§ MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What course the Irish Executive meant to adopt with regard to persons who, being either Justices of the Peace in Ireland, or persons employed in offices of profit in the public service of that country, have publicly identified themselves, or may publicly identify themselves, hereafter, with the course of conduct by which Lord Rossmore has incurred removal from the Commission of the Peace; and, whether the Irish Executive are determined to proceed according to the spirit and terms of the letter addressed on the 24th of November last 192 by the Lords Commissioners for the custody of the Great Seal of Ireland to Lord Rossmore, dismissing him from the Commission of the Peace, and of a further letter addressed, on the 17th December' last, to Sir John Leslie, J.P., by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland?
§ MR. GIBSONBefore the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, I would like to ask if he is aware that addresses, signed by magistrates, deputy lieutenants of counties, and others, have been signed without any regard to Party; and that many of them have been signed by gentlemen who are not Orangemen or Conservatives—amongst others Lord Fitzwilliam and Lord Meath have signed. I have also to ask him if he has seen a published letter from Lord Dartrey, Lord Lieutenant of the county, who originally appointed Lord Rossmore, in which the following occurs:—
The addresses to you from this county have all emanated from the Orange Body, of which I am not a member. It would have been inconsistent, therefore, for me to sign. But, lost my silence might be misconstrued, I must state that no one feels more strongly about the treatment which you have received from the Commissioners of the Great Seal, who, without even inquiry as to whether the charge could be substantiated, have deprived you of the Commission of the Peace. One would have expected that the addresses would have been welcomed by the Government, as I know they were signed by all Loyalists and numbers of loyal Roman Catholics. I am glad to see that the whole question is to be brought, as soon as possible, under the consideration of Parliament.
§ MR. TREVELYANIn answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I have to say I am aware that several noblemen and gentlemen belonging to the Liberal Party have signed the addresses referred to, but I cannot admit that those addresses are totally unconnected with Party. The letter of Lord Dartrey, I admit, was written, and that it contained all that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has read. It would be improper for me, now, to make remarks upon that letter in reply to this Question; but I wish that Lord Dartrey were here that I might answer in detail. In reply to the Question of the hon. Member for the County of Sligo, I have to say that it rests with the Lord Chancellor, as head of the Judicial Body in Ireland, to deal with the conduct of magistrates; but the Executive Government fully concur with the views on this subject, stated in the letters referred to, 193 and have already expressed such concurrence in a letter to Lord Lanesborough, the Lord Lieutenant of County Cavan, a letter which I shall be very glad to show to the hon. Member, or to any other hon. Gentleman, who would like to see it. I shall be very glad if Lord Lanesborough can see his way to allow it to be published in the papers. With regard to persons holding office under the Crown, His Excellency will consider each case that may arise on its merits. With regard to the latter part of the Question, there is a material difference between a person with more or less imperfect knowledge of the circumstances identifying himself with a course of action taken by another, and himself taking an active part in directing proceedings fraught with danger to the public peace.
§ MR. GIBSONasked whether when the right hon. Gentleman said the Lord Lieutenant was to consider each case on its merits he meant to convey that the Lord Lieutenant was entitled to deal with all the persons who had signed those addresses?
§ MR. TREVELYANThe right hon. and learned Gentleman has hardly been so long in Ireland or the United Kingdom without knowing that the Lord Lieutenant has not a right to interfere directly with magistrates; but, as to persons employed in offices of profit in the Public Service of the country, I consider that they might so identify themselves with a controversy of this nature that their conduct might require notice.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he would on Monday give two cases of persons holding offices of profit in the Public Service who had identified themselves with those proceedings; and would also ask how the Government could reconcile the continuance in the Commission of the Peace of gentlemen in various Irish counties who had made insubordinate and defiant declarations with the declarations of the Lords Commissioners of the Great Seal in regard to the duty of magistrates?
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLMay I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will lay on the Table the Correspondence and Papers relating to the dismissal of Lord Rossmore, and particularly the letter of the Lord Lieutenant to the Lord Lieutenant of the County Cavan?
§ MR. TREVELYANThat is a question which will have to be very carefully considered. Speaking as a layman, I cannot say how many of these Papers may be privileged communications; but the letter of the Lord Lieutenant to Lord Lanesborough I shall be very glad to lay on the Table.
MR. MACARTNEYI hope when the letters are produced that the Government will also produce the report of the Resident Magistrate upon which Lord Rossmore was dismissed—the Resident Magistrate who met Lord Rossmore on his way to Rosslea, and advised him to go the other way.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked, as a matter of Order, whether a Member of the Treasury Bench could quote from official documents from the Lord Chancellor of Ireland or other Crown officials without producing such documents?
§ MR. TREVELYANMight I say that I have not quoted from any documents.