The Earl of Winchilsearose, in pursuance of notice which he had given on Friday evening, to present a Petition from Francis Leigh, junk., Esq., of the county of Wexford, in Ireland. He begged to move, that the petition be read. [The petition was read by the clerk, and complained that the petitioner had been appointed to fill the office of High Sheriff of Wexford for the present year, but his appointment had afterwards been cancelled, without any cause being assigned.] The noble Earl said, that before he proceeded to offer a few brief observations with reference to the statement made in the petition, and 957 also with reference to the circumstance that five complete lists of persons who were pointed out as eligible to fill the situation of High Sheriff", (which appeared by the return on their Lordships' Table,) gentlemen approved of by the Judges and by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, an individual who must be presumed to know who was best fitted to fill the important office of High Sheriff, had been set aside, he must beg leave to observe, that it was with the most sincere and unfeigned regret he felt himself called on by a sense of public duty, of constitutional jealousy, and of strong feeling with reference to the private wrong which the petitioner had sustained, to bring the conduct of the noble Earl, whom he was happy to see in his place, and who held the high situation of Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, under the consideration of their Lordships. It would be in the recollection of their Lordships that on two former occasions he had stated the case of the petitioner—first, in the course of a debate relating to certain appointments that had recently taken place in Ireland; and afterwards, having received no satisfactory answer as to the grounds on which the appointment of Mr. Leigh was cancelled, he moved, that a return should be laid on their Lordships' Table of all official communications that had taken place between the Irish Government and that individual. That return was now before their Lordships, and he had adopted that course in order to show to their Lordships and to the noble Earl, that he had proceeded cautiously, and that he had not unnecessarily sought an opportunity of attacking the government of the noble Marquess in Ireland. The course he pursued gave to the Irish Government an ample opportunity for publicly stating the reason which had led to the removal of the petitioner from the situation of High Sheriff to which he had been appointed. All the information, however, which they received on the subject was, that the Lord-Lieutenant had found, on further inquiry, that Mr. Leigh was a member of an Orange society, and that, therefore, his appointment was cancelled. That statement, however, he at the time took the liberty to deny; and if on more mature inquiry that charge proved to be groundless, some explanation, he conceived, ought to have been given, to show upon what other ground such an injury had been inflicted both on the pub- 958 lic and private character of the petitioner. No such thing having been done, he felt it was due to his own character, having once introduced the subject, to bring it fully under the consideration of their Lordships. He should now draw their Lordships' attention to the very extraordinary course which the noble Earl had pursued—to the very great power he had exercised in the appointment of High Sheriffs in he land. The noble Earl had deviated from that constitutional practice which he believed to have been invariably followed—namely, that of appointing no persons to act as Sheriffs, except they were recommended by the Judges. The course of proceeding, if it could not be fully explained, was of a most ungracious character—first to the Judges of Ireland, next to the individuals who, having been regularly returned on the lists, were rejected. He believed that the same system which prevailed in this country with respect to the appointment of Sheriffs applied also to Ireland—Sheriffs were formerly chosen by the inhabitants of the several counties. The election was in all probability not absolutely vested in the Commons, but, as in the case of the Judges of the county courts, the choice was finally confirmed by the King. "But these popular elections growing tumultuous, were put an end to by the Statute 9th Edward 2nd, s. 2, which enacted that the Sheriffs should from thenceforth be assigned by the Chancellor, Treasurer, and Judges, as being persons in whom the same trust might with confidence be reposed." Now, he could see no strong ground of necessity to warrant a departure from that course. On the contrary, he contended that it was unconstitutional to do so, and he denied the right of the Crown to appoint Sheriffs without the recommendation of the judges of the land, those who recommended the list being answerable for such recommendation. That was not merely his opinion—it was the opinion also of the learned Blackstone, who cited a case which occurred in the reign of Henry 6th, where the King, of his own authority, appointed a man, Sheriff of Lincolnshire, without reference to the Judges. The individual refused to serve; and the question came to be considered before the Judges, whether he should be fined for his refusal. The two Chief Justices, Sir John Fortescue and Sir John Prisot, delivered the unanimous opinion of the Judges thus:—" That 959 the King did an error when he made a person Sheriff that was not chosen and presented to him according to the statute. That the person refusing was liable to no fine for disobedience, as if he had been one of the three persons chosen according to the tenor of the statute." Upon this point, then, it appeared that Sir John Fortescue and the Judges were unanimous in his day. Blackstone went on to observe, "But, notwithstanding this unanimous resolution of all the Judges of England, thus entered in the Council Book, and the statute 34 and 35 Henry 8th, chap. 26, section 61, which expressly recognizes this to be the law of the