Lords Sitting of 2 August 1838

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Sardinia Slave Trade Treaties; Post-Office; Militia Ballot Suspension; Dublin Police.—Read a third time:—Hackney Carriages Metropolis.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of CARLISLE, several, from Wesleyan Methodist Congregations in Halifax and other places in Yorkshire, praying for the suppression of Hindoo Idolatry.—By Lord BROUGHAM, from the Prisoners confined in the Queen's Bench Prison, against the postponement of the operation of the Imprisonment for Debt Bill; from Paisley, against the Prison (Scotland) Bill; from the Maidstone Mechanics' Institution, and from Dingwall, in favour of Mr. Hill's Postage plan; a great number from various places, against Idolatry in India; from Bangor, against the Tithe system in Ireland; from Montrose, against the Parliamentary Franchise; from the same place, for a repeal of the Corn-laws; from London and its vicinity, for the Abolition of Negro Slavery; from Arbroath, against the Renewal of the monopoly of the Queen's Printer in Scotland; from Huddersfield, against the Beer Act.

MAGISTRACY (IRELAND.)
The Marquess of Londonderryregretted, that he was obliged again to bring under their Lordships' consideration the great change which had recently been made in the Irish magistracy. He was unwillingly obliged to pursue this course, because a noble Marquess (Normanby) had, on a former occasion, when the subject was introduced, asserted that he had brought forward statements in the absence of the lord-lieutenant of the county of Down, in the correctness of which the noble Marquess (Downshire) who held that important office did not concur. He was willing, in considering this question, to act upon the principle distinctly laid down the other night by the noble arid learned Lord on the woolsack, who said, that "no person could be removed from the commission of the peace without a certain degree of imputation being cast on him; that, there-

849
fore, reasons should be given for such removal; because every man was entitled to have justice done him." On this principle he was willing to rest. Now, he found, that on the revision of the magistracy no less than twenty magistrates were removed in the county of Down—in a Protestant county, a peaceable county, where, he would contend, no possible reason could be adduced for making such an alteration. But while the Irish Government got rid of so many magistrates, they introduced others, who, he supposed, were put in the commission because they had adopted the political opinions of the noble and learned Lord the Chancellor of Ireland. The individuals thus dismissed were amongst the most worthy, the most enlightened, and the most intelligent gentlemen of the county. Since he formerly adverted to this subject he found, that out of the twenty magistrates who had been rejected, no less than eight had been restored. Now, as eight were restored, he should very much like to know why those eight had been dismissed? The noble and learned Lord might say, that none were dismissed without reasons being assigned, that a careful examination took place in the first instance, and that before any step was taken the lord-lieutenant of each county was called on to make such observations as he deemed necessary. Now, if they looked to dates, they would find that no such fair consideration, so far as the lords-lieutenant were concerned, could have taken place. The subject was eight months, indeed, before the Irish Government, but it was not until the month of May last that the lords-lieutenant were called on to give their opinion. The Irish Government took eight months to make up their minds as to what they meant to do, and they gave to the lords-lieutenant one month to state their opinion on those proposed dismissals and selections; for in the month of June last they made out their new commission. The lords-lieutenant, therefore, had not a proper opportunity of considering the subject. Indeed, at the time many of them were in this country attending their Parliamentary duties. There were seven other gentlemen excluded from the commission, most respectable men and most excellent magistrates, and against whom no charge or ground of complaint had ever been made. Why, he asked, were not these even gentlemen also replaced? The case
850
of Mr. Corry appeared to him one of the greatest hardship and injustice, and by no means, creditable to the Irish Government. For thirty-five years had that respected gentleman been in the commission of the peace, yet he was kept six months in anxious suspense not knowing whether he should be continued in the commission or even be allowed to die without the consolation of knowing that no charge rested upon his character, The treatment which Mr. Corry received was so monstrous, that he should certainly move that copies of the investigation, and the correspondence which passed between him and the Irish Government, together with the opinions of the law officers of the Crown, should be laid upon the table of the House. The second case was that of the rev. Holt Waring, the clergyman of a respectable congregation, and a man of large landed property in the county. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Plunkett) had stated upon the occasion of the former discussion upon the subject, that Mr. Waring's name was not inserted in the new commission because he had left his parish a day or two before the 12th of July, instead of remaining at home to soothe the angry feelings which were likely to arise, and to control the improper proceedings of the Orangemen. It turned out, however, upon inquiry, that the grounds upon which the noble and learned Lord stated, that Mr. Waring was not replaced had no existence inasmuch as, that rev, Gentleman had gone away a long time before, and for a far different purpose. He had received a letter from that rev. Gentleman, in which he stated that he was not at home at the time, having been detained in Dublin upon business. He further stated, that he did not reach his residence at Waringstown until the 14th, a few days after when he found his peaceful village taken possession of by an armed force of military and police although no breach of the peace had been committed and there was nothing to justify the occupation of the place by the military, except that there was an Orange flag upon the Church, which could not possibly be construed into a breach of the peace. The third case to which he wished to draw the attention of their Lordships was that of the rev. Mr. Sampson, a clergyman, and a man of fortune. In his (Lord Londonderry's) opinion, the dismissal of such men from the magistracy was taking away the best

