§ Mr. Ruthvenmoved for a copy of the memorial presented to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, by William Murphy, of Mayo, complaining of very severe and illegal punishment inflicted upon him by order of certain Magistrates in that county, and of the official correspondence which that memorial had occasioned. His object was, to bring under the notice of Parliament the very oppressive conduct of those Magistrates—particularly of the reverend Mr. Stoney—towards the memorialist, which was too true a comment upon the memorable declaration of Lord Redesdale, that, in Ireland, there was one law for the rich, and another for the poor. On the 13th of December last, a man was brought before the Magistrates charged with stealing turf, on which occasion Murphy, who was a respectable farmer, made use of some strong expressions relative to the conduct of the reverend gentleman already mentioned. This excited the anger of the Magistrates, who ordered him to be twice confined in the public stocks, under circumstances of unnecessary violence and severity, for the offence of "insolence towards the reverend Mr. Stoney;" that insolence amounting to reprobating that reverend Magistrate's zeal in the exaction of his tithes. Not content with thus twice inflicting upon Murphy the punishment of the stocks, the reverend gentleman compelled the prisoner to carry the stocks himself from the place of his confinement to that in which they were usually kept, and his cruelty was abetted by his brother Magistrates.
Mr. Stanleywas free to admit, that, on inquiry by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, into the circumstances of Murphy's case, that noble and learned person declared, in an official communication to the Lord Lieutenant of the county of Mayo, that the conduct of the Magistrates was "intemperate and highly indiscreet." He, 1270 however, did not think it so culpable as to induce him to deprive those gentlemen of the commission of the peace; and, therefore, left it to the Marquis of Sligo, the Lord Lieutenant of Mayo, to formally reprimand them for their misconduct. He could not sit down without observing that it appeared to him, that the circumstance now under consideration afforded a sufficient proof of the excellence of the plan by which Lord Lieutenants were established in the counties of Ireland, and the advantage of having a resident person of high trust to mediate between the Lord Chancellor and the Magistrates.
Colonel Conollybelieved that the Lords Lieutenant of Counties' Act would have been highly beneficial, if it had been carried into effect in the manner contemplated by the House, when it gave that Bill its sanction, namely, by resident Lord Lieutenants being appointed, but, in several counties, the persons appointed to that office were not residents, and, in others, they were only to be reached by passing through the whole extent of the county. He was ready to admit, however, these remarks, did not apply to the Lord Lieutenant of Mayo, who had acted with great propriety on the Motion then before the House.
Mr. John Brownebegged to assure the House, that the noble Marquis, the Lord Lieutenant of Mayo, was most anxious that every inquiry should be made into the transaction. The difficulty, so far as his noble friend was concerned, arose from his intimacy with the parties, but that did not prevent him from executing his duty for a moment. While he was on his legs, he begged leave to say, that he considered the stocks to be a mode of punishment unsuited to the present age, and, that he much wished to see them abolished.
§ Mr. Cramptonsaid, that, although a Lord Lieutenant of a county had no direct authority to dismiss a Magistrate, nor even to institute a regular inquiry into his conduct, that alone being the privilege of the Lord Chancellor, yet there could be no doubt, that if any case of oppression was represented to him, it was his duty to make the same known to the Lord Chancellor, with whose concurrence the Magistrate could be dismissed.
Mr. Goulburncould not concur in the opinions of the Solicitor General for Ireland, that a Lord Lieutenant had power to dismiss a Magistrate from the Commission.
§ Mr. Cramptonexplained, that he had not said that such power was vested in the Lord Lieutenant of a county by virtue of his office, but that his recommendation of such a course would induce the Lord Chancellor to strike a Magistrate out of the Commission.
§ Mr. Joneshad no doubt that, as sometimes occurred even in London in the haste of business, a Magistrate might unintentionally make an illegal decision in Ireland also, and perhaps, that was the case in the instance now complained of. But he thought the matter out of which the Motion arose was too trivial for the attention of the House.
§ Mr. Huntapproved highly of the conduct of the Lord Lieutenant of the county of Mayo, in calling the Magistrates to an account for their illegal and oppressive conduct. He wished to see the same course taken when a poor man in England was oppressed by a Magistrate, which was a thing of no rare occurrence. People talked of the trial by Jury—not bearing in mind how often that was superseded in the case of poor men, who were liable to be sent to prison at the will of Magistrates for trivial offences. [Hear, hear.] Gentlemen might say "hear, hear!" but he repeated that poor people were sent to the treadmill continually for three months without trial. [Laughter.] Gentlemen might laugh. But it was a thing that was done ever-lastingly by the Magistrates. Surely there was no person in that House who did not know that such things were constantly occurring; and, when poor men suffered such treatment unlawfully, then they were told by that House, that the Courts at Westminster were open to them.
Major Macnamarasaid, that his noble friend the Lord Lieutenant of the county of Mayo was the last person whom he should suspect of committing any act of severity or oppression. At the same time, he entirely dissented from the statements of his hon. friend the member for Mayo, that the appointment of Lieutenants of counties would tranquilize Ireland, as it was in vain to expect peace in that country until tithes were extinguished.
§ Mr. Ruthvensaid, he must express satisfaction at what had been stated by the right hon. Secretary. But he could not say so much with respect to the remark of the hon. and gallant Officer who had treated the illegal confinement of a respectable man by the Magistrates, as an affair 1272 of a trifling nature; so different was his opinion that he thought the case was one which fully justified him in bringing it under the notice of Parliament; but he would not, after what had transpired, press his Motion.
§ Motion withdrawn.