land, some of our writers have affirmed, that the King, by his prerogative, may name whom he pleases to be Sheriff, whether chosen by the Judges or no. This is grounded on a very particular case in the 5th year of Queen Elizabeth, when, by reason of the plague, there was no Michaelmas term kept at Westminster; so that the Judges could not meet there in crastino animarum to nominate the Sheriffs; whereupon, appointing for the most part one of two remaining in last year's, the Queen named them herself, without such previous assembly list. And this case, thus circumstanced, is the only authority in our books for making these extraordinary Sheriffs." This showed what the usage and custom of the country had been from a very early time. Blackstone further observed—"It was true, that it was held that the Queen, by her prerogative, might make a Sheriff without the election of the Judges, non obstante aliquo statute in contrarium; but the doctrine of non obstantis, which sets the prerogative above the laws, was effectually demolished by the Bill of Rights at the Revolution, and abdicated Westminster-hall, when King James abdicated the kingdom. However, it must be acknowledged that the practice of occasionally naming what are called pocket-sheriffs by the sole authority of the Crown hath uniformly continued to the reign of his present Majesty, in which I believe few, if any instances have occurred." To this there was added a note, stating that the unanimous opinion of the Judges prevented the possibility in our days of the appointment of what was called a pocket-sheriff. He had thus spoken of the question in a constitutional point of view, and unless the noble Earl could show some strong reason for cancelling the ap- 960 pointment of the gentleman to whom he had alluded, and next, for rejecting the lists for five different counties, and appointing Sheriffs, without the recommendation of the Judges, it was a case, he conceived, that called for serious consideration. In his opinion, the noble Earl had exercised one of the greatest prerogatives of the Crown most unconstitutionally. In that country, where the law was so much abused, he believed that, up to the time when Sir Robert Peel became Secretary, the appointment of Sheriffs was looked at as nearly connected with partisanship. Sir Robert Peel, however, corrected the evil, and placed the selection of Sheriffs on the ground which he had stated. From that period up to the present year, no deviation from that system had been introduced; and he was very sorry, that lately matters of a political character should have interfered with those appointments. He was not acquainted with the five gentlemen who had been named by Government, instead of selecting from the Judges' lists.—He supposed that they were respectable persons; but it was well known that they were all supporters of his Majesty's Government. Now, with respect to the petitioner, the simple case was this: in the first instance, he received the following letter:
Dublin Castle, Dec. 4th, 1835.SIR—I am directed by the Lord-Lieutenant to acquaint you that his Excellency has been pleased to appoint you to be High Sheriff of the county of Wexford for the ensuing year. And I have to request you will make the necessary arrangements for undertaking the duties of that office.—I have, &c.Francis Leigh, Esq." "MORPETH.Mr. Leigh heard no more of this appointment until public report informed him that it was about to be conferred on another. Knowing that the assizes were at hand, he was anxious to receive his warrant. A letter was, therefore, on the 13th of February, addressed to the Secretary by Mr. Reed, the Sub-sheriff, stating that he was directed by Francis Leigh, Esq., to intimate that he had made all the necessary arrangements for the performance of the duties of High Sheriff, and requesting to be informed on what day his warrant would be ready. To this application the following answer was returned:—Dublin Castle, Feb. 16,4833.SIR—I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 13th instant.; and, in reply, I beg to state, that a communi- 961 cation having been very recently made to the Lord-Lieutenant, from a quarter on which he could rely, that Mr. Leigh was connected with Orange societies, his Excellency, in conformity with the rule on which he has uniformly acted, felt it to be his duty not to appoint Mr. Leigh to the office of Sheriff. His Excellency very much regrets that Mr. Leigh should have been subjected to any inconvenience in consequence of the lateness of the period at which the communication referred to was made, and also that Mr. Leigh was not immediately informed of the intention of his Excellency to appoint another Sheriff, an omission which is to be attributed to my having overlooked, in examining the paper connected with the appointment of Sheriffs, the fact that an intimation had been conveyed to Mr. Leigh, on the 4th of December, by Lord Morpeth, of which I was not aware until I received your letter already referred to. I am, &c, T. DRUMMOND.George Reed, Esq., 26, South Cumberland-street.Now, he would not enter into any inquiry whether Mr. Leigh was or was not a member of an Orange lodge. But it appeared to him, after that gentleman had been appointed Sheriff, that it was a most extraordinary step for the noble Earl to take, when he thought proper to remove him from that office on such a ground; for it should be recollected that, at the time when the transaction took place, the Crown had not expressed any disapprobation of Orange lodges. He had now done that which he deemed it to be his duty to do, and he certainly should feel sincere pleasure if the noble Earl could place the transaction in a satisfactory light. In this country, at least, the proceedings to which he had adverted would be considered as unconstitutional, and, for his own part, he looked upon the question as one of very great constitutional importance. He should now sit down, having afforded the noble Earl a full opportunity of satisfactorily answering what he had advanced.
