Colonel Perceval,in rising, pursuant to notice, to call for Papers relating to the Magistracy in the county of Sligo, said, he regretted that his Majesty's Government had not thought it proper to bring in a short bill to do away with the exaction of illegal fees upon issuing the new Commissions of the Peace to the Irish Magistracy who felt, and properly felt disgusted at the manner in which they had been treated by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. In any remarks he might make, he distinctly disclaimed casting any imputation on the private character of that high officer. He 34 had not the honour of knowing him, but he believed him in private life to be a man of the most amiable disposition, which was evinced by the zeal and industry which he had so successfully exerted to provide for his family. It appeared, by a return which had been placed upon the Table, in compliance with a motion made by the right hon. member for Harwich, that the number of warrants prepared by the Secretary of the Lord Chancellor, for Commissions of Justice of the Peace, from the 1st of January 1831, to the 21st of January 1832, was 256 of which number 219 were Commissions for Magistrates called to the Bench for the first time, thirty-two for general warrants to counties, and five general warrants to cities and towns. By the Act of the 4th George 4th, the Lord Chancellor's Secretaries were allowed to take fees upon the issue of new Commissions only to the amount of 2l. 5s. 6d.; 256 warrants had been issued, but of these only thirty seven could be properly considered as new, and upon the old no such fee was payable. The Secretaries of the Chancellor were only legally entitled to one fee on each general warrant, and half that amount on a renewal; or if they took more, they were liable to a penalty of 100l. for each offence. But, in despite of the Act of Parliament, the Secretaries received fees to the amount of 1,190l. Even if the whole fee of 2l. 5s. 6d. on each, of 256 warrants which were issued, were charged, it could not amount to much more than 500l. By the Act introduced by the hon. member for Middlesex, with the intention of abolishing all fees on the renewals of Commissions, warrants, &c, it was very properly enacted, that compensation should only be made in proportion to the labour performed. He would therefore, ask, whether filling up such a printed dedimus as he now held in his hand, with the name of a Magistrate, entitled the Lord Chancellor's Secretary to demand a fee to such an extent?
Mr. Stanley—But that is not the point which is the subject of the hon. Gentleman's complaint. The fee was demanded on the warrant, not on the dedimus.
Colonel Perceval—But where was the necessity of making out a separate warrant for each Magistrate; each warrant contained the name of all the Magistrates in the county, so that if by any accident the name of any Magistrate was left out, it acted as a supersedeas of that Magistrate. 35 He further desired to know, whether the Secretary of the Chancellor was entitled to demand a fee when the Commission of the Peace was absolutely offered to a Gentleman, or when it was to be renewed for an experienced Magistrate? In the present state of Ireland, that country should not be left without a Magistracy who had always protected the lives and properties of his Majesty's subjects; but this exaction, which was sanctioned by the Government, had the effect of depriving many parts of Ireland of a local Magistracy, and it was only this day he received a letter stating that his laundry was robbed, and no Magistrate was to be found near his residence to whom application could be made for directing the police to trace the offenders. Nor were such circumstances confined to his neighbourhood alone, and he felt that he had strong reason to complain of the partiality as well as the injustice which had been practised towards the Irish Magistracy by his Majesty's Government. The hon. Member concluded by moving for a copy of any general warrant issued for a Magistrate in Sligo since the 21st of January, 1831, and of the dedimuses issued under them, to the same period, and the number of separate warrants, if any, made out since the said 1st of January, 1831, for any Justice of the Peace for the said county appointed previously to the reign of his present Majesty.
Sir Robert Batesonseconded the Motion, and observed that the effect of the illegal fees sought to be extorted from Gentlemen in the Commission of the Peace for the renewal of their warrants had left many parts of Ireland without the aid of a Magistracy. The police and soldiery had orders from the Government not to act without the order of the Magistrates; and in the late disturbances at Inishowen the greatest disorders were with difficulty put down. Why had not the Government acted upon the same system throughout Ireland in the appointment of the Magistrates, and given equally early intelligence to all of such appointments? Some counties had early notice, others had none; and the result was, as he had stated, that many places were left without the protection of a Magistrate to enforce the laws.
