HC Deb 11 July 1864 vol 176 c1340

said, he rose to call attention to the proceedings of Government in the case of James Hoey, convicted of offences against the Revenue Laws. Hoey was convicted of the offence in February, and convicted in the penalty of £50, or twelvemonths' imprisonment in default of payment. On the 14th of June he memorialized the Government for a mitigation of the sentence. On the 17th of the same month the matter was referred by General Larcom, the permanent Under Secretary for Ireland, to Sir Henry Brownrigg, the Inspector General of Constabulary, who reported, and added to his report a recommendation that the sentence ought to be mitigated to a much smaller penalty or a term of imprisonment. What the committing magistrate complained of was, that the authority of the police should override that of the Judge, for the Government had acted on the recommendation of the Inspector General, without any reference to the committing magistrate, This was one case illustrative of a general system.


said, that nothing unusual had been done. There was no intention of setting aside the authority of the magistracy in Ireland, but in this case the mitigation of sentence had taken place because the Inspector General had reported that the man had not the money to pay the heavier fine.


had no doubt that Sir Henry Brownrigg had given correct advice; but the committing magistrate and his hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Archdall) complained, not because the case was an unusual, but because it was a usual one.

Main Question put, and agreed to.