The Earl of Mulgravecommenced by returning thanks to the noble Earl for the very courteous manner in which his observations were delivered. The noble Earl's speech naturally separated itself into two heads—the general arrangement by which the selection of Sheriffs was regulated the particular question of Mr. Leigh's no appointment. He should first apply himself to the part of the general arrangement. In reference to this, he should commence by stating, that though the law in the two countries was the same, nothing could be more different than the circumstances attending the appointments of Sheriffs in 962 England and Ireland. In Ireland there was no general meeting of the Judges or of persons representing the Executive for the purpose, neither were the names selected according to a list going on from year to year, and of which the first in order was sure to be nominated. The Judge going the assize made a return of three names to the Government, and to the list so returned the selection was usually confined. But the practice of naming the Sheriffs from the Judge's list was by no means invariable. He did not understand the noble Earl to question the prerogative of the Crown to pass over those names, if any positive disqualification could be shown to exist. Now he should commence by avowing at once that he had taken quite a new ground of objection to the names placed by the Judges on their list, from that adopted by any of his predecessors. He had felt an inclination, very soon after his assumption of the government of Ireland, to lay down a rule that in no instance should an individual be appointed to any office in his gift, who could be proved to have been connected with any secret exclusive political society. Having communicated this wish to the Government, and received their sanction to its adoption, he had put it into operation in every case, and the responsibility of having so done belonging entirely to himself, he was quite ready to take it on himself. Such being the case, it remained for him but to say, that whenever a name had been passed over, its omission was justifiable either on the ground of the individual coming within the rule he had mentioned, or on that of personal inability. As to whether it was usual to pass over the names sent by the judges, and to nominate gentlemen without consulting those learned authorities, he would not take upon himself to say, but of this he could assure their Lordships, that in the course he had taken of nominating Sheriffs without applying to the Judges, he was borne out by the authority of all the law officers of the Crown, and in particular by the highest legal authority in Ireland—that of the Lord Chancellor. The noble Earl had referred to the return presented last evening as tending to prove that the invariable practice had been to select the Sheriffs from the Judge's list; but although in many respects the return was inaccurate, in consequence of the despatch with which it was drawn up, there were sufficient materials to enable him to prove that such was not in every instance the case. In alluding to that return, the noble Earl had made some 963 omissions. Thus, there was a memorandum at the bottom of the list for 1829, as follows:—"In this year the persons returned by the judge of assize declined in the following counties—Antrim and Tipperary; and other persons were therefore appointed High Sheriffs." And again, at the end of the list for 1830 there was a memorandum, that "the person returned in this year for the county of Tyrone having declined to serve, another person was nominated." There was a very great distinction between the nomination to the office and the actual appointment. In 1830, Mr. Lyons, a Roman Catholic gentleman, was nominated High Sheriff of the county of Limerick; but just before the warrant was prepared he was set aside. That took place during the time that the Duke of Northumberland was Lord-Lieutenant. Now, he never inquired into the subject, but he certainly never heard of any reason having been called for or given with respect to that precedent. There were two other gentlemen as ready to serve as Mr. Lyons, but both were set aside. On this occasion it was not deemed necessary to apply to the Judge. Those gentlemen were passed over, and Mr. Fitzgerald, the Knight of Glyn, was appointed. In 1834 another case occurred, with reference to the county of Waterford. The person returned to serve, and the others who were on the Judge's list, were passed over as ineligible. This occurred in the time of the Marquess Wellesley. He had there fore acted upon this general principle—the fitness and propriety of the individual to fill the office, without the least regard to any feeling whatever of any other description. Having stated these two cases, he would now leave it to the House to decide whether or not, upon the general principle, he was justified in the course he had taken. He now came to the individual case of Mr. Leigh. In his petition, that gentleman had stated, that he had been appointed to the office of Sheriff with his consent. Such was not the fact. It had been publicly known that Mr. Leigh was to be appointed Sheriff, and from information which he received through memorials from different parts of the county of Wexford, it appeared that there were three grounds of objection taken to his nomination. The first was that he was believed to be an Orangeman; the second, that he was a strong political partisan; and the third, that he had no property in the county. With respect to the last ground of objection, be believed the 964 fact was stated to be that Mr. Leigh was a younger brother, living in the house of his father, upon whose death he must cease to have any connexion, so far as property was concerned, with the county, and for this reason, that, though his elder brother died, he left children who would be entitled to the property. With respect to the objection on the score of property, he (Earl Mulgrave) declined to entertain it when it was urged in the memorials to which he had before alluded, inasmuch as the time had elapsed when it should