851
support of the law and of the Government in the county, and doing a gross injustice to the individuals themselves. While others upon whom the strongest censure had been passed by Government itself were replaced in the commission, Mr. Sampson was excluded. It appeared that in 1834 a memorial was sent to the lord-lieutenant, stating complaints against Mr. Sampson for the manner in which he collected his tithes. The lord-lieutenant sent down an authenticated copy of the memorial, to which was attached the signature of Mr. Lindsay, a gentleman whose name was continued in the commission, though that of Mr. Sampson was excluded. An inquiry was directed, and a meeting, consisting of the greater part of the magistrates of the county, was held at Banbridge, for the purpose of investigating the charges contained in the memorial. The result was, that all the charges received the fullest contradiction by the sworn testimony of the churchwardens and the parishioners. Several witnesses, whose names were attached to the memorial, stated, that they had never signed, or permitted or authorised their names to be signed to it. It also turned out that many of the signatures were fictitious, and many fraudulently obtained. Many persons had signed it who were not cess-payers at all, and it contained the names of six persons who were dead. The magistrates, at the conclusion of the proceedings, came to a resolution that they no longer act in concert as magistrates with Mr. Lindsay, in consequence of his conduct respecting this transaction. Resolutions were drawn up and signed, and sent by the magistrates to the lord-lieutenant of the county to be by him transmitted to the lord-lieutenant. A copy was also sent to Mr. Lindsay. The papers were accordingly sent to the lord-lieutenant, and by him referred to the Lord Chancellor for his decision. Perhaps it might be necessary to explain to their Lordships how this letter had come into his possession. He understood that permission to communicate it to the magistrates had been asked, and not withheld. It had accordingly got into circulation throughout the country, and its contents became generally known. The noble and learned Lord in this letter said, that he had no hesitation in saying, that Mr. Lindsay's conduct had been most indiscreet and blameable, and that Mr. Lindsay owed it to himself to make
852
Mr. Sampson some apology for his conduct. The noble and learned Lord considered, however, that he should not be justified in removing Mr. Lindsay from the magistracy, as the matter had not occurred in his magisterial capacity. If the noble and learned Lord was not justified in removing Mr. Lindsay's name from the old commission, surely he had good grounds for not including him in the new. The noble and learned Lord went on to say, that he was not surprised at the determination which the magistrates had come to in refusing to act in concert with Mr. Lindsay; but he hoped they would not persist in it, as it would interfere with the public business. He also expressed his entire conviction of the propriety of Mr. Sampson's conduct. He should make no observations on the effect which the political principles of Mr. Lindsay might have had in reference to those proceedings, but he should say, with respect to Mr. Sampson, that he possessed more property than any clergyman in the neighbourhood. Their Lordships might pretty well judge of the spirit which regulated the dismissal and appointment of magistrates in Ireland, when he called their attention to the declaration made by Mr. O'Connell at a dinner of the friends of the St. Bridget's Orphan Asylum, where that gentleman presided. Mr. O'Connell assured the company then assembled, that the Irish magistracy must undergo a complete revision, that the matter was in the hands of the Lord-lieutenant, that it could not possibly be in better hands, and that for the future all partisan magistrates would be relieved from the labours of the office of justice of the peace, and be at liberty to retire into private life. The conduct of the noble and learned Lord opposite, as far as it related to the magistracy in Ireland, went most fully to carry into effect the threat implied in the language of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. Mr. Chemies, a magistrate, who had been fifty years in the commission of the peace, was dismissed. [Lord Plunkett: He has since been restored.] If so, it must have been within the last forty-eight hours. The noble Marquess concluded by moving for copies of all minutes of proceedings connected with the investigation held at Newry on the 10th of last October concerning the conduct of Mr. Trevor Corry: copies also of the charges preferred against that gentleman by Mr.