Mr. Stanleyhad no objection to the production of the document moved for, but must protest against that insidious mode of attack on the Administration of 36 Lord Plunkett. Why did not the party —the exclusively loyal party, to believe themselves (of which the mover and seconder of the present Motion were such zealous members)—boldly impugn Lord Plunkett's exercise of the duties of his office, and not thus covertly attempt to insinuate what they knew they could not prove? The noble and learned Lord was then in town, ready to meet, in his place in Parliament, all his covert and open enemies. The hon. Gentleman regretted that he (Mr. Stanley) had not brought in a bill to regulate these fees, but, in answer to that charge, he must remind the hon. Gentleman, that their regulation did not appertain to his office, but to that of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and the Treasury, his department merely serving as the channel of communication between the two. As far as he could ascertain, however, no fees had been charged upon the issue of warrants, which were not legal. A minute of Treasury had been made on the subject, and the circumstance would be brought under the notice of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. He did not know that he could feel much sympathy for the robbery of the hon. Gentleman's (Col. Perceval's) laundry, for it must have been poor indeed if it could not have afforded some gentleman in the neighbourhood 2l. 13s. 6d. for a warrant, which would have enabled him to protect it. These exclusively loyal gentlemen, who wished to have the preservation of the peace in their own hands, did not set a very good example to the peasantry in resisting the payment of that which the law prescribed—nor would they elevate their characters while embarrassing the Government by refusing to act as Magistrates in their own districts. He admitted the inconvenience which was felt at Inishowen in consequence of gentlemen refusing to pay for their commissions; but that was remedied by sending a military force to the spot, and giving commissions to the principal officers in command. No general circular had been issued to gentlemen recommended for the commission of the peace, although a circular was issued to the Lieutenants of counties for other purposes, and therefore all the Magistrates could not get a notice which had not been sent to any of them. No such previousintimation was necessary to be sent, for the Act of Parliament positively fixed the period within which the new commissions should be issued. Another complaint 37 was, that the commissions of the peace were not issued at the same time, but it must be allowed, that the letter from the Lord Chancellor to the hon. Member (Colonel Perceval) must have come in opportunely, when it was received upon the day on which a great Anti-reform meeting was held, if Anti-reform it could be candidly and fairly called, but no riot occurred, and if any had taken place, the police were at hand, and ready to act, as occasion might require, under the direction of the High Sheriff. The reasons, however, of the Commissions being issued at various times, was, that the Secretary of the Lord Chancellor filled them up as he received the returns from the Lords Lieutenants of the respective counties. As to the precise or legal amount of the fees complained of, he gave no opinion; but this he could say, that not one shilling of their amount ever reached the pocket of the Lord Chancellor. His Majesty's Government had certainly written to the Lord Lieutenants not to place clergymen in the Commission unless in districts where equally competent persons were not to be found, for such districts the Government well knew existed; and in doing so, he did not see that the Government was to blame. It was an inconvenience to charge Irish Magistrates larger fees than English Magistrates; but such had been the law since 1760, and while the law said such fees must, be paid, it ill became the Magistrates so violently to resist. They were not setting a very good example to the people, of whom their complaint was, that they would not obey the law. The peasantry in Ireland were in many places now resisting the payment of tithes, because they believed them to be upon a wrong principle. Such was the conduct of these poor deluded people; such conduct was to be deprecated, and yet those other persons, who considered themselves exclusively loyal, resisted the law, because they thought the principle on which it was founded, to be unjust. If, however, the objectionable fees could be diminished, he, for one, would not object to it.