have been taken into consideration. Now with respect to the objection of political partisanship, Mr. Leigh stated in his petition to their Lordships that he was neither an Orangeman nor a man who entertained any strong party views. All he could say was, that a person of such a description was exactly the person to whom he was desirous to in trust the duties of Sheriff, and if an individual could be found in that country who was in other respects qualified for the office, and who was a man (as Mr. Leigh stated himself to be) who had never been connected with any political party, he was precisely the person that he should be disposed to nominate. However, he stated in reply to the assertion concerning Mr. Leigh, that "he was believed to be an Orangeman," that it was impossible for him to act upon any such hearsay evidence. So that up to the day before that on which the lists were to be published in The Gazette, it was his intention, notwithstanding the allegations against Mr. Leigh to which he had referred, to appoint him Sheriff. At that period he had received from the Solicitor-General for Ireland information which induced him not to select Mr. Leigh for the office of Sheriff. The learned Gentleman told him that he had heard from a gentleman named Porter, who became acquainted with the fact through another gentleman whose name he was also at liberty to mention, that Mr. Leigh was the master of a lodge, established under what was called the new system, and that the last gentleman to whom he alluded knew the lodge to which Mr. Leigh belonged. This occurred on the day before that on which it was necessary that the list should be published; and having no reason to doubt the authority on which the statement was made, he certainly did think it his duty under the circumstances, and acting on the belief that Mr. Leigh was an Orangeman, to pass over his name in the list, which it was then necessary to have made out, The gentleman he did name was 965 a person in every way qualified to fulfill the duties of the office. He was out of the county at the time that he was appointed; but he was informed that he had more property in the county of Wexford than Mr. Leigh, and that he was willing to undertake the duties of the office of Sheriff. These were the representations by which the course which he then took was directed. There were some circumstances connected with this transaction which, though they would not lead him to sanction, in any shape, an act of injustice to Mr. Leigh, would still cause him to be equally unwilling to neglect his own duty, especially by making Mr. Leigh an exception to the general rule which he determined to lay down for excluding all Orangemen from places of public trust under the control of the Government. It appeared that Mr. Leigh had appointed Mr. Reed as Sub-Sheriff. Now, in the unfortunately distracted state of the county of Wexford at that time, particularly with regard to the collection of tithes, a circumstance occurred which showed Mr. Reed to be destitute of that temper and discretion which it was most desirable that a gentleman filling the office of Sub-Sheriff, and upon whom many of the duties of Sheriff devolved, should possess. Mr. Roe, it seemed employed Mr. Reed to levy for tithes, and certain stacks of corn were consequently seized, the populace collected, an auction commenced. As is not infrequently the case on such occasions there were no bidders, and Mr. Reed, in the face of the famishing people, had the corn wantonly burnt and destroyed. Such an instance of want of discretion, judgment, and humanity, was, he believed, altogether unparalleled. He was not aware that he had left any point untouched to which the noble Earl had alluded in his speech. If in the course of any observations that might be subsequently made, or explanation should be called for, he trusted their Lordships would extend to him their indulgence, by permitting him to give it. As to the individual case of Mr. Leigh, he could only say, that nothing could be further from his intention than to do any act of wrong or injustice towards him as a private individual. He had acted with the firm belief that the information which he received placed beyond doubt the fact that Mr. Leigh was an Orangeman. He would now, through the channels by which the proceedings of their Lordships were conveyed to individuals out of the House, ex- 966 press to Mr. Leigh his regret that he had been (according to the contents of the petition, which their Lordships had that night heard) misinformed on the subject. If he had known at the time he rejected Mr. Leigh what he knew now, he should have acted differently; but if he knew now only what he knew then, he would act again exactly as he had done upon that occasion.
Viscount Strangfordcalled the attention of their Lordships to a letter from a gentleman of high rank, character, and connexion in Ireland, with reference to the proceedings in the county of Limerick. He stated, "that on the 9th of December, 1829, Mr. Loud, one of the Members for the county of Limerick died. In January, 1830, a contest for the county took place between Colonel O'Grady and Mr. Massey Dawson. Colonel O'Grady succeeded by a small majority; but was unseated, on petition, by Mr. Dawson. Parliament was then four years old, Mr. Dawson was in bad health, and a general election was expected immediately. That was enough to make an honest government particular in the choice of a High Sheriff for the next year, especially when a Judge's son was about to start as one of the parliamentary candidates. Government, however, passed over the Judge's return altogether1, to answer their own views. That was the only true reason. But it was said, that it was done because Mr. Lyons was a Roman Catholic. This was perfectly absurd, for the two other persons passed over were Protestants. The Knight of Glyn was selected, who was a pro-Catholic, a Reformer, and one of the very few grand jurymen who signed a petition for parliamentary reform." He stated this to point direction to the motives which appeared to have led to that appointment.