853
Power; copies of all correspondence between the Irish Government and any person or persons on that subject; copies of the opinions of the law officers of the Crown relating thereto; minutes of any public meetings held or resolutions adopted on the subject, together with any letters referring to it which might have passed between the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, the Chancellor of Ireland, or the lord-lieutenant of the county of Down.
Lord Plunkettsaid, he should have no objection to the production of any letters written by him. Neither should he resist the production of letters written by the lord-lieutenant of the county of Down, provided that noble Lord had himself no objection: but he considered all communications coming from lords-lieutenant of counties as strictly confidential, and, as a general rule, he should resist their production, unless with the consent of the writer. As to the opinions of the law officers of the Crown, he should not consent to their production, it would be contrary to all precedent. He should now apply himself to the cases of Mr. Trevor Corry, Mr. Lindsay, Mr. Holt Waring, and Mr. Sampson. In the first place he begged to say, that he had never, in any instance, acted upon charges made against magistrates without affording them a full and ample opportunity of making a defence, and he could say, that that rule had always governed his conduct in cases where there had been any dismissal. But the case was different where new commissions were made out, and names omitted which had previously been in the commission. The House must see, that it would be impossible to institute a particular inquiry into every case of the omission of a name. With respect to the case of Mr. Trevor Corry, it was to him one of the most painful character, owing to the death of that respected gentleman. He could not defend himself without a reference to circumstances which might seem to cast censure on one no longer alive. Nevertheless, in justice to himself, he must state the charges preferred against Mr. Corry: they were, that he, being a magistrate and going about the town of Newry, accompanied by some of the police of that town, did take a person into custody, and, though he had been guilty of no breach of the peace, had him manacled and kept in confinement for several hours. No other cause for this appeared than that the person
854
so confined had given offence to Mr. Corry's political friends by the measures in which he had engaged connected with secreting voters at the time of the election. That was certainly a gross outrage, and especially so when committed by a magistrate. The fullest possible opportunity for explanation was given to Mr. Corry, and an investigation took place, over which a learned barrister presided; several witnesses were carefully and minutely examined, and the facts were established against Mr. Trevor Corry. It was rumoured, that he intended to prosecute those witnesses for perjury. He was not in the counsels of Mr. Trevor Corry, he therefore could not say, whether he possessed the will to institute such a proceeding, or the means of doing so with success; but so long as any probability remained of his prosecuting for perjury, he thought it better to wait for a general revision of the magistracy of the county than proceed to a direct dismissal, and this accounted for the delay of which so much complaint had been made. That gentleman having, however, ultimately failed to bring forward the prosecution for perjury, he (Lord Plunkett) was obliged to take the step which had been merely suspended, and to proceed to dismiss Mr. Corry from the magistracy. The noble Marquess opposite would bear him out, when he stated, that representations having been made to his Excellency, the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland by the noble Marquess, the lord-lieutenant of the county of Down, an investigation was ordered into the circumstances of Mr. Corry's case, during the progress of which the melancholy event of Mr. Corry's death took place. So far as Mr. Corry's case was concerned, he did not believe that he had violated any principle either of justice or of humanity. On the contrary, he had been actuated throughout, by a desire to show every feeling of respect for that gentleman's highly-respectable connexions. With regard to the case of Mr. Holt Waring, the noble and learned Lord then repeated the statement which he made some days since in the House of Lords, and which was reported in The Times, to the effect that Mr. Waring was in the first instance ineligible to be placed upon the revised list of the magistracy, as a clergyman; and secondly, that on the 12th of July last, that gentleman having absented himself from Waringstown (and he

855
having been formerly chaplain to the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland), an Orange flag was hoisted upon the steeple of his church during his absence. He did not say, that the rev. Gentleman absented himself purposely; but he certainly looked upon the circumstance as rather more than suspicious. The opportunity to give an explanation, had been afforded to Mr. Holt Waring, of making any explanation which he might desire; the case rested in his hands. No such explanation had as yet reached him. He had stated to the noble Marquess, the lord-lieutenant of the county of Down, that he should be most willing to restore Mr. Holt Waring to the magistracy, if the conduct which he had displayed in former years upon the 12th of July were not repeated. He had not, however, as yet received any explanation of the rev. Gentleman's absence upon the last 12th of July. He hoped, that he should yet receive that information; and upon his receipt of it, it would give him great satisfaction to restore Mr. Waring to the magistracy. With regard to the case of Mr. John Lindsay, the noble Marquess stated, that that individual had been guilty of forgery.
The Marquess of Londonderry: I merely stated, that he had sent forged instruments to the Government.
Lord Plunkett: The noble Marquess charged him with being the instrument by which these forged documents were forwarded to the Government.
The Marquess of Londonderry: What I said was, that Mr. Lindsay was the medium of forwarding to the lord-lieutenant a memorial, to which certain false signatures were attached, some of those signatures being of persons who had died, and others the forged signatures of persons living; and I further observed, that he had stated before the magistrates, that those fictitious signatures were true signatures.
Lord Plunkett: The impression on his mind was, that if the noble Marquess did not say, that Mr. Lindsay had forged the instrument, he had at least uttered the instrument, knowing it to be forged.
The Marquess of Londonderryhoped, that the noble and learned Lord would not endeavour to fix upon him any thing which he had not in reality stated. The noble
856
Marquess then repeated the terms of his former statement.
Lord Plunkettassured the noble Marquess, that he had no desire whatever to misrepresent him. He would take it as the noble Marquess took it, that with respect to those fictitious signatures, there was no charge against Mr. Lindsay. The magistrates, however, did not look upon the case in that harmless point of view. They had held a meeting in the month of July, at which a deputy lord-lieutenant of the county had presided, and came to a resolution, stating, that in consequence of Mr. Lindsay's conduct with respect to these fictitious signatures, they would no longer sit upon the same bench with him. He did not know, whether Mr. Lindsay had been imposed upon or not by those fictitious signatures; but here was the fact, that the magistrates refused to sit on the same bench with him. The noble Marquess should, however, have followed up this statement with regard to Mr. Lindsay, by stating, that a subsequent meeting of the magistrates was held in the month of August, at which five or six of them expressly declared, that they did not impute to him any share or knowledge of the improprieties connected with the forging of the signatures in question. The noble Marquess should have stated, that these magistrates thus retracted the charge of forgery which was originally made against Mr. Lindsay. He had been induced to appoint that gentleman to the magistracy, in consequence of a letter which he had received from the noble Marquess, the lord-lieutenant of the county of Down, stating, that Mr. Lindsay was a very respectable man. He had accordingly appointed Mr. Lindsay without any inquiry as to his political feelings. Was he to remove Mr. Lindsay from the magistracy on account of this transaction, more particularly when the charge of forgery was withdrawn? In point of fact, the charge was not insisted upon that Mr. Lindsay had knowingly deceived any person; all that was required, was an apology from Mr. Lindsay. The magistrates said, that they did not object to sit upon the same bench with him, provided he made the apology. Now, it certainly would be rather a strong thing to call upon him to dismiss Mr. Lindsay, because he had not made that apology. The noble and learned Lord read Lord Downshire's letter in 1833, recommending Mr.

