Lords Sitting of 21 April 1836

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Mutiny; and Marine Mutiny.
Petitions presented. By various NOBLE LORDS, from several Places, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By the Duke of CLEVELAND, from Sutherland, in favour of the Municipal Corporations' Act Amendment.—By the Earl of WINCHILSEA, from the Medical Practitioners of East Kent, for an Alteration in the Poor-Law Act Amendment Bill relating to their Attendance on the Poor.—By Lord DESMAN, from Magistrates of Salop, against the Prisoners' Counsel Bill.

CONSTABULARY FORCE (IRELAND).
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, it appeared to him, that the returns which the noble Viscount (Duncannon) laid on the Table a night or two ago respecting the Constabulary force in Ireland were not accurate, and it was most desirable that any inaccuracies which they contained should be corrected before their Lordships came to the discussion of the Bill. The noble Lord before he sat down, called the attention of the House to those particulars in the returns which he considered to be erroneously stated.
Viscount Duncannonadmitted, that the returns were not so accurate as they ought to be, but, with all their inaccuracies, under the circumstances of the case, he had no alternative but to lay them on the table.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, as this Bill was to enable the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland to raise a force without any control being exercised on the part of the grand juries or the magistracy of Ireland,
2
and as a great portion of the expense of that force was to be charged on the grand juries—a greater portion of the expense than had been charged on them heretofore—he did think it was necessary they should have that which they could have before them, viz.—an accurate account of what the expenses had been heretofore under its different heads, and a fair estimate of what it was to be hereafter. It was impossible this Bill could be allowed to pass this House without having some fair accounts of the expense as it had been, and some fair estimate of the expense as it would be.
Viscount Duncannonsaid, the estimate now on their Lordships' table was a fair estimate of what the Government proposed that the expenses should be hereafter. He did not believe, that the Bill would give more power to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, as against the grand juries, than the Lord-Lieutenant had at present.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, the returns might be an accurate account of what the Government intended to do, but they did not furnish an account of what the law would enable them to do, if they availed themselves of the full powers which the Bill conferred. The returns consisted of two statements—an account of the expenses under the existing system, and an estimate of the expenses proposed under the Bill, but the fact was, there was inaccuracy on both sides of the paper.

3
There was a material error in the very first item, notwithstanding its simplicity. The present allowance to each inspector, with the exception of an extra allowance for stationery, was 830 l. 16 s.; to this, in the account which he held in his hand, was added "extra allowance to each, 400 l." Now, there were no such allowances. There was an erroneous charge, then, of four times 400 l., or 1,600 l., as against the existing expense.
The Earl of Riponthought the account ought to have stated the full amount which the Act would allow to be incurred. That was the principle on which all the Parliamentary estimates were formed; they were ordered thus, "that a sum not exceeding [so much] be granted." It was not incumbent on the Government to open the whole amount, but the estimates assumed that the whole would be expended.
Lord Ellenboroughadmitted, it might be difficult to furnish an estimate perfectly accurate, for the Bill would empower the Lord-Lieutenant to allow 150 l. per annum to every man capable of bearing arms. When, according to the estimates, as twenty-eight magistrates would be required, it appeared to him extraordinary that a Bill should be brought before Parliament empowering the Government to appoint 142.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, whatever might be the intentions of the present Government, it did not follow, that the next Government would take the same view of the matter. What he wanted in these returns was an account of the powers given by this Bill. He moved for the returns on the assumption that the number of constables and sub-constables would be the same in the proposed as in the present establishment; instead, however, of 157 chief constables, the account gave only 110. That did not afford a fair opportunity of comparing one system with the other. The noble Earl was proceeding to remark on the number of magistrates proposed, when
Viscount Melbournerose to order. This was not a fit opportunity for discus-sing the merits of the Bill.
Viscount Duncannonsaid, if the account had been made out in the way suggested by the noble Lords opposite, it would have stated, that the inspectors would receive 500 l. a year; but it was not intended to give to more than three of
4
the inspectors that sum. Such an account might have misled the House as to the intentions of the Government.
The Earl of Haddingtonthought it not possible to mislead the House on the subject. What he desired was, to see the amount of patronage that would be at the disposal of the Government.
The Marquess of Londonderryconceived the return might be made out showing just what the power of the Government would be under the Bill, with the expense; and, secondly, what they proposed that the expense should be. Their Lordships would then be able to judge of the amount of the absolute power and the contemplated discretionary limit.
Viscount Duncannonsaid, to make the account intelligible it ought also to show the extent to which the expenses might be carried under the present law, and under the Peace Preservation Act.
Viscount Melbournesaid if any noble Lord would point out any deficiency in the account he would endeavour to supply it, and if any noble Lord desired further information perhaps he would move for it.
Subject dropped.

SPANISH AFFAIRS.
Earl Mintosaid, as on the occasion of the noble Marquess having moved for a copy of the instructions issued from the Admiralty to Lord John Hay, so far as related to their authorisation of the letter sent by that officer to the General-in-chief of her Spanish Majesty's forces, he informed the noble Marquess that no such letter had come into his possession; and as since that time he had received a copy of the letter from Lord John Hay himself, he thought it would not be fair or candid if he did not give the noble Marquess information of that fact. He had no objection to the production of that letter if the noble Marquess thought it desirable: but as it had already been communicated to the public, and as he found that nothing could be inferred from it more than he was fully prepared to admit, namely, that it was conformable with the instructions given to Lord John Hay by the Government, to enter into an efficient co-operation with the Spanish Government, under these circumstances the noble Marquess would probably not think the production of the letter necessary.
The Marquess of Londonderryfelt grateful for the information afforded him

5
by the noble Earl. With respect to the production of the letter he must say, that he thought it important to have it on the table of the House as a record, which it might be useful to refer to hereafter. Before he sat down he begged to ask whether there would be any objection on the part of the noble Viscount to produce the dispatch alluded to by him the other night on stating that the convention of Lord Eliot had been productive of an exceedingly beneficial effect? He would move that a copy of the letter be laid on the Table.
Ordered.