Colonel Conollyrose to express his hearty concurrence in what had fallen from his hon. friend (the member for Sligo), and to make some observations on what had escaped the right hon. Secretary for Ireland. As to the fees demanded on issuing the commission of the peace, he could not consider them as otherwise than 38 unjust, when he knew that a Magistrate in England paid only either 5s. or 2s. 6d. for his dedimus, and that a Magistrate in Ireland, where so many were called on by a sense of duty to act, and did it with reluctance, where many clergymen (as was just stated by the right hon. Secretary) were called to fulfil the functions of the Magistracy from the want of country gentlemen, that these persons of limited means should be called upon to pay fees because they contributed their gratuitous services to the administration of the laws. It did appear to him that this was at once grievous and unjust. He thought that the Act of Parliament had given a power to the Treasury to name the amount sufficient to remunerate the public officer for his trouble, but the Treasury had given a great deal more than was necessary, and more than the Legislature intended. The Magistrates were under the impression that they were exempted from future payments by Mr. Ponsonby's Act, which had for its object the relief of Magistrates from all future charges. He, therefore, called on the Treasury either to diminish the allowance made to the Chancellor's Secretary, or to bring in a bill, if it was necessary, to relieve the Magistrates from the present unreasonable charge. But though he joined most heartily in deprecating the demand at present made, he would seize the opportunity of stating, that the Magistracy had long been suffering under a sense of neglect and want of support from the Government, and this imposition had only served to ignite an ember which had long been approaching to a flame. The right hon. Secretary had indulged, in very unmeasured terms, as to the Magistracy of Ireland, and he begged leave to state, that he had pronounced a censure at once indiscriminate and unjust. He had recently taken occasion to represent to the right hon. Gentleman that the Magistracy had not been supported in the execution of their duty, and had for some time had reason to complain of his Majesty's Government. The Magistrates were not sustained as they ought to be, and the laws were not enforced in consequence. They expressed a very general dissatisfaction with the mode in which they were treated. They complained that, by the police regulations not being established by Act of Parliament, in three provinces the police were no longer submitted to their orders, or subject to their control. He had pointed 39 out these facts to the right hot). Secretary; he had been near twenty years a Magistrate (for he was no longer one, not having paid for his dedimus), but he knew that the police, instead of executing the orders of the Magistrates, had assumed a censorship of their actions, and scrutinized their warrants and public documents; that, in fact, they arrogated to themselves a right of judging of the conduct of those whose orders it was their first duty to obey. These were the causes that contributed to the general inclination to throw up the commission of the peace on the first opportunity. But the right hon. Secretary had described the Magistracy as acting in a confederacy to resist the laws, which they condemned in the tithe combination. He must beg leave to state, that that was not the case. In the county of Donegal, to which the hon. Secretary had alluded, he was present at a meeting of Magistrates on the subject of these fees, and they agreed that though they must object in the strongest manner to the exaction, they would not be so wanting to their public duty as to allow the county to remain without a Magistracy; and though they considered the demand as illegal and unjust, they would nevertheless pay it, protesting against it. Was it then just or fair for the right hon. Secretary to censure a body of men, than whom none were so well entitled to the public gratitude, and deserving of the public support? A body of men who, at great personal risk, at considerable fatigue and danger, devoted themselves gratuitously to the service of their country, should not be thus condemned by the Government; and he here called on this branch of the Legislature not to listen to these calumnies, but to lend all their protection to a class of persons who highly merited their favour and consideration. But he would go further, and state, that this disregard of the Magistracy had produced an impression among the ignorant and deluded peasantry of Ireland that the Ministry were not averse to the tumultuous and disorderly proceedings which now disgraced the country. As the right hon. Secretary had made allusion to an Anti-reform meeting, he would tell the House he had heard the multitude say, "They were no longer Magistrates—we are just as good Magistrates as you are." And he was fully convinced that the greater part of the populace in Ireland were, as he had told the right hon. Secretary a few 40 days ago, thoroughly convinced that any resistance to an Anti-reform meeting was not unacceptable to the Government.
Mr. Stanleyin explanation, said, that the course which the Magistrates in general ought to have pursued, was to act as the Donegal Magistrates had done—first pay the fees, and then remonstrate against the legality of the charge. The Magistrates complained of the lawless state of the country. Why, they might have put themselves in the situation of removing that state, by the payment of the sum of 2l. 13s. 6d. The hon. Member had stated in the House what had passed in the interview between that hon. Member and himself. The hon. Member then stated, that the Magistrates did not receive the support of the Government now, as they had done before. Now, in answer to that assertion, he had only to observe, that the same instructions had been sent out to the police by the present, as by the former Government, and not one single word of those instructions, had been altered.
Sir Robert Batesonsaid, that he had understood something which fell from the right hon. Secretary to impute to him personal motives. He disclaimed, in the strongest language the forms of the House permitted, having ever allowed personal feelings to interfere with his public duties. He would never allow any one, even with the authority of the right hon. Gentleman, to make such an accusation against him without rejecting it in the strongest terms.
