Lords Sitting of 24 July 1838

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Prisons; Parliamentary Burghs (Scotland); and Schools (Scotland).—Read a second time:—Royal Exchange; Loan Commissioners Relief.—Read a third time:—International Copyright; Prisons (West Indies).
Petitions presented. By the Bishop of EXETER, from a place in 'Ireland, against the Irish Corporations Bill; from Bradford, complaining of the present Factory system.—By the Earl of ALBEMARLE, from Norwich, to the same effect.—By the Duke of WELLINGTON, from Wells, for an alteration of the Beer Bill. [The Prisons Bill, the Parliamentary Burghs (Scotland) Bill, and the Schools (Scotland) Bill, were brought up from the Commons.]

THE BRITISH LEGION.
The Marquess of Londonderryseeing the noble Viscount (Melbourne) in his place, wished to call his attention to something which fell from him the other night. He was quite sure that the noble Viscount had no intention or desire to convey a wrong impression, but the noble Viscount had stated, in answer to his question whether he had any information respecting any arrangement for the liquidation of the claims of the unfortunate officers and soldiers of the British Legion—that the commission for that purpose was in active operation. [Viscount Melbourne, constituted.] He had looked into all the reports, and found that the import of all was the same. But, however that might be, he had since received a letter from Colonel Shaw, which he begged leave to read to their Lordships:—
"Colonel Shaw begs to inform Lord Londonderry that on Tuesday last he had

551
a conversation with Capt. Hay respecting the commission to settle the claims of the Legion; that gentleman informed Colonel Shaw that the commission had not yet assembled, nor did he know when it would; and that Mr. Ximenes had informed him that he (Mr. Ximenes) was the only commissioner appointed by the Spanish government, which had not the means of paying the claims even were they investigated."
He was quite convinced that the noble Viscount could not have stated, that the commission was in active operation, had he been aware of the real state of the case, it appeared now that this M. Ximenes, who was the only Spanish commissioner, had declared that there was no intention of assembling that commission. Under these circumstances he should be glad to understand from the Noble Viscount, whether he would have any objection to produce any correspondence which might have passed between her Majesty's Government, Sir G. De Lacy Evans, and those gentlemen respecting the assembling of that commission. It appeared to him quite clear that it was the intention of the Spanish government if possible, to protract and delay the investigation until after Parliament had been liberated; and then, during the recess, those unfortunate men would be left without any hope of escaping from their present distress. The noble Viscount had stated that the commission was proceeding to settle their claims; and he (the Marquess of Londonderry) had positive evidence that it had not yet assembled. He wished, therefore, that the matter should be explained.
Viscount Melbourneknew not what the correspondence was, to which the noble Marquess had alluded, but of course if it were any part of the papers which had been laid before the other House, there could be no objection to its production in that House. With regard to what had fallen from him the other night, he did not know that he had answered for the activity of the operations of that commission. He certainly had stated that two commissioners had arrived in London, and that he therefore considered that the commission had been constituted; but how they were going on of course he could not know.
Subject dropped.

QUADRUPLE TREATY.
The Marquess of Londonderryhaving the other night been referred to the noble Earl at the head of the Admiralty, wished now to repeat the question which he had then put, with respect to what that noble Earl considered to be the construction of the 2d article of the Quadripartite Treaty. He apprehended that the noble Earl had taken an entirely incorrect view of that question. The noble Earl certainly construed that article of the treaty in a way totally different from the noble Duke (Wellington) behind him, whose opinion had been confirmed and corroborated in the fullest manner by the colleague of the noble Earl, the noble Viscount at the head of her Majesty's Government. Such was the difference of opinion between the noble Viscount and the noble Earl; and under those circumstances he had a right to call on the noble Earl to satisfy the country and the House that he had abandoned those private views which he had formerly stated to their Lordships, and adopted the opinions entertained by the noble Viscount at the head of the Administration. This was a matter of grave importance, because if the noble Earl would still in a supposed case hold himself justified in issuing instructions, such as those which had been complained of—founded on his notions of the treaty, that private opinion of the noble Earl's, contradicted as it had been by his noble colleagues, might involve this country and Europe in a war. He wished, therefore, to know whether the noble Earl at the head of the Admiralty had recanted his former opinions in deference to those of the noble Viscount, or whether, if he retained them, he would declare that he did not intend to act upon them.
The Earl of Mintosaid, he was happy that the noble Marquess had discovered that the best means of obtaining an answer to a question was to put it in the presence of the person to whom it should be addressed; he certainly had not answered the question on a former occasion, because he was not in the House when it was put. With regard to the question itself, although he meant to give it a distinct and explicit answer, he must in the first place say, that as it regarded merely the private opinion of an individual Minister or Member of that House, he did not think it was one which any noble Lord was justly entitled to put; but having