857
Lindsay to the situation of magistrate. He also read the copy of a letter written by himself in August, 1834, to Lord Downshire, with reference to the memorial against the rev. Mr. Sampson. In this letter, he described Mr. Lindsay's conduct with reference to that description, as highly indiscreet, and stated, that it was due both to himself and to Mr. Sampson to make that gentleman an ample apology, but that he doubted, whether he could at all take cognizance of the circumstance, as it had not occurred in Mr. Lindsay's magisterial capacity, and it would require a great deal of argument to convince him of the contrary. The noble and learned Lord proceeded in this letter to express a hope, that the magistrates would not allow any personal resentment to interfere with the discharge of their sworn duties; and, in conclusion, he expressed his entire opproval of Mr. Sampson's conduct.
The Marquess of Downshireinquired whether the noble and learned Lord had the letter written by him in reply?
Lord Plunkettreplied, that he had not brought the letter with him; but, that if the noble Marquess desired it, he had not the least objection to produce it, and to this part of the noble Marquess's (Londonderry's) motion, he was quite ready to assent. The noble and learned Lord next read a letter addressed by him on the 27th of August to the Marquess of Downshire, in which he announced his receipt of Mr. Lindsay's memorial, and stated, that he owed it to Mr. Sampson to say, that his opinion of his conduct remained unchanged. The charge against Mr. Sampson was, that having compounded with his parishioners at the rate of 1s. an acre for his tithes, he had afterwards claimed under the Corporation Act, 1s. 6d. an acre. He was bound to say, that he considered Mr. Sampson to have explained the circumstance in a satisfactory manner. He should have felt great difficulty on this part of the case in removing a magistrate for any mere act of impropriety which he had committed not in his magisterial capacity; but he was relieved from this by a letter from Mr. Lindsay, in which he stated, that upon reflection he should not employ the expressions which he had used; and he went on to say, that he could not make any apology until the resolution of the magistrates was rescinded. Now, he must say, that he thought Mr. Lindsay was
858
quite justified, after the charge which had been brought against him, in refusing an apology until those resolutions had been withdrawn. His answer was, that he was not a judge of etiquette, and that it was impossible for him, as holding the great seal, to point out what apology one gentleman should give to another, and he inquired whether any of the gentlemen in question could seriously reconcile it to their sense of duty to decline serving on that account. Now, he would beg to ask their Lordships, whether he had not shown a proper attention to the feelings of Mr. Sampson on the one side, and a proper feeling of caution as to displacing a magistrate on the other? One word more as to Mr. Lindsay. He believed, that the magistrates did take his advice, and did not refuse to sit with Mr. Lindsay, and that Mr. Lindsay did continue to be a magistrate two years. In the mean time, a general election had taken place, and Mr. Lindsay had taken an active part in the election. The matter was then revived, and the complaint was made, not on account of his having refused to make an apology—not for the memorial which he had presented—not for anything done to Mr. Sampson, but for his having taken an active part in the election. He was not aware that anything had taken place since that time to inculpate him. There had been no restoration in this case. Mr. Lindsay had continued to be in the commission of the peace. Therefore, when it was said, that the removal of Mr. Sampson and the restoration of Mr. Lindsay were simultaneous, it was a complete mistake; and, further, Mr. Sampson was not removed till two years after this transaction. He would now merely show the way in which the list of magistrates had been so much reduced. The entire number of magistrates was originally 4,160. The reduced list amounted to 2,690, so that the difference between the original and the reduced list would amount to 1,740 omissions. This would certainly appear to be a very extraordinary amount of omissions. But, in the first place, out of these 1,740, no less than 450 were dead; 252 were members of the police force, and were necessarily removed from the magistracy; 134 were military, and were removed on that ground, and 230 were clergymen, and were, on that account, removed. These amounted in round numbers to 1,070 persons. Of the remaining