The Earl of Rodensaid, he was most deeply interested in this subject on many grounds, and he was sincerely grateful to his noble Friend for having brought it forward. It appeared to him to be a subject of that class which, perhaps more than any other, demanded the consideration of that House and of the country. It involved a question which, in his opinion, struck at the very foundation and root of justice itself. He conceived that a great officer, of the Crown, and he would boldly say it in his presence, had been guilty of a gross dereliction of his duty, in deviating from the usual, natural, and constitutional course, which hitherto had always been 967 pursued in the appointment of Sheriff, and adopting a practice unknown to the Constitution. The noble Earl had stated, that Lord Wellesley, when be was Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, had thought it right to depart from the visual mode of nominating Sheriffs, and that by this proceeding he had nominated persons who were most likely to do justice. The noble Earl had also in his defence stated, that he heard—for this was the first phantom which appeared to frighten him—that some individuals were connected with the Orange institution. But although this panic had affected the noble Earl, he did not see any just ground why this panic should possess his breast he did not see why the noble Earl should have any reason to suppose that gentlemen who had been connected with the Orange society should not be able to discharge the duties incidental to any public situation in a manner likely to support the best interests of the country. He knew many of those gentlemen, who had discharged those duties in a way as well calculated to preserve those interests as any other Members of any other class of society. The persons who belonged to the late Orange institution had the good of the country at heart as much as the noble Karl, and bore as good characters as he did himself, and, therefore, the noble Earl was not justified in supposing that a gentleman, because he had been connected with that society, would not properly discharge the duty of Sheriff. He could not then, as a member of that institution, which was now no more, refrain from protesting against the allegations brought against that society by the noble Earl. He must say further, that it was a most ungracious act to pass by the opinions of the twelve Judges of Ireland on this subject—the opinions of men holding important situations, and of high character—men as much admired and beloved as any persons ever were who filled those situations; and why the recommendation of those persons should be passed by in making a nomination of Sheriffs, he could not see. The explanation of the noble Earl on this subject had not satisfied him (the Earl of Roden), and he did not know whether it had satisfied their Lordships. With respect to the case of Mr. Leigh, the noble Earl had said, that if he had known what he now knew, he would not have done what he had done, and Mr. Leigh would have been now Sheriff of Wexford; at least, that was the interpretation he put upon the noble Earl's 968 language. But what were the reasons which the noble Lord had given for refusing to appoint Mr. Leigh? The first reason he assigned was, that he believed him to be a member of the Orange society, although he (Mr. Leigh) most positively declared he was not. Secondly, because Mr. Leigh was a strong political man. Why, was not the noble Earl himself a strong political partisan?
The Earl of Mulgraveinterposed to state, that Mr. Leigh's strong political opinions were among the reasons which had been urged upon him for withholding his ratification of this appointment, but he had at once stated that those reasons should be of no avail in influencing his determination. He had also staled, that Mr. Leigh would, in his opinion, be perfectly eligible now for the situation of Sheriff.
The Earl of Rodencontinued—The noble Earl had further stated, as an additional reason for not appointing Mr. Leigh, that he was a person of no property. But he (the Earl of Roden) had reason to know that Mr. Leigh's father was possessed of property of 5,000l a-year in the county, and it had been the practice that the sons of men of property should be placed in high and important situations in the country. He was glad that the noble Earl (Winchilsea) had brought forward this motion, because he could assure the noble Earl at the Table (Mulgrave) that this course had caused the greatest pain to the resident gentry and nobility of Ireland, and he regretted that any circumstance should have taken place so much calculated to call forth a feeling of sorrow and regret on their part as the events which gave rise to this discussion. In stating his opinions on this question, he had not any private hostility against the noble Earl to gratify. The noble Earl had always treated him with perfect courtesy, and he had spoken of him as a public character, and he was quite sure the noble Earl would forgive him if he had unknowingly said anything that could wound his private feelings. He should now conclude the observations he had thought it his duty to make, by expressing his strong" opinion that we ought to go back to the old constitutional custom of consulting the Judges of the land on these occasions.
