Mr. O'Connellhad stated on Friday, that there was a rumour prevalent in Ireland, that a person named Dundas had been improperly appointed to the office of stipendiary magistrate in the colonies. A person of that name, and he understood the person now appointed to an office in the colonies, had been charged with peculation to a large amount, in the supply of certain articles 1000 to the yeomanry of Leinster; he absconded previously to an investigation of the subject; and it was discovered, that the vouchers for his accounts were forgeries, and that he had supported them by perjury, having sworn a false affidavit. Directions were given by the Irish Government to sift the forgery and perjury; but Dundas absconded, and nothing further was heard of him till this rumour of his appointment as a colonial stipendiary magistrate. It was but justice to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Stanley) to state, that he had never heard before Friday last of those charges against Dundas, and that his attention being directed to the subject, the right hon. Gentleman immediately investigated it, and communicated to him on Saturday, that he had traced out Dundas, verified the charge, and immediately cancelled his appointment. It was clear, that the right hon. Gentleman was entirely ignorant of the character of Dundas, but it was equally clear, that a gross imposition had been practised on the public service in representing Dundas as a person fit to be appointed to a situation of responsibility, requiring not only intelligence but good character. He should be glad to ascertain from the right hon. Gentleman when the appointment took place, and through whom it was made, particularly if the recommendation proceeded from Ireland? Next, he should like to know whether the party, at whose instance Dundas was appointed, might not be called to account? and, lastly, whether it was the intention of Government to proceed against Dundas on the old charge?
Mr. Stanleysaid, that this subject had first been brought under his attention on Friday, when the hon. and learned member for Dublin asked if he had appointed a person of the name of Dumas, or Dundas, from the constabulary force in Ireland to the office of colonial stipendiary magistrate; adding that such a person had been dismissed for peculation from the Irish constabulary. The name of Dumas being rather remarkable, and there being one or two persons of that name in Armagh, he had answered that, to the best of his belief, no person had been appointed a colonial magistrate who had served in the police force, either in England or Ireland, and that he would not knowingly appoint any one who had been guilty of such offences as those laid to the charge of the 1001 individual in question. On Saturday he investigated the matter, and learned, to his great surprise, that a person named Dundas, lately appointed by him a colonial magistrate, on recommendations proceeding from a quarter on which he placed the utmost reliance, and in which he had supposed there could be no ignorance of the necessary facts (although he now believed that, in this instance, such; ignorance did exist), he found that this Mr. Dundas had acted in a very discreditable manner in the year 1827 (three years before he, Mr. Stanley, became officially connected with Ireland). Having inquired into the subject, and satisfied himself that the transaction referred to was of a discreditable nature, and that this individual was the person engaged in it, he immediately rescinded the appointment, and communicated to the learned Gentleman that he had done so. In answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's inquiry as to the time at which the appointment took place, he begged to state, that the promise to make the appointment was given two or three months ago, but the actual appointment was not made until within a few days. He wished, also, to observe, that no salary-could be received by any officer appointed under the act of last Session, before he reached his destination, and he believed the individual alluded to had not yet sailed from this country. However, whether he had sailed or not, orders had been given to revoke the appointment, for it was his duty to take care that the country should not, by any lapse of his, be put to any needless expense. He trusted that the House would not call upon him to name the person on whose recommendation the appointment in question had been made, because he could not give that information without being guilty of an unjustifiable breach of confidence. He had, however, great satisfaction in informing the hon. and learned Gentleman, that the recommendation did not come from Ireland or from any Irishman. He must add, that it was not the intention of Government to take any steps with a view to punish the gentleman from whom the recommendation proceeded, because they believed him to be entirely ignorant of the facts of the case, and they were not aware that any steps could be taken against him. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated, that 1002 the individual to whom he alluded was a fugitive from justice, and wished to know whether it was the intention of Government to institute any proceedings against him. He certainly did not think it was the duty of Government to become criminal prosecutors in the case, particularly as it was in the power of any person who might have been defrauded by Mr. Dundas to bring him to justice. The gentleman who recommended him to the notice of the Government, knowing him to be in distressed circumstances, had been in the habit of allowing him a regular annuity, which he intimated his intention of continuing, whether Mr. Dundas obtained the appointment or not. It would, therefore, appear clear to the House, that that gentleman, of whose entire respectability he (Mr. Stanley) had every reason to be satisfied, did not make the application to Government in order to be relieved from any charge imposed on himself. He (Mr. Stanley) bad now stated plainly and simply all that occurred; he might be open to censure for not having previously inquired into all the circumstances of the case; but he had lost no time in rectifying the error which he had involuntarily committed, by cancelling the appointment before any inconvenience or injury was sustained by the public service.
Mr. O'Connellwas perfectly satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, which had met with the entire approbation of the House; but he begged to remind the right hon. Gentleman, that the offence committed by Mr. Dundas was an offence committed against Government, and not against an individual. He had forged receipts of the payment of the tolls on Wexford-bridge, for the passage of the Police, and he had, in various ways, put 6,000l., or 8,000l., at least, of the public money into his own pocket. This was a case which should be taken up by Government, and ought not to be left to the prosecution of private individuals.
§ The House then went into a Committee of Supply.