859
400 persons, 64 had been restored; that was his (Lord Plunkett's) crime; and as to the 336 yet remaining, that made an average in each county in Ireland of 11 magistrates. Now, of these some were disqualified for non-residence; some for non-attendance at petty sessions; others were disqualified from want of property, or disabled by holding certain offices, such as that of coroner, or secretary to the grand jury, and the like. There were only three or four cases where the parties were removed on special grounds. One of these persons had been removed because he had been convicted of using false weights, and another for forcibly marrying. He supposed the noble Marquess would not insist on his retaining these persons in the commission of the peace.
Lord Broughamthought there would be no objection to his noble and learned Friend's reading these letters in his place; but he saw a great difficulty in an address to the Crown, calling on the Lord Chancellor to make public his private letters and communications. Besides, it would not do to ask only for the letters of the Lord Chancellor, and not the confidential letters of the lord-lieutenant. He could not consent to a garbled correspondence. In his opinion, his noble and learned Friend had met the charges made against him most fully, and it seemed to him that if this motion were agreed to, it should be agreed to with a most particular protestation against its being drawn into a precedent, and when a protestation of this kind was necessary, it was the safer way not to call for the correspondence at all.
The Marquess of Downshireexpressed a hope that the noble and learned Lord would not object to the production of the papers arising out of the inquiry into the conduct of Mr. Trevor Corry. A very full investigation took place in the month of October last, and after the inquiry had terminated, no communication was made to Mr. Trevor Corry by her Majesty's Government in Ireland as to what they intended to do. They gave him no answer whatever, and in February he wrote to Mr. Drummond, the secretary of the Lord-lieutenant, to know what the Government intended to do. Now, Mr. Corry and his brother were the first persons in the county of Down, who took upon themselves to hold petty sessions before they were called upon to do so by the Government, and before they were required by law. Every-
860
body well knew the advantages which had arisen from the establishment now generally throughout Ireland of petty sessions, and Mr. Trevor Corry, who had been a magistrate of the county of Down for upwards of thirty years, had been the first person to establish them in Newry, a large and populous town, with a great trade, and consequently affording much business to be done by magistrates. The hardship which had been felt by Mr. Trevor Corry was, that the accusation having been made against him last year—an accusation which, from the best information, he (the Marquess of Downshire) could state was unfounded—an investigation took place, and that gentleman was removed from the commission of the peace after that investigation had terminated, and without any communication being made to him by the Irish Government. That removal had made such an impression on the mind of Mr. Trevor Corry, who was a man of most sensitive feelings, as considerably to increase the indisposition, which last month was terminated by his decease. It was but just that he should add, that Mr. Corry was a man of the highest respectability; that he had been intrusted by the Bank of Ireland with the management of their branch bank in the town of Newry, and was altogether a most fit and proper person to perform the magisterial duties. The noble and learned Lord contended, that he had done nothing more than his duty in the course which he had pursued, but the misfortune was, that the noble and learned Lord had not had the whole of the facts before him. He rejoiced the matter had been brought before the House, and had been listened to by their Lordships with such becoming attention, as it would show not only the friends of the late Mr. Corry, but also the country generally, that in this House the complaints of any class of her Majesty's subjects would always receive that consideration which they deserved. He could not but complain, that the late Mr. Trevor Corry should have been kept waiting from the month of October last until his death without any communication, and that he should never have been informed by the Irish Government whether or not the Government considered the charges well-founded or not; indeed, the only information he received, was the omission of his name from the revised list of magistrates. This Mr. Corry had felt deeply, and the circumstance had a most

861
serious effect upon his health. With regard to the case of Mr. Holt Waring, he (the Marquess of Downshire) must say, that his communications to the noble and learned Lord opposite had met with every attention and respect. Mr. Waring was a gentleman of large landed property, and the complaint against him was, that he had absented himself from his residence and his duty previous to July 12, 1837, and the noble and learned Lord seemed to think, that Mr. Waring had gone away purposely. Such, however, was not the fact; for there had been a letter from that gentleman stating, that he was detained in Dublin on particular business, which prevented his return home until two days after the 12th of July, 1837; and, with respect to that day in the present year, there had been no display of emblems to an extent to make his presence necessary. The cases of Mr. Lindsay and Mr. Sampson had been investigated so long ago as the year 1834, and on that occasion Mr. Trevor Corry had interfered, and endeavoured to reconcile the differences between those two gentlemen. The then Lord-lieutenant (the Marquess Wellesley) himself interfered as a mediator, and all regretted, that the efforts made to effect a reconciliation did not succeed. The rev. Mr. Sampson, however, acted in a manner highly creditable to him, both as a clergyman and a gentleman, and if he had to choose between the two gentlemen, he should certainly prefer for the magisterial bench Mr. Sampson to Mr. Lindsay. With regard to clergymen serving as magistrates, he could only say, that in the county of Down it was difficult to induce them to take the office. On the whole, he contended, that the state of peace and tranquillity, and the absence of crime from that county, was highly creditable to the magistracy.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, that though he had no connexion with the county in question, still he wished to say a few words on the subject now before the House, in consequence of what had fallen from the noble and learned Lord the Chancellor of Ireland: He thought the noble and learned Lord would have adopted a better and more Parliamentary course if he had at once declined to produce the papers, and not to throw on the House the duty of negativing a motion for papers which ought not to be granted. As the noble and learned Lord opposite had appealed
862
to those Members of the House who were lords-lieutenant of counties, he (the Earl of Wicklow) must declare, that as far as his experience went, he had no reason to complain of the revision which had taken place in the lists of magistrates for the county with which he (the Earl of Wicklow) was connected, and he was especially satisfied with the omission of clergymen from those lists. At the same time, he thought the Irish Government ought to have found other persons who were willing to take on themselves the magisterial duties, so that no district should be left totally unprovided for in that respect. With regard to the statement of the noble and learned Lord in reference to the cases of Messrs Lindsay and Sampson, he was perfectly satisfied; he, however, was by no means satisfied with the noble and learned Lord's statements with regard to Mr. Trevor Corry and to Mr. Holt Waring. The former had great right to complain, that he had never been informed of the result of the investigation. The result, however, upon which the noble and learned Lord had acted was, that Mr. Corry had manacled and kept in prison an individual for some hours. Now, did not the noble and learned Lord know, that instructions were issued to all the police of Ireland, that they should take no person prisoner without putting handcuffs upon him? He admitted the harshness of those instructions, but the fault lay with the Government who issued them. Again, if the party was kept manacled in prison, the fault rested not upon the magistrate, but on the gaoler. The charge was not so much against Mr. Corry as against the persons in authority at the gaol. The whole case against that gentleman was, that there was a riot, and he handed a person over to the police. A more weak case he never heard brought against any individual. Then, with respect to the case of Mr. Waring, he had been the secretary of an Orange society, but it was subsequent to the dissolution of that society, that he was dismissed. It was true, an order had been issued, that no person connected with the Orange body should be introduced to the magistracy, but as soon as that body, which, be it remembered, had originated under royal auspices, and had grown up under the sanction and encouragement of former Governments of this country, were given to understand, that it was the wish of the Government that they should dissolve