553
said that, he begged to add, that neither the close argument, nor the eloquence of the noble Lord, nor his great authority, political or legal, had sufficed to wean him from his previous opinion. What he had before expressed it still remained; and accordingly, whatever weight that private opinion might have in the affairs, which came under his direction, their Lordships knew in what way it would operate. If any difference of opinion existed on the subject between himself and the noble Viscount, or any other noble Lord, he might regret it; but he must still venture to think that his own construction of the treaty was correct.
Lord Broughamsaid, the noble Earl's pertinacity in adhering to his opinion did not lessen his conviction of the palpable error of that opinion, or that by acting upon that opinion the noble Earl would be guilty of putting in peril the honour and reputation of this country, and the peace of Europe, by committing a most flagrant violation and outrage on one of the most solemn principles of international law. But if the noble Earl's perseverance in error had not increased his opinion of the noble Earl's wisdom, it had at least increased his opinion of the propriety of the division which he had pressed upon their Lordships the other night. For, notwithstanding that the First Lord of the Treasury entertained and expressed the sounder opinion, yet the First Lord of the Admiralty was the person who was to issue the orders, if any were to be issued at all, and the noble Earl now had stated, that in that erroneous opinion he still persisted. He would now only put a question to the noble Earl (Minto). There was no doubt that the argument which had been used the other night against the production of those orders was, that it might be very inconvenient to produce instructions that were of a contingent nature; but the argument could not always be used, and as the time must sooner or later arrive when no risk to the public service could be incurred, and when the contingency no longer existed, he hoped that then those instructions would be found to be in the ordinary official form, signed by two Lords of the Admiralty, and perhaps countersigned, so that then there might be no objection to their production.
The Duke of Wellingtonwas understood to say, that there was no ground for the apprehensions which the noble and
554
learned Lord had seemed to entertain, in consequence of the erroneous opinion of the noble Earl; for, as he had stated on a former occasion, although the private opinion of the First Lord of the Admiralty might be of importance, with respect to the business of minor consequence connected with that office, such was not the case with regard to great questions of policy, for then it must be the opinion of the whole Cabinet which was to direct the proceedings of Government; and the opinion of the noble Earl, whatever respect might be due to it, would not be entirely conclusive on the subject. As to the particular papers which had been moved for on that occasion, he begged to say, that the inclination of his mind was always to avoid, as far as possible, calling on the Government to produce papers of that nature. He did not think it was the practice of the House to do so; and he knew that sometimes serious injury resulted to the public service from the production of documents of that description which depended upon some contingency. He knew nothing as to giving confidence, or not giving confidence to the Government; but he did not think it right to call on the Government to give papers which he knew, if he were sitting on the other side of the House, he should not be inclined to produce. Such was the principle on which he generally acted; but he must confess that at first, when he had heard this paper defended by so important a Member of the Government as the noble Earl (Minto), and the particular officer who had carried it into execution, he did feel that it was necessary that the House should see the paper, because it went much farther than could have been expected. But then, when the noble Viscount came forward and said, that he did not concur in that opinion, but his (the Duke of Wellington's) opinion on the subject, he did not feel it to be his duty to press for the paper; but he reverted to his original intention when he came down to the House, which was, to vote against the granting of the papers.
Lord Broughamadmitted, that the general rule as laid down by the noble Duke was quite correct. But he considered that a case had been fully made out for an exception to that rule. The noble Earl had persisted in his error, and who knew whether it might not be now acted upon? Who knew that the noble Earl