§ Lord Althorpwished to state the course which the Treasury had pursued on the present occasion. Application having been made from Ireland to ascertain what fees ought to be charged, the answer returned, pursuant to a former minute of the Treasury, was, half of the whole fee; since then the Treasury had passed another minute, which had been transmitted to the Lord Chancellor for Ireland as a guide to his proceedings.
Mr. Sheilremarked on the evident inconsistency which existed between hon. Members on the subject. One hon. Member had not taken out his commission on account of these fees. He should like to ask that hon. Member, whether he was a Magistrate at the time of the death of George 3rd? [Colonel Conolly: I was.] What then was the fee which the hon. Member had paid on the renewal of his commission? [None.] At least, then, the hon. Member could not deny that this 41 fee was legal, for it was imposed by Act of Parliament. If it was legal, it should have been paid; and if it was illegal, still it should have been paid, though under a protest, and a complaint to Parliament would at once have redressed the illegality. He must beg to express his full concurrence with the comparison which had been drawn by the right hon. Secretary for Ireland between the resistance to the payment of these fees, and the resistance to the payment of tithes. Irish Members might, on any subject affecting Ireland, argue with too much warmth, but he called on those who were not affected by the same cause, to say whether those men were not blameable for those disasters— those men whose situations placed them above temptation, whether they were not one thousand times more blameable for the existence of conspiracies and agitation than those who, to save themselves from poverty and distress, had had recourse to similar means of resistance?
Colonel Conollysaid, that he had entered into no combination of the sort in the county with which he was more particularly connected, for he was at variance with all the Magistrates of the county. He had only declined to take out his commission, in order that he might wait to see what was done.
§ Mr. Shawsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had in his speech afforded no information on this subject, but had indulged in personal reproach. He would, however, dismiss all personal considerations, as regarded both the Government and the Magistrates, for they could not decide the real question before the House, which was, whether or not the fee charged by the Secretary of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, was justified in law; and upon this point he at once joined issue with the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Sheil), and would declare that it was not. The 1st William 4th, c. 43, abolished all fees chargeable on the renewal of commissions on the demise of the Crown; but the second section of that Act, provided, that all necessary labour in the preparation of such commission, should be paid for at a rate to be fixed by the Commissioners of his Majesty's Treasury. Nothing could justify any charge under this Act, except its necessity. If, therefore, the separate warrant charged for in the case of Magistrates who had been appointed previous to the reign of his present Majes- 42 ty, was unnecessary, it followed that it was illegal. Now, the Act of 1st George 3rd, c. 13, referred to on a former occasion by the right hon. Gentleman, only proved that no new dedimus need be issued in England, for again administering the usual oaths to those justices who had once taken them; but what the Irish Magistrates objected to was, not paying whatever might be the value of the labour done in preparing the new dedimus, but the fees upon a separate warrant. It was said, that separate warrants were necessary in Ire land; but no proof was given of it, not could there be any evidence of what the practice had been since the year 1760, the 1st of George the 3rd, and then no such Act as the 1st William 4th, c. 43, existed. Since the passing of that Act, the 1st and 2nd William 4th, c. 2, taken with the 1st William 4th, c. 6, had provided that commissions, which otherwise would have expired six months after the late King's death, should continue in force till one fortnight after the commencement of the present Session of Parliament; and in the meantime, Lord Lieutenants of counties were appointed in Ireland, similar to the English practice; but he was not driven to argue, upon principle or by inference, that a general warrant for each county was sufficient, for, by the return made to this House, by the Lord Chancellor's Secretary, it appeared that thirty-two such general warrants had, in point of fact, issued to the thirty-two counties in Ireland. These thirty-two general warrants were a full and sufficient authority for the issue of the dedimuses to swear the several Magistrates who had been in the commission of the peace previous to the present reign; and it would appear, from the printed return on the Table of the House, that the dedimuses for swearing them had issued upon the general warrants. It did not, however, signify whether separate warrants had actually issued or not; the only difference being, that if they had, they were only used as a colour or pretext for the exaction of a fee; and, if they had not, the exaction took place without even a pretext o sustain it. The distinction upon the second section of the 1st William 4th, c. 43, was important. It did not create any duty, but merely allowed a remuneration in the shape of a quantum meruit to be made to the Ministerial officer, who should perform any duty absolutely necessary in the preparation of a 43 warrant. If, then, the general warrant authorized the issue of the dedimus, which it clearly did, the charge upon a separate warrant was not sanctioned by the provision of the Act. He understood, and believed, that the Magistrates had been told, that if they did not take out these warrants, others could be found who would do the duty of Stipendiary Magistrates. When that threat was held out by the Government, they did not know the value of the services of the present Magistracy, of whom he would fearlessly assert, that as they were unpaid, they were unpurchaseable.