863
their institution, to which they had been attached from their infancy, as it were, and in which all their feelings had been enlisted, they did dissolve it; and, therefore, so far from the fact of Mr. Waring having been an Orangeman forming an objection to him, it was a reason why he should be retained. But, because, during his absence from home, some person hoisted an Orange flag on his church, the noble and learned Lord determined to dismiss him, without taking the trouble to call upon him for any explanation, or inquiring into the real circumstances of the case.
Lord Plunkett: He was not dismissed because he had belonged to an Orange lodge, nor because of the flag being put up on his church, but because he was a clergyman.
The Earl of Wicklow: Then why introduce the flag at all? Why talk of his having been an Orangeman, if it had nothing to do with the case? If he had been dismissed only on account of his being a clergyman, that altered the case; but then why not simply state that? He thought that the noble and learned Lord had made out no case whatever with regard to Mr. Corry to justify the severe and cruel manner in which he was treated.
The Earl of Glengallcomplained of the power which was exercised by the stipendiary magistrates, and said, that he, for one, as a magistrate, would rather resign his commission to-morrow, than have his conduct inquired into by the stipendiary magistrates alone. There were fifty-four magistrates in Ireland, besides some others, who, in fact, also were stipendiary magistrates. Before the passing of the Police Bill, there were twenty-five magistrates, since which twenty-nine had been appointed, of whom twenty-three had never before held any other similar office, and were placed over the heads of ninety-six constables, every one of whom had served more than ten years in the constabulary. It was very well known how those gentlemen got appointed—namely, through the interest of their friends in Parliament, although, if he recollected rightly, both in that House and in another place, it was agreed, that the appointment of these stipendiary magistrates should not be made a subject of Parliamentary patronage. In fact, it was not necessary to look to the names of the newly appointed magistrates to discover the influeuce to
864
which they owed their appointments. The similarity between their names and those borne by gentlemen "elsewhere," at once suggested the source. It was understood in that House, that Colonel Shaw Kennedy was to be at the head of the force, and that he was to be held responsible for the appointments; and on the faith of that understanding, the bill was allowed to pass. But Colonel Shaw Kennedy was no longer at the head of the force, and if public rumour spoke truly, and it very often did, Colonel Shaw Kennedy resigned, because he was interfered with in the correct performance of his duty. He did, it was said, object to the appointment of many of these gentlemen, but he was overruled, and these were, he believed, the main grounds of his resignation. The bill never would have passed, but that it was understood Colonel Shaw Kennedy was to have the control of the force; such a state of things no longer existed, and he could not help expressing his surprise, that Government had refused to lay on the table of the House the correspondence which had passed between Colonel Shaw Kennedy and the Irish Government, and which, if produced, he had every reason to believe, would show the interference of the Government in the manner he had described. He was sorry the session had been allowed to pass without an inquiry being instituted into the appointments of the police force in Ireland. The House would recollect, that the force was composed of 8000 men, that they performed duties of a very onerous character, and, therefore, the House was bound to look with great jealousy at the appointments made by the Government. He trusted, the next Session of Parliament would not be allowed to pass without an inquiry taking place.
Viscount Melbournesaid, it appeared to him, that the noble Marquess opposite had displayed somewhat of unjustifiable solicitude about the case of Mr. Corry, in supposing that his ignorance of the result of the proceedings had brought on an excitement which had hastened his death, because he must have known the result, having threatened to institute proceedings against the witnesses against him for perjury. If the conduct of Mr. Corry was not such as had been stated by the persons examined in the investigation which took place, then, of course, the noble and learned Lord had not acted