§ The Marquess of LansdowneThe subject of the appointment of Sheriffs in this country and Ireland having been referred to by the noble Earl who introduced this 969 discussion—and who, he must say, introduced it in terms of fairness and moderation, of which no man, and he was sure least of all his noble Friend (Ear Mulgrave), could complain—he felt anxious to say a few words on the question which had been submitted to them, and with the view of correcting some mistakes into which he conceived the noble Earl (Winchilsea) had fallen. With respect to England, he certainly never understood it not to be within the prerogative of the Crown, and being within the prerogative he was not disposed to say that it should be abandoned, to appoint a person as Sheriff, on the responsibility of the advisers of the Crown, who was not recommended by the Judges. Such appointments had taken place both in the Government in which he had the honour to have a part, and in most, he would not say all, of those by which they had been preceded. It would be very inconvenient if circumstances, which might reach the ears of the advisers of the Crown between the period when the recommendation of the Judges was given and the time when the final selection and nomination was made by the Crown, had not their due weight with the advisers of the Crown, particularly when it was borne in mind that if such circumstances had been mentioned to the Judges when they made the recommendation, they would in all probability have abstained from making it. Therefore, he believed that the Crown, had in a great many instances, and on an immediate emergency, exercised the power of nominating a person Sheriff, who had not been thus recommended. Whether the Crown was enabled to compel a person so appointed to perform the duties of Sheriff was a question into the discussion of which he did not then mean to enter, but certain it was, that the Crown was entitled to exercise the right of nomination to the office, in the case of an individual situated as he had described. But the noble Lord had stated, that he understood the law to be uniform with regard to the question in England and Ireland. Now he could assure the noble Earl that in this supposition he would find himself mistaken. He believed that it would be found that in Ireland there was no law or regulation which prevented the Crown from selecting a person to be invested with the high responsibilities of this situation. Since he came into the House he referred to the Irish Act of Parliament on the subject (the 1st of Henry 7th.) by which all pre-existing 970 regulations and laws with respect to the appointment of Sheriff were done away with for the purpose of vesting the appointment, in the Crown, and from that time it had remained vested in the Crown; no Act or interference of Parliament having deprived the Crown of the authority which had been so reposed in it. Undoubtedly it happened that abuses resulted from this system to such a degree that Sir Robert Peel, when he filled an office connected with the Government of the country, was of opinion—and it was only what was to be expected from the justice and liberality of his character—not that an Act of Parliament should be introduced for the purpose of altering the law, but that he ought to express his wish to be advised by the Judges on the subject of those appointments, and thereby establish it as a rule of conduct for his own guidance, which had been followed by subsequent Secretaries, that the adviser of the Crown should consult with the judges. The prerogative, how ever, of course, still continued to be vested separately and distinctly in the Crown. Now with respect to the discretion with which this power had been used in the present instance. His noble Friend had told, the House the circumstances under which he acted: that he received credible information that Mr. Leigh belonged to a secret society, and that the period at which that fact was communicated to him admitting of no delay in determining the course to be pursued, for the time for the Sheriff entering on the execution of the duties of his office was at hand, he resolved upon rejecting Mr. Leigh. His noble Friend did not do so, however, as he had himself stated—and it was very important for the House so to understand him—because Mr. Leigh was an individual holding any particular political opinions. So far from being biased by any such consideration, his noble Friend stated, that when that allegation was made in the first instance against Mr. Leigh, he distinctly replied, that such an allegation he could not and would not admit into his consideration. His noble Friend had determined to reject Mr. Leigh only when he found that he was a member of a secret society, which it appeared to the Parliament, as well as to the Government, was of a description to disqualify an individual belonging to it from holding any public situation; and, as it had been recently admitted, was such as to disqualify a person to hold even the humble situation of a police constable, Upon 971 that representation his noble Friend had acted in the way which he was sure he would always continue to act—namely, in that which he conceived to be conducive to the public service. In this country—he did not know whether the case was different in Ireland—he knew that the ground of complaint, with respect to the office of Sheriff, was not, that an individual was not nominated to, but his appointment to the office was considered the grievance. He hoped, then, that Mr. Leigh would not find the hardship altogether intolerable, of being deprived of the advantages and enjoyment resulting from this office for one year. He said for one year, because he was the first to admit that Mr. Leigh, having vindicated himself from the charge of being an Orangeman—if he had so vindicated himself—but above all, the secret society to which he belonged being disclaimed, not only by Mr. Leigh, but by those to whose authority that gentleman would be naturally inclined to look up, and these leading individuals, much to their own honour, and for the public benefit, having receded from the institution, by which course they had placed not only themselves, but numerous other classes, in a situation which enabled them to serve in this and many other public functions, for which an adherence to a secret society had previously disqualified them—he said not only that Mr. Leigh, but every other gentleman so situated, was eligible to fill the situation of Sheriff; and he could answer for his noble Friend as he would for himself, that if he continued to fill the high situation of his Majesty's representative, he would neither deprive Mr. Leigh nor any other man, who was entitled to it, of the honour and distinction of serving the public in the important office of Sheriff. He trusted that in future, whatever might have been the case with respect to the past, that no party distinctions or party differences would have the power of influencing such appointments. He thought his noble Friend had fully acquitted himself of all blame with respect to the non-appointment in question; and it was also satisfactory to reflect, that if his noble Friend had acted under any mistake, or misunderstanding, or misapprehension, it could be attended with no mischievous consequences, and with but little, if any, inconvenience.