555
might not overcome the noble Viscount? Would the noble Earl say, if the order was signed by the noble Earl himself alone, or by some other Member of the Government in conjunction with him?
The Earl of Mintosaid, that the question assumed, that such an order had been issued, which he had never admitted. The account of what had passed, which had been given by the noble Duke, seemed to him strictly accurate. The noble Duke had stated that which was known to all persons acquainted with official business—that whether the orders were issued or not, they could only be issued under the directions of a Secretary of State, and not upon the responsibility of the single Minister at the head of the Marines.
Lord Broughamsaid, that the noble Earl now chose to treat this order as not existing, but the inconvenience of producing it had been alleged to arise from its being a conditional order. Now if it did not exist, it could not he conditional, for nonentities were in their nature neither conditional nor unconditional. But as the noble Earl said, that he would not tell whether it was signed by himself alone, because he had never admitted the existence of the order at all, he begged to know whether he would object to give the date of any orders issued from the Admiralty to any cruisers whatever within the last four years, which were only signed by the First Lord of the Admiralty? No inconvenience to the public service could arise from such a return, because only the dates were to be given, and they would not occupy three lines.
The Earl of Minto. They would not occupy one line, because there was no such order that he was aware of.
The Marquis of Londonderrybegged to congratulate the noble Viscount, that he had been able so well to organize his forces, judging not only from the exhibitions in that House, but from specimens of another nature in another place. He regretted to see such exhibitions as were presented by the Government, in whose hands, unfortunately for the honour of the country, the administration of affairs was now placed. He only hoped, with regard to this difference of opinion between the noble Viscount and the noble Earl, that the opinion of the noble Earl at the head of the Admiralty might be kept under control; and that care would be taken that no instructions should be issued to
556
the cruizers on the Spanish coast, which might endanger the honour and peace of this country.
Subject dropped.

SPANISH INDEMNITY BONDS.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, that in giving notice that he should to-day present a petition from the holders of Spanish Indemnity Bonds, he had ventured to express an opinion, that he should make out a case, which called for the interference of the Government in their behalf; and he must say, that if the privation and sufferings of any parties were calculated to excite the sympathies of her Majesty's Ministers and obtain from them relief, in the present case those inducements were doubly strong—because the Ministers had been themselves partly the cause of the misfortunes, and the Government was bound to see, that relief was extended. These claimants differed widely from the common class of claimants on the faithless government of Spain. They had heard in that House of the great hardships of those persons who had been connected with the Auxiliary Legion, and who had implored frequently the assistance of Parliament, owing to the impossibility of obtaining the liquidation of their just claims by the Spanish Government; and though, perhaps, in their case, the Government at home, in consequence of the tacit encouragement which it afforded to that expedition, might be, in some degree, morally bound to assist those claimants; still, it was not at all legally bound to interfere in their behalf further than to use its good offices in endeavouring to procure from the Spanish government the payment of their debts. So the holders of any Spanish stock, who had suffered so seriously from, the bankrupt policy of that government had no claim except on the good offices of the British Government. The credit of their own Government was not to be called forward to support those who, by entering into these speculations, had taken the chances of dealing with a government of that character; but those persons, whose petition he should present to their Lordships, stood on a different footing; they were claimants under a treaty which had been ratified by their own Sovereign; and unquestionably, if the Government did not see, that the conditions of that treaty were carried into effect, the claimants were justly entitled to come upon the Govern-

