Lords Sitting of 22 May 1837

MINUTES.
Petitions.—By Lord SEGRAVE, from Cheltenham, against the Window Tax.—By Lord FITZGERALD and VESCI, from Cork, in favour of the abolition of Punishment by Death for all crimes, except murder.—By Lord STRAFFORD, from various places, for the abolition of Church-rates.—By the Bishop of WINCHESTER, from Peckham, for the better Observance of the Sabbath,

EDUCATION BOARD (IRELAND.)
The Marquess of Salisburypresented a petition from a gentleman of the name of Murray, complaining of his having been removed without just cause from the situation of Inspector under the Board of Education in Ireland, and praying to be examined touching the premises before a Select Committee, or at the bar of their Lordships' House. The noble Marquess prefaced the presentation of the petition by a few observations, which were wholly inaudible in the gallery.
The Archbishop of Dublinsaid, those individuals were appointed entirely by the board, and were removable at pleasure. They had no claim for any particular duration of their term of employment, and they were clearly bound by the stipulation made with them. Although their functions were much higher, still they must be re-

927
garded as the servants, clerks, or immediate agents of the board. An agreement was made to give them a certain salary, and, in the event of their not giving satisfaction, they were liable to be dismissed. He did not mean to say, that the members of the board were not responsible for the exercise of the power which was intrusted to them, but he did mean to say, that, constituted as they were, they had a right to remove those officers, if they saw sufficient reason for it. These appointments were left wholly to the discretion of the board. There were generally a great number of candidates, very respectable individuals, for the situation, and when the applicants came before them, their duty was to appoint to the office the person who appeared to be the best calculated to fill it. In the same manner, it was their duty to remove such individuals as did not conduct themselves properly. If the Commissioners failed in the right performance of their duty, if they did not exercise a just discretion, their Lordships were at liberty to address his Majesty, and to call on him to issue his royal commands to remove the present Commissioners, and to appoint others in their place. But he would say, that unless the inspectors and other officers of the board were placed under the discretion of the board, to dismiss or to retain them, as they might deem advisable, it would be impossible for the board to proceed in their labours. The petitioner had no vested right: he was not engaged for any specific time; his situation was held durante bene placito. The board did not wish to bring matters of private conduct before the public, but if an individual chose to publish a pamphlet about Irish jobs, and containing accusations against the Commissioners, it could not be expected that he should be retained in their employment.
The Marquess of Salisburysaid, it appeared to him, notwithstanding what had fallen from the most rev. Prelate, that this individual was discharged on account of the publication of the pamphlet, and for no other reason. He held in his hand a copy of a letter from the secretary of the board, addressed to Mr. Murray, which ran thus:—"Dear Sir,—I am directed by the Commissioners of Education to inform you, that the sole reason for dismissing you from the situation of inspector was your publishing a political pamphlet, on the contents of which they do not mean to express any opinion." It thus would appear, though something
928
else was insinuated, that this individual was dismissed for having published a political pamphlet in violation of the rules of the board, of which, perhaps, he was ignorant.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, the petitioner appeared to have violated the rules in this instance, and he was discharged. But the board might have been very glad to get rid of him for other reasons. The most rev. Prelate only answered the allegations contained in the petition.
Petition laid on the table.

EXECUTION AT GLOUCESTER.
Viscount Duncannonsaid, the noble Duke on the cross bench had on a former evening asked a question with respect to circumstances which were alleged to have occurred at a recent execution at Gloucester. The high sheriff had since inquired into the facts of the case. He had examined no less than forty witnesses, and they had stated that the circumstances sent forth to the public were without any foundation. The public certainly had a right to expect that melancholy scenes of this nature should be conducted with decency and decorum. He had read all the evidence, and those persons who attended the execution appeared to have conducted themselves with great propriety. He was aware that a paragraph inculpating the executioner had appeared in a Gloucester paper, and had been copied into the London journals. But he understood that the conductor of the Gloucester paper had reason to suppose that the statement made to him was a correct one, and hence the publication. That individual received the statement from persons on whom he thought he could rely, and having every reason to suppose that it was correct, he had published it.
The Duke of Richmonddid not at the time pledge himself to the accuracy of the statement, but having heard it, he thought it right to call the attention of the Government to it. He believed that the better feelings of human nature were weakened, if not extinguished, by attending such executions. If the executioner on this occasion had attempted to address the crowd, as had been asserted, it would have been a most indecorous act. He was extremely glad that the statement was not correct. He trusted that what had now taken place would induce individuals who appeared at executions hereafter to be more upon their guard, and that it would put an

929
end to that levity on such occasions which was now too prevalent.
Subject dropped.