from some uncommon motive. He never thought there could be the least objection to giving returns respecting the conduct and character of public officers,—for such the Magistracy certainly were. As soon as a person was appointed to the commission of the peace, he became a public man, and must expect to have his views and conduct in public life strictly scrutinised. He had reason to believe that there were improper persons in the commission of the peace, and he wished to know whether it were the case or no. He did not understand exactly the language of the hon. member for Boroughbridge, (Sir C. Wetherell) nor the tone of lecturing which he adopted. Although the age of that hon. and learned Member might be a sufficient reason for his respecting him, it was not sufficient to make him put up with the strange language he had used. He utterly disclaimed the idea of making any attack on the Magistracy of Ireland; and the hon. and learned Member put language into his mouth which he never uttered. He had made no attack on the Magistracy of Ireland; and he appealed to the House, whether he did not say, that he had no intention of attacking that body. It was with a view of excluding from that respectable body the weeds which had crept in amongst it, that he proposed his Motion. His hon. friend, the member for Limerick, was completely mistaken in imagining that he wanted a thorough investigation into the affairs of all the Magistracy of Ireland. He stated, that they were respectable men—which was admitted; but he must complain of the language of the hon. Member; for though he did not know the character of the Magistracy in the county of Limerick, he did not think it stood quite so high as his hon. friend wished to place it. He certainly did know instances of not altogether proper conduct of Magistrates in his own neighbourhood, but he had not many opportunities of viewing their conduct, because he was no longer a Magistrate, having been superseded. Did his hon. friend forget the conduct of some late Magistrates in his own country? They determined to resist the popular prejudices on some points, feeling they might lead to disturbances of the public peace.
1198
But how did they proceed? Not in a common way, as other men would have done. Did his hon. friend recollect a round-robin which these gallant men signed, expressive of a determination to maintain the peace, which they were afraid to sign in the common mode? Did he forget, also, that, but a very few days ago, some of those very Magistrates were fined for improper conduct in a Court of Justice in Dublin? Did he forget that those Magistrates were brought before the tribunals of their country, and that the Court inflicted a heavy fine on them? His hon. friend, the member for the county of Limerick, could not have forgotten this. The strictest investigation should be made before a man was appointed to the commission of the peace; but he had no wish to drag the private transactions of private men before the House. He did not wish to exhibit a man to the country because he had been a bankrupt. But men had been appointed Magistrates in Ireland, who had been fraudulent bankrupts, more than once or twice. He repeated, he knew men in that situation who had been guilty of fraud; and it certainly did not appear to him that these were proper persons to be intrusted with the administration of justice. What would be the feelings of the peasant, carried before such a Magistrate, for being unable to pay 5s. The Magistrate, no doubt, would order him to pay, but what must the peasant think of seeing the Magistrate in the enjoyment of great wealth, after committing gross frauds, while he was sent to gaol if he could not pay the 5s.? Such persons ought not, he repeated, to be in the commission of the peace, if tranquillity was to be preserved. His hon. friend, the member for Wexford (Lord Valentia) said, that if the House assented to this Motion, it might be considered as a reflection on the conduct of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. He could not conceive how this could be the case, as he was not, perhaps, so likely to get at information of this sort as the House, of Commons, unless he listened to private whispers, which would be most pernicious. No man could entertain a higher opinion than he did of Sir Anthony Hart, and he believed that no man who ever presided in a Court of Justice was more divested of everything like political feeling. When he (O'Gorman Mahon) was an agitator, he removed him from the commission of the peace; it was by his orders that the

1199
supersedeas was issued; but he did not feel angry with him on that account, because he was satisfied that his conduct had been misrepresented to the Lord Chancellor. His countrymen thought, that he had suffered in consequence of his attachment to the public cause, and they wished to make a present to him to commemorate his humble public services, but he declined receiving this mark of esteem, out of respect to Sir Anthony Hart. He refused, because he did not wish his countrymen to believe that a political motive had influenced the conduct of that excellent Judge. He had not alluded to this before; but he could do so then fairly and openly, because Sir Anthony Hart was no longer in office. But to return to the subject of his Motion: he had no wish to drag all the Magistrates before the House, though he was desirous of finding out the improper persons amongst them. If, by pointing them out to the Lord Chancellor, so that they might not be re-appointed; if any Member would come forward manfully, and place his finger on the names of such persons, all the complaints against the Irish Magistracy would be removed. He certainly should have no objection to see the names of those gallant men who signed the round-robin to maintain the public peace, brought before the House; nor should he have any objection to see the names of those who were fined 500 l. the other day in the highest Court of Justice in Ireland, published. He could assure the hon. member for Boroughbridge, that if he was desirous of dividing, he would oblige him; he would come to the point, and allow him, if he pleased, to walk into the lobby. He had no wish to disagree with him—but the contrary; still he could not put up with the tone he used. He would tell the House, that if it were desirous of having peace and tranquillity in Ireland, it must make the administration of justice pure. One bad Magistrate did more to shake the confidence of the people in the purity of the administration of the laws than any ten good men could to establish it. He had no objection to adopt the recommendation of his noble friend, the member for Wexford, and his gallant friend, the member for the county of Limerick, to leave the matter to the investigation of the Lord Chancellor, who, he had no doubt, would do ample justice between the parties. With respect to the observations of the hon. member for Wareham(Mr. Cal-
1200
craft) that hon. Member was not justified in asking him what course he intended to pursue if the papers were granted and laid on the Table. His object was perfectly fair and open. He had no wish to insult or injure any of the Magistrates of Ireland; but he conceived that he was entitled to move for the production of any papers which were calculated to promote the welfare of that country, without having it insinuated that his wishes were improper. He had been a Magistrate himself, and he knew that there were persons in the commission of the peace who ought never to have been appointed; that bankrupts, and persons convicted of fraud, ought not to be on the Bench. There were others also who had neither wealth, education, nor character, to justify their appointment. For instance, he knew a small town in the southern part of Ireland, where there was a post-office at a little shop, and when a person wanted a letter, he had to tap at a window, which was opened, and the letter given out, and he paid his sixpence and received his twopence change. And by whom was this done—who was the keeper of this little post-office—who was the receiver of the fourpence? A person who was in the commission of the peace for an Irish county. What would any hon. Member say, if such was the case in this country,—would he not indignantly exclaim against it? He did not mean to say that the person he alluded to was not a respectable man in his way, but he conceived that no human being would assert that he was in a situation to administer justice to the people of Ireland. He had no wish to injure the feelings of any man, and he was, therefore, sorry that the discussion had taken such a turn; but if any hon. Member would lend his assistance to promote an improvement of the Irish Magistracy, by pointing out to the Lord Chancellor persons who were unfit to be Magistrates, he would perform a great service to Ireland.
Colonel O'Gradywished to say one or two words, in respect to what had fallen from the hon. Member. He could assure him that he never thought of charging him with having been actuated by an improper motive. He was, however, mistaken in one or two points, especially upon the subject of the Limerick Magistrates. He felt it his duty to state, that he knew no case—bearing out the assertions of the hon. Member; if he had, he should have

1201
felt it his duty not to have moved for the names of all the Magistrates, but to have mentioned those who had behaved improperly, and have founded ulterior proceedings upon the returns. The Magistrates of the county which he had the honour to represent had always conducted themselves in the fairest, most honourable, and most courageous manner.
Motion withdrawn.