POLICE (IRELAND). (Hansard, 28 July 1845)

§ Viscount Clements
moved— The consideration of the petitions of John Connif, E. Kirwan, Robert Clegg, and Joseph Boyd, formerly in the Irish police; and further, to recommend some change being made in the regulations of that body. The noble Lord complained of the system of quartering whole families on the public, by putting them into the police force, and also of the mode in which the pensions and superannuation fund were managed. The stipendiary magistrates received the largest sums as superannuation allowances in proportion to what they paid to the latter fund, whilst the privates who paid most, received the least. He thought it was altogether improper to mix up the magistracy and the police, and he could not understand the principle on which the superannuation allowances to the magistrates were regulated. The Government had been much abused for the appointment of Major Priestly as Deputy Inspector of Police; but he (Lord Clements) was happy to compliment them on that step, which he believed to be a wise one.

§ Sir T. Fremantle
said, the charge was not of such a serious nature as to need a minute defence, and therefore, he should not enter on the question at any length. He reminded the noble Lord that it was the practice of the army for superior officers to try inferior, and it was sanctioned in the police by Act of Parliament. It was creditable to the management of Colonel M'Gregor, that the noble Lord 1161 could bring no stronger charges against the police than those he had made on this occasion. He (Sir T. Fremantle) regretted the dismissal of some of these persons, because he knew that three of them were men of good character; but with respect to Boyd's case, that individual had stated, that he had applied to Lord Clements, because he understood that he could procure him a pension. Boyd, however, had had the full gratuity allowed by law previously, and so likewise had the others in question. The noble Lord had complained, that the sons of officers were appointed to situations in the constabulary; but he (Sir T. Fremantle) thought that was a fact for which the Government should be praised rather than blamed, as they thus rewarded old and deserving men, who had served their country. With respect to the non-receipt of rewards for the apprehension of offenders, it arose from the great difficulty in determining the right claimant. The noble Lord had referred to the evidence of Colonel M'Gregor; but he was bound to say, that Colonel M'Gregor had the confidence of his superiors, and that he eminently deserved it. In regard to the military character of the police in Ireland, he should be very glad that they could go about without arms; but the state of the country rendered it impossible. Under these circumstances he could not agree to the Motion.

§ Mr. Sheil
wished to ask a question respecting the distribution of the patronage over this force. Under the late Government, Colonel M'Gregor had appointed, he believed, two in three of the vacancies in the chief constables.

§ Sir T. Fremantle
No, one in three.

§ Mr. Sheil
wished to ask what was the course now pursued, and whether the recommendation of Colonel M'Gregor was not considered almost conclusive?

§ Sir T. Fremantle
said, that no change had been made by the present Government with reference to those appointments. All the inferior posts were placed at Colonel M'Gregor's disposal, and of the superior officers two out of three belonged to the Lord Lieutenant, and a great many were given to the sons of officers. The third belonged to Colonel M'Gregor, to promote such officers as he considered entitled to promotion.