557
ment for indemnity. The state of the case, was briefly this; in 1813 a convention had been entered into at Madrid, when Sir W. A'Court was British ambassador at that court, by which the Spanish government was bound to indemnify those persons who had suffered in the war in the South American colonies. That Convention was ratified by Ferdinand on his restoration, and a commission was appointed to carry it into effect, but little hope was entertained, that the obligations under it could ever be fulfilled. He remembered, that Mr. Canning had spoken despondingly of the success of that commission, but claims were registered under it to the amount of two millions sterling on the part of British subjects, and Spanish claims to the amount of twelve hundred thousand. Subsequently, however, a compromise had been entered into, by which the British claimants compounded their claims, for 900,000 l., and the Spanish for 200,000 l That compromise had been carried into effect; of the 900,000 l., 600,000 l. had been paid in specie at the time, and 300,000 l. had been created in bonds, on which the interest had been paid regularly till within the last three years. Now, he having been the person who had negociated that treaty, the persons who held those bonds imagined, that he would probably take an interest in its fulfilment, and had, therefore, applied to him frequently to lay their case before Parliament; but he had dissuaded them from petitioning as he had thought, that they might safely rely on the honour and credit of the Government to see, that a treaty of that kind with such conditions should be carried into effect; but when he found, that the whole amount was only 30,000 l. a-year, he considered it impossible, whatever might be the state of the Spanish government, that that sum should not have been paid, if the Government here had used proper means to enforce its payment. Culpable as he thought the remissness of Government had been, he did not wish to indulge in any unnecessary reprobation of their conduct; he only wanted to stimulate them to exertion—to whet their almost blunted purpose, and to force upon them the necessity of exacting that act of justice, which, he was sure, there could be no difficulty in obtaining. He would just ask their Lordships—supposing, that this had been a claim on Don Carlos, and that he had been successful in the civil war—
558
would they not have heard long since of a threat of reprisals? And did they not believe, that if a threat of reprisals had been issued the money would have been produced before this time? If fraud and dishonesty were practised by a government, even though it were a liberal government, such ought to be the course pursued. These parties, then, had not merely a claim on the justice of the Spanish government, but they had also a claim on the honour and good faith of this country, which was bound to see that that treaty to which those persons had submitted on the faith of their own Government, was strictly fulfilled. Such, indeed, had been the confidence which that circumstance inspired, that at a time when Spanish funds of every other description were unsaleable in Europe, these bonds not merely kept their former standing in the market but actually rose in value. He did say, then, that if these bonds were found to be no better security for payment from the Spanish government than any others, the loss ought not to fall upon those holders, but that they were entitled to be indemnified by their own Government. He would now present the petition. He would not make a motion on this occasion; but he thought, that these parties ought to receive some redress. If, however, nothing could be done, he thought, that the House ought to come to some resolution on the subject.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that persons having claims had undoubtedly a right to call on the Government of this country to enforce those claims, and to see, that they were observed by the Spanish government. So far as this, he concurred with the noble Earl. The noble Earl also said, the Government had not taken measures necessary to obtain that redress which the subjects of her Majesty had a right to ask. Undoubtedly the noble Earl could not expect, him to agree with him in that respect. He thought if the noble Earl had been acquainted with the statements made by our Minister at Madrid, and the manner in which he had pressed these claims, that the noble Earl would have been satisfied, that there had been no want of due diligence, or want of consideration towards the rights of her Majesty's subjects on the part of the Government. The noble Earl said, that whatever might be the state of the finances of Spain, that the Government ought to have enforced this payment. This was a subject upon which he was un-

559
willing to dilate. Every body knew the difficulties in which the government of Spain was at present placed. He believed there would be great difficulty even in procuring the sum necessary for the liquidation of this demand. The claim was admitted by the Spanish government, and he believed it had every disposition to exert itself to liquidate it. The English Government had addressed the Spanish government as far as, under the circumstances in which that government was placed, they had thought wise, prudent, and satisfactory. They had not made reprisals, and he would put it to the noble Earl whether it would be better to break in upon their general system of policy, and for the sake of these claims, to do that which would endanger the Spanish government, be likely to embroil further the affairs of that country, and to impoverish its resources and thereby cut off all hopes of the liquidation not only of these claims but of all other claims of her Majesty's subjects on the Spanish government? In concluding he would say, that there had not been any want of attention or any listlessness on the part of her Majesty's Government.
Petition laid on the table.

SALE OF BEER ACT.
Lord Portmanhaving presented a petition from the licensed victuallers of New Sarum in favour of the Beer Act,
Lord Broughamsaid, that he should take this opportunity of stating, that he should not think of pressing his bill on this subject this Session. He hoped, that it would be suffered to pass the House and not be carried into execution till next Session. This would give a warning to persons not to embark their capital in beer-shops.
Petition laid on the table.