The Marquess of Londonderrywas anxious to make a few observations upon this question, because the noble Earl was going back to Ireland with new powers of 972 a very formidable nature, and because he felt jealous of the manner in which the noble Earl had exercised the powers which had been intrusted to him. He could not but advert, however, in the first place, to the distinction with which the noble Earl had thought proper to treat a person who had maligned that House, by inviting him to his table at the Castle. Never was there any transaction which was felt so deeply by the gentry and Protestants of Ireland. The consequence was, that the noble Earl, instead of being treated in the province of Ulster with that sort of reception that the representative of royalty had before always met with, he could of his own knowledge state, that the noble Earl's reception was very different to what it would have been if that distinction had not been paid. He could tell the noble Earl and the Government, that he had disgusted the people of Ireland, particularly the northern parts of the island, by that proceeding. He was aware that it had been termed a mere matter of routine, but after the speeches which that person had made against their Lordships' House, which he was ashamed to refer to, he must say, that he looked upon it as one of the most degrading things that ever WAS committed. He had further to complain of the constabulary and law appointments which had taken place since the noble Earl had filled his present situation. He believed that the Catholics in the constabulary were as ten to one Protestant, and he challenged the noble and learned Lord to assist him in making out a complete list. In the north of Ireland, moreover, the assistant barristers were generally removed, as was stated, for political purposes. This was the case of the town of Belfast. After a great struggle for ascendancy, two Conservative Members were returned for that town. The assistant-barrister who was now appointed was a Catholic gentleman not known in that part of the world, and all the arrangements were overturned, which had been before going on in a manner very satisfactory to all parties. He had before mentioned the appointment of Mr. Finlay, the editor or proprietor of the Northern Whig, to a situation in the Stamp-Office, and he begged to be informed whether that appointment had taken place or not. There was a ease of the dismissal of a subordinate public officer at the Castle, which he could not help viewing with jealousy, though he did not question the prerogative of the noble Earl. This person had lasted out every Lord-Lieutenant for the last thirty 973 years, and now he was turned out in his old age, without a pension for his past services. He would tell the noble Earl fairly and honestly as an Irishman, that the connexion of these circumstances, the changing of assistant-barristers where they were hostile to the Government, the number of Catholics in the constabulary and law appointments, and the re-appointment of Mr. Gore Jones, after insulting the magistrates of two counties, and placing him in an adjoining county as a stipendiary magistrate—all these circumstances, viewed in connexion with each other, showed that the noble Earl was deficient in those qualities which he insisted upon were necessary in persons connected with the administration of government in that country—he meant impartiality and a freedom from political bias. But when he saw the noble Earl with the great patronage which he possessed acting as he had done, he was too deeply connected in feeling with Ireland, with which his very existence, he might say, since his earliest childhood, had been bound up, not to recommend the noble Earl to abstain in future from injuring the best interests of the country by continuing in the course he had begun.
The Earl of Mulgravepromised not to keep their Lordships from their dinner today, by making them re-digest the dinner which, after having been served up to them nine months ago, the noble Marquess had now again served up to them. With respect to the first point to which the noble Marquess had adverted, he must say that the invitations to the table at the Castle were given without any distinction of party. But at the same time he begged to say, that he was not bound down to approve of any particular terms which any guest of his might have used. With regard to the dismissal of the gentleman to whom the noble Marquess had alluded—he believed he meant Sir Stewart Bruce—he had not been influenced in directing that dismissal by any political motives, and indeed he might say that his reasons were approved of even by the party himself. Sir Stewart Bruce had been gentleman-usher at the Castle for the last thirty or forty years; but, unfortunately, the best men would grow old in time, and he thought that Sir Stewart Bruce had arrived at that time of life which was no longer calculated for the performance of the duties of gentleman usher. With respect to the constabulary of Armagh, it did so happen that he had read a speech of the noble Marquess on this 974 subject. It was well known that in any appointments which were made on vacancies occurring, the Lord-Lieutenant merely signed his initials to the paper which contained the nomination, without being cognizant of the party or religion to which the person named might belong. As, however, amongst the few speeches of the noble Marquess which he had read, there was one in which charges were brought against him with respect to these appointments, he had called for a Return from the Inspector General of Police, to ascertain the numbers of Catholics and Protestants in the constabulary force. By that Return, it appeared that the police were—Protestants ninety-seven; Catholics twenty-one; dismissal, one Catholic. The constables were—Protestants nineteen; Catholic one; so that this did not look very much like the noble Marquess ten to one. The constables appointed by Sir Frederick Stove were—Protestants two; Catholics one; and these were made, as is usual in such cases, in reward for honesty or some meritorious act. The Catholic constable had returned some bank-notes which had been stolen, and would not have been otherwise recovered. He was not aware of any other patronage he had exercised in the county of Armagh. The