§ MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, With reference to the assurances given by him and by the Solicitor General that—
The intentions of Government were to use vigorously and impartially the powers of the Lord Chancellorto appoint to the Commission of the Peace Catholic gentlemen whose names were brought properly under consideration, on what grounds the Lord Chancellor has declined, in Mr. Martin Langton's case, to act on the recommendation of the Catholic inhabitants of Bray, and, in the case of Mr. Joseph Smyth, Chairman of the Corporation of the county town of Wicklow, to act on the recommendation of the Town Commissioners?
§ MR. TREVELYANNothing was ever said in this matter, either by my hon. and learned Friend or by myself, to imply that the Lord Chancellor would surrender the exercise of his own judgment and discretion. It would, of course, be impossible that he could do so. Every case must be considered by him on its own facts and circumstances, and he has, in every case, endeavoured to act up to the spirit of the promises made in this House on his behalf. With regard to the case of Mr. Langton I have already more than once stated that the Lord Chancellor decided that the Lieutenant of the County had not unreasonably declined to recommend him for the Commission of the Peace, and I distinctly declined to state the grounds of his decision. The Lord Chancellor cannot be asked to announce them for publication. To that statement I must adhere; and it applies equally to the case of Mr. Joseph Smyth, whose name was put forward by the Wicklow Town Commissioners, but whom the Lord Chancellor, after the fullest consideration, declined to nominate to the Commission of the Peace.
§ MR. SEXTONIs it not the fact that the Attorney General for Ireland stated in the House that the Lord Chancellor would exercise the inherent powers of his Office in sympathy with the people? In the vast majority of cases this year has not the Lord Chancellor refused to make the appointments? And I would also ask whether, as it is the fact that the Memorialists state their reasons for making the recommendation, the Lord Chancellor has made up his mind to refuse to give his reasons, and thereby allow a slur to be cast on the character of these people?
§ MR. TREVELYANThe Lord Chancellor has appointed about 200 gentlemen, and has inquired into their circumstances, their position, their sympathies, and their antecedents. He likewise made the same inquiries in regard to a great number of other persons. I am sure the hon. Member will not be willing to cast any slur either upon the public spirit or the diligence of the Lord Chancellor, who has acted in a manner in which, as far as I know, no Lord Chancellor ever acted before, considering how short a time he has been Office.
§ MR. SEXTONWill the right hon. Gentleman allow me to ask how many 1118 of the 200 appointments have been made in pursuance of public recommendations to the Lord Chancellor?
§ MR. TREVELYANI cannot answer that off-hand. But 200 appointments were made, so to speak, over the heads of Lord Lieutenants of Counties. Anyone who knows Ireland must know that this is a great change of policy.
§ MR. GIBSONHas the right hon. Gentleman got the authority of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to openly state in this House that he has made 200 appointments over the heads of the Lord Lieutenants of Counties?
§ MR. TREVELYANOver the heads! Sir, I am not going to be bullied. When an appointment is made, not on the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant of the County, it is a very simple and natural form of expression to say that it has been made over the heads of Lord Lieutenants of Counties; and I think I may fairly apply the expression to no less than, perhaps, 200 cases. I am very sorry that I answered the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the words which I used.
MR. J. LOWTHERCan the right hon. Gentleman state whether representations have been made to the Government to the effect that many of those appointments were most objectionable?
§ [No reply.]