865
right in removing him; but there was no proof to the contrary. With respect to the case of Mr. Waring, he agreed most entirely with the noble Earl opposite, that his having been secretary or chaplain to the Orange lodge should not be a reason for his not being placed in the magistracy, nor the other circumstance which had been stated. But it appeared advisable, as a general rule, to exclude clergymen from the commission; he did not, however, go the length of the principle, that they should have nothing at all to do with secular concerns, but only that there was an objection that clergymen should be appointed magistrates, except in circumstances which made it necessary and unavoidable. With respect to the motion made by the noble Earl, he had no objection to the production of the minutes of the trial of Mr. Corry; but it was clear, that it would be unwise, except in very straitened cases, and under very peculiar circumstances, to produce the communications which had taken place between the lords-lieutenant of counties and the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, because those communications ought to be open and unrestrained, and it could not be so, if it was to be produced on any and every occasion when it was demanded.
The Earl of Charlevillesaid, that he considered Mr. Trevor Corry had not been fairly treated. The noble Viscount stated that he knew nothing of the case, but what he heard in the debate; now the inferences he drew were so illogical, and the conclusions he came to so unjust and contrary to fact, it did not require this confirmation of the fact from the noble Viscount, which was so apparent to all noble Lords who knew something of the case. The noble Viscount stated, that the Government did not dismiss Mr. Corry sooner because Mr. Corry had intimated his intention to prosecute his accusers for perjury; but the facts were these—a court of inquiry assembled to try Mr. Corry on the 10th of October—they reported immediately; Mr. Corry was left in the most painful state of anxiety and suspense for four months, and at the end of four months and not before—he held the letter in his hand, dated the 20th of February last, did Mr. Corry inform the Government of his intention to prosecute? Mr. Corry says, "four months have now elapsed; I have heard nothing from you, I suppose, therefore, as I continue to
866
hold the commission of the peace, the Lord-lieutenant is satisfied of my innocence—will you furnish me with copies of the depositions that I may prosecute my accusers for perjury." The answer he got was, if you summons Mr. Plunkett as a witness, he will produce the documents you require. Mr. Corry was not given copies, and had no means to prepare his case, had his legal advisers been of opinion he could prosecute on such documents successfully, for perjury. Now the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, admitted, as he understood him, that the man M'Intier, who made the charges against Mr. Corry had failed in three out of four charges. He was proved to have sworn falsely on the other charges, by men of the highest character and respectability—he was then a perjured witness; yet upon the testimony of such a man, refuted as the majority of his charges had been, was this harsh and cruel measure of injustice inflicted upon a useful, honourable, and respected gentleman. The noble and learned Lord admits all this, but, says the noble and learned Lord, the man was handcuffed, marched off a prisoner, and placed in gaol. For the sake of argument he would admit the facts to be so. But hear Mr. Trevor Corry—on his honour, as a gentleman, Mr. Trevor Corry says, he has no knowledge of this man, M'Intier, that he did not know him by sight, that he has no recollection of seeing him, and that he did not order him or any other man to be handcuffed that night. That it was no whim of his that caused him to be placed on duty that night, that the order emanated from the magistrates, local and stipendiary—he was accompanied by a chief constable and some police, and that entrance was guarded by a party of the 38th regiment. Those orders were given by the magistrates generally, and he only took his regular turn of duty. That the man was taken and handcuffed is possible or true, but that Mr. Corry did not interfere in the case, for in fact there was nothing to call for his interference. Now this man went on to charge Mr. Trevor Corry with divers illegal acts—assaulting him, hitting him with a gun, &c.—every tittle of which was disproved by Captain M'Cleod, the officer of the 38th, Mr. Hill, chief constable, Mr. Isaac Corry, Mr. John Leech—in short, the noble and learned Lord admitted such to be the fact; so he would

867
not dwell further on those charges, but come to the arrest and handcuffing. The noble Earl behind him had told their Lordships that the Government had ordered all prisoners to be handcuffed. That disposed of that part of the subject; now he must refer to another standing order of the Government. He appealed to noble Lords connected with Ireland accustomed to act as magistrates, who must know the general order he alluded to, namely, that any and every police patrol, at night, were directed to examine and take an account of persons they met out at night, and that if they could not satisfactorily account for themselves, or were unknown to the police, especially if armed either with fire-arms or weapons of offence, their orders were to arrest them, and keep them in a place of security, the guard-room, gaol, or bridewell, and there keep them till morning, or till they satisfactorily accounted for themselves. This was no new order—he believed it was given in the time of Sir John Harvey. He knew it was acted upon—often most beneficially; he knew murderers, who had been apprehended by it, who would, otherwise, have escaped. Now the town of Newry was in that state, which induced the magistrates to take precautions. This man was found armed—the patrol would act under the directions of the Government; and his conviction was, that Mr. Trevor Corry was not appealed to, and knew nothing of the case. Now, that this man was a suspicious character, and that the police were not far wrong in suspecting him, appears from the fact that on the very next night this man made a forcible entry into a house, and was guilty of the crime of abduction. Yet on the evidence of this perjured witness, you inflict injury, injustice and insult on Mr. Corry, who had nothing to do with the case; and the police who handcuffed the man acted under your own orders, emanating from the castle of Dublin. The noble and learned Lord said he was charged, as if he had committed a crime, with having reinstated certain magistrates. He heard no such charge. But this he would say, come from where it might, such a charge would receive no support from him. He thanked the Lord Chancellor of Ireland for his courtesy, for the attention he paid to his representations for the anxiety he manifested to correct the errors in the commission for the King's County; and he tendered him his best
868
thanks for this tardy act of justice in restoring those magistrates to whom he alluded to the commission. But did this alter his opinion of the impropriety of his original conduct? Not in the least. He regretted it, because he would ask the noble and learned Lord, than whom no one better knew the feelings of the people of Ireland—he would ask noble Lords connected with that country, what would be the effect on the public mind in Ireland? The noble and learned Lord knew full well that the people there would not believe that the noble Lord had acted on principles of justice. They would attribute his conduct, erroneously he would admit, but they would attribute it to fear of exposure, dread of inquiries, favouritism, the force of a power here too strong for him to stand or contend against; in short, to anything—to everything but that to which he attributed it, namely, an honest desire on the part of the noble and learned Lord to correct the errors into which he had unfortunately fallen, and to act on principles of justice towards those, who, on false representations he had been induced to leave out. Much as he regretted the original omissions, he heartily thanked him for the course he had since adopted in the King's County.
The Marquess of Londonderry, in reply, said it did not appear that the case of Mr. Lindsay was much better than the rest. At the second assembly of magistrates, held at Banbridge on the 6th of August last, resolutions were passed, condemning Mr. Lindsay and completely exonerating Mr. Sampson. That was the opinion of twenty magistrates of the county of Down, who went on to state, "That under all the circumstances, they considered it right that it be proposed to Mr. Lindsay to make an apology." These resolutions were known to all Ireland, and it was on them that he had formed his opinion in regard to Mr. Lindsay. He had no desire to press for the papers of Mr. Lindsay, and he would therefore wave that part of his motion, and confine it to the papers relating to Mr. Trevor Corry and the court of inquiry. He should therefore move, that there be laid before the House a copy of the proceedings at Newry, on the 18th of October last, against Mr. Trevor Corry, and of any correspondence on the subject between the Irish Government and Mr. T. Corry.
The Duke of Wellington, had one observation to make in regard to this transac-