§ Mr. Cramptonsaid, that the question really was nothing more than a question between certain Magistrates of Ireland, and certain officers of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, as to the payment of 2l. 13s. 6d., to which the hon. member for Sligo and Donegal contended was not legal. The hon. and learned Gentleman, the member for Dublin, whose opinion on the question was of more weight, had not gone quite so far. He had only put the question on the narrow ground of the necessity of issuing a separate warrant for each Magistrate. Such warrants had been from time immemorial used, and the fees charged upon them were perfectly legal and recoverable in any Court of Law.
§ Sir Edward Sugdenhad heard with very great regret the argument of the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, as being calculated to set one of the most intelligent and respectable bodies in the country at variance with the Government. It was, at the same time, amusing enough to hear how the question was met on the other side. The argument was this:—"The fees are legal, because we say so, and therefore you must pay them." And then it was said, that the Magistrates had entered into a combination against the law, and warranted, by their example, the combinations of the peasantry against the payment of tithes. He had never in his life before, in an assembly of Gentlemen, heard of such a mode of discussing a question which could at all be considered debateable. The only question for the House to determine was, whether the fees were illegal or not. They had only been refused upon the ground that they were illegal, and the Motion called for information upon which the House was to be enabled to judge of the fact. The Magistrates had come, and as he thought very properly, to that House to ask whe 44 ther the Lord Chancellor had the power or should be allowed to exact fees which they believed the law did not warrant. As to the Lord Chancellor not being interested in the matter, why the office of his Secretary the emoluments of which were in question, was the best in his gift, and the income did not amount to less than 2,000l. a-year. Was he not interested in keeping up that income? He thought the Magistrates of Ireland had done quite right in coming to that House to complain of having a fee to pay of 2l. 12s. 6d., while the English Magistrates paid only 2s. 6d.
§ Mr. Ruthvencomplained of the attacks that had been made on the Magistracy of Ireland; and he especially objected to the sweeping condemnation of the alleged combination of the Magistracy not to pay illegal demands; he had not yet paid his fees; but that had entirely arisen from accident, and he therefore had a right to complain.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the question was, whether this was an exaction or not, and he as a lawyer was bound to declare that it was. There was no necessity for a new commission. He conjured the English part of the Administration to turn common sense and common justice towards Ireland, and not to allow either orange or green, or any party whatever, to be pilfered in so irritating and contemptible a manner. The whole country was insulted for the benefit of some subaltern officers of a Court.
Colonel Percevalreplied, he had made the Motion upon principle, and not from petty or party views; and he would neither be put down by the taunts of the right hon. Secretary, nor by any other means. He denied that there was any combination amongst the Magistrates of Sligo. Those Magistrates believed the fee to be illegal, and they would not submit to exaction. A Minister of the Crown had no right to impute personal and improper motives to him, and the conduct of the right hon. Secretary for Ireland was altogether unjustifiable, especially after an explanation which he had given to that right hon. Gentleman in the lobby of the House. It was well to say the police were properly instructed. If the police were to remain in the barracks, how were they to preserve the peace? He contended that the whole of his statement was unshaken, and that it was built upon irrefragable documents, which were perfectly open for the inspec- 45 tion of the right lion. Secretary for Ireland.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Mr. Crokersaid, in order to have a proper understanding of the question, he begged leave to move for the date of the new general warrant for each county in Ireland, and the date of the letter from the Lord Chancellor to the Magistrates of the respective counties, announcing his intention to issue such general warrant.
Mr. Stanleyhad no objection to the return, but he thought that part of it which referred to the letter was not rightly worded.
§ Mr. Crokerunderstood the letter was written so as to arrive in the county on the very day on which the warrants expired; and if so, it was an important fact.
§ Motion agreed to.