noble Marquess had referred to the transfer of the assistant-barristers, and had alleged it was done with political views. He certainly had, acting on the advice of the Crown-officers of Ireland, come to the determination of preventing any assistant barrister going on his own circuit, but he had done so from a desire to improve the public service, and render the administration of justice impartial. Then, with regard to the appointment of assistant barristers, and of the offence given by their appointment to the Protestant population, he could assure their Lordships, that whenever these appointments were to be made, be only inquiry as, who were the most efficient persons that could be found to discharge the duties of that office. He had been charged with appointing an undue proportion of Catholics; now, what was the fact? Since he had held his present situation six assistant-barristers had been appointed; of these, two were Catholics and; four were Protestants. Now, indeed, they were in the proportion of three to two, for Mr. Acheson Lyle had been recommended by him to his noble Friend at the head of the Government for another appointment. The matter happened to be so; he did not make any merit of it, but it was the fact, 975 and if the most efficient men had happened to be Catholics he would have appointed them, from the same motive which had influenced him in appointing Protestants. He might mention other attacks which the noble Marquess had made upon him, but he had friends who knew him, and if they had not answered all those attacks, he had the consolation of knowing it was not because they were unanswerable. With regard to Mr. Fogarty, he was one of the most rising young men at the bar, and his demeanour in his office was calculated to give the greatest satisfaction, and he did give satisfaction, not merely to the supporters of the Government, but to those quiet Conservative people of Belfast who saw he was disposed to do justice, and from whom he had received the highest encomiums. As to Mr. Gore Jones, was the noble Marquess well convinced that the magistrates of Armagh were dissatisfied with what had taken place? He had reason to apprehend that the contrary was the case. Mr. Gore Jones had certainly placed himself in an awkward situation, so far as regarded his acting in concert with the magistrates of Armagh; he had given evidence before a Committee of the House of Commons which the magistrates thought cast a slur upon them. The magistrates, however, did not apply to him (Lord Mulgrave) in the first instance, but expressed their opinion of Mr. Gore Jones's evidence by the application of very abusive terms to him, and by placarding the walls with statements calculated to do him an injury, for which Mr. Gore Jones brought an action. He lamented that, but he felt that he could not with propriety interfere between a Committee of the House of Commons on the one hand, while a suit was pending in a court of justice on the other. Under the circumstances, however, he thought it prudent to remove Mr. Gore Jones, meaning, however, that he should be employed again, as he was a very efficient officer, wherever his services might seem most likely to be of use. He had not appointed him to any situation yet, because he had not made up his mind where he should employ him, and therefore the newspapers on which the noble Marquess was accustomed to rely for his authority, were rather before him (Lord Mulgrave) in giving Mr. Gore Jones an appointment as a stipendiary' magistrate in a county adjoining to Armagh. With respect to what the noble Marquess had Stated relative to his reception in the pro- 976 vince of Ulster, all he could say was, that he was very well satisfied with the reception he met with there, and the best proof of his satisfaction that he could give was, that he should go there again. He hoped he had answered these charges with good temper. As to the connexion of the noble Earl (Roden) with the Orange institution, he had not spoken of it with any intention to state anything invidious. He had too great a respect for the noble Earl's straightforward public conduct and uniform consistency, to say anything further than that the institution being a secret, exclusive, and political society, he did not think that a member of it ought to fill the responsible office of Sheriff. No man was more inclined than himself, however, to forget that such a society had existed, and in proof of this he had to mention that he had taken the earliest opportunity, in the instance of a noble Lord who had been a member of the Orange Society, but had ceased to be connected with it, of confirming the nomination of that noble Lord to be a Deputy Lieutenant. He was extremely anxious, by exerting all the powers he possessed, to confirm what the noble Earl and the illustrious Duke had done, and he assured them that it was with that object that he directed that no retrospect should be made as to any statuteable offences committed before and tried at the late assizes. He wished that Irishmen would unite as Irishmen, and that all recollections of party distinctions should be entirely forgotten. The noble Earl concluded by apologising to their Lordships for the time he had occupied, though he had spoken quick, because he wished to release them as soon as possible.
The Earl of Winchilsea, in reply, observed that he could not help thinking, that in a constitutional point of view, the prerogative of the Crown, with respect to the appointment of Sheriffs in Ireland, ought to be exercised as it usually was in this country. He agreed with the noble Marquess (Lansdowne) that the Act of 1st Henry 7th, gave the power of appointing Sheriffs to the Crown, but that power should be exercised under the constitutional checks which had usually surrounded it. Formerly the election of sheriffs rested with the people, and when the Crown took that power to itself, the leading freeholders recommended the Sheriff, and thus it in some measure continued in their hands. This precedent might lead in future times to the detriment of the people of this country, because very considerable powers belonged to 977 the Sheriff, and if the appointment to this office was not placed under proper check, the Constitution might hereafter be placed in jeopardy.
§ The Petition to lie on the table.