869
tion, and which had reference to the mode of conducting these inquiries into the conduct of magistrates in Ireland. This was the second instance which had been brought under the notice of their Lordships of sending down commissions to inquire into the conduct of magistrates in cases where, if the charges had any ground at all, they ought to have been brought before the common tribunals of the country by a civil action. Such was the practice in England, and he could not see why the same course should not be pursued in Ireland. In a former debate they had another instance of this ex parte mode of inquiry, and now in the same way, in the case of Mr. Trevor Corry, who, it appeared was accused of improper conduct in the exercise of his functions as a magistrate, a similar course of proceeding had been adopted. Now he begged to ask why those cases were not brought before the ordinary tribunals in the regular course, as in England, instead of sending down a stipendiary magistrate—and let their Lordships remember that the greater portion of those stipendiary magistrates were mere partisans—to make a secret investigation? The fair and just plan in such cases was to proceed against magistrates against whom such charges were brought before the ordinary tribunals, and in due course of law, as in this country. That was the fair and honourable course to pursue; and he hoped to see it adopted for the future in all cases of a similar character in Ireland. It was quite right that the Lord Chancellor should, in regard to appointments to the magistracy, and in regard to the conduct of magistrates, carry on a correspondence with the lords-lieutenant of the counties; and it was highly proper that that correspondence should be held strictly private; but when a magistrate was to be tried on charges affecting his character as a magistrate, that trial ought to be open and in public, and before the common tribunals. He could not avoid making these observations as he believed they were just, and he was sure that they were in accordance with sound policy, and he trusted that in future all cases of a similar description would be disposed of before the common tribunals, as in England.
Viscount Melbournewas a little surprised at the observations of the noble Duke, considering the noble Duke's intimate and extensive acquaintance with
870
public business. The course which the noble Duke condemned was one which for years had been followed in Ireland. When riots took place in that country, or when there was any apprehensions of tumult, it was the usual practice to send down those commissions to inquire on the spot into the state of affairs. Such was the general course of proceeding in Ireland, and he contended that the adoption of such a course was called for from the peculiar circumstances of that country. He saw no reason why magistrates should be exempted and not subjected to the same course of proceeding as others, and he could not conceive, that there was any good ground for objecting to the proceedings which had taken place in reference to the case under consideration. He could not conceive how the noble Duke could call such investigations ex parte, as he believed they were conducted in public. He understood, that everybody who wished to attend, had free access to those investigations, and that they were conducted in the same way as other preliminary investigations. At all events, the sending down of those commissions was the usual course of proceeding in Ireland, and such a mode of investigation was called for and justified by the circumstances of the country.
The Duke of Wellingtonwas aware, that it was the practice to send down, not a stipendiary magistrate, but one of the law Officers of the Crown, to assist the magistrates in cases of riot, with a view to bring the rioters to trial. Here, however, a magistrate was accused of improper conduct in the discharge of the functions of his office, and it might have been proper to institute an inquiry for the purpose of putting that magistrate on his trial, but this commission was not sent down for that purpose, but, on the contrary, it was sent down with a view to the dismissal of that magistrate. What he contended was, that such a proceeding was improper, and that the magistrate ought to have been put upon his trial before the ordinary tribunals of the country.
Motion with limitations agreed to.

REGISTRATION OF ELECTORS.
Viscount Melbournerose for the purpose of moving the second reading of the Registration of Electors Bill. It was a bill for the purpose of consolidating the laws relating to the registration of Parliament-

871
ary electors, and he would state to their Lordships what were its most important provisions. Their Lordships were aware, that at present the preliminary proceedings respecting registration rested with the overseers, and it had been found in many cases that there had been great negligence on the part of those overseers, and that much inconvenience resulted from their taking erroneous views in regard to the forms required to be observed. To obviate those evils the bill before their Lordships made all proceedings in regard to registration begin with the clerk of the peace, and it was hoped, that this arrangement would insure greater regularity, and obviate the inconvenience which had resulted from the present practice. The bill had originated with a Committee of the House of Commons which sat in 1835, and was framed on the principle of excluding everything from its enactments in regard to which there existed any difference of opinion. The object of the framers was, to remedy those evils which all parties acknowledged, and it had almost unanimously passed the other House of Parliament. The noble Viscount briefly described the several clauses of the bill and concluded by asking their Lordships to give a second reading to the bill.
Bill read a second time.