THE WESTMEATH ELECTION.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, that in March last he felt it his duty to bring under the notice of their Lordships some transactions which arose out of the last election for the county of Westmeath. He then said, as the fact was, that the statements which he had to make rested on rumour, but the reason of this was, because, although he had applied to the Irish Government for the necessary information, he had been unable to obtain it. He now, however, did not labour under the same
560
disadvantage, because since then an investigation had been held upon the subject by order of the Lord-lieutenant. It appeared that the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland—and this remark applied to all former Lords-lieutenant, as well as the present, had been in the habit of instituting Courts for the investigation of certain circumstances from time to time brought before him. He would not undertake to say whether such a power ought to be exercised or ought not; but he at the same time thought the subject was one that was well worthy the attention of those noble Lords who were acquainted with the principles of constitutional law. For his own part, he thought such a practice calculated only to produce mischief, and he could not understand what good could result from an inquiry by a tribunal so constituted. In the present instance, the case to which he wished to call their Lordships' attention arose out of the misconduct of a magistrate, whose appointment he deprecated at the time as improper. As he on a former occasion stated to their Lordships, this appointment was made at the instance of Sir Richard Neagle, who, as their Lordships must recollect, was himself removed from the commission of the peace in 1832, and again reinstated in 1836. It was necessary that he should allude to that transaction. In 1832 the Irish Government found it incumbent on them to call Sir Richard Neagle to account for certain language which had been held at a tithe meeting of which he was chairman, and the result was, that Sir Richard Neagle wrote a letter in which he recommended the Roman Catholics not to pay tithes. This conduct was unpalatable to the Government, and the consequence was, that the noble and learned Lord who then, and now, held the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland removed Sir Richard Neagle from the magistracy of the county of Westmeath. Before his restoration, however, Sir R. Neagle wrote a letter to him (Lord Westmeath), recommending Mr. Sheil as a fit and proper person to be placed in the commission of the peace; and in this letter he stated, that the other Member for the county concurred in the propriety of Mr. Sheil's appointment. In reply to this communication, he informed Sir Richard Neagle that he saw no necessity whatever for increasing the number of the magistrates in the district of the county in which

561
it was intended Mr. Sheil should act, and as to the opinion of the other party alluded to, he observed that little stress could be laid on the recommendation of that gentleman, as he resided at a distance of nineteen miles from the place in question, and therefore could not be a competent judge as to whether a necessity for the appointment of another magistrate existed or not. Subsequently to this he received a communication from the Lord Chancellor of Ireland on the subject. The noble and learned Lord stated, that Mr. Sheil had been recommended to him by the lord-lieutenant as a party whose appointment was desirable on the ground that it would tend to a more satisfactory administration of justice in that particular locality, and he answered this communication by assuring the noble and learned Lord that there was no occasion whatever for such an appointment, there being already six or seven magistrates who discharged the duties at petty sessions in a highly satisfactory manner, and that in short the appointment would not for other reasons be a proper one to make. Notwithstanding this, however, the noble and learned Lord thought fit to introduce Mr. Sheil into the magistracy of the county of Westmeath, and such a mode of proceeding was so contrary to the doctrine laid down a few nights ago by the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, that it was impossible not to call their Lordships' attention to it. The noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, on the occasion to which he referred, recognised the propriety of confidential communication between the lords-lieutenant of counties and the keeper of the Great Seal in relation to all appointments to the commission of the peace; but that was a very different case from the present. In that case it was alleged by the noble Earl, the lord-lieutenant of the county of York, that parties had been appointed to the magistracy from political motives; but how was the allegation met? why, by showing, that the noble Earl was the party who was in fault, because he had neglected to enter into communication with the Lord Chancellor on the subject. Those noble Lords who heard what fell from the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack understood the matter as he did, and his understanding of the observations of the noble and learned Lord was, that had the noble Earl stated to him any local reasons which rendered such appointments inexpedient,
562
they would not have been made. This was his understanding of what passed in the debate to which he referred, and it was, therefore, impossible for him not to be struck with the contrast which existed between the conduct of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and that pursued by the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack. There was a great deal of excitement during the last election for the county of Westmeath in the town of Mullingar. It was found necessary for the peace that troops of soldiers and large bodies of police should be brought into that town, and on the evening of the 11th of August a great——
Lord Plunketsaid, that he was induced to interrupt the noble Marquess, not because of anything he had said in reference to himself personally, but merely to apprise their Lordships that no objection was intended to be offered to the motion with which the noble Marquess meant to conclude. The object of the noble Marquess was the production of the evidence taken before the commissioners who presided at the inquiry held on this subject at Mullingar on the report of those commissioners, and as he, so far from objecting to that motion, was ready to consent that the whole of the papers should be laid on the table, he submitted to the good sense of the noble Marquess, whether his interruption was not justifiable. The noble Marquess must be aware that the statement of facts which he was about to enter upon grew out of the evidence taken during the inquiry; and how, he asked him, were their Lordships to assume whether his statements were correct or not until the evidence on which they were founded was before them. It was impossible to go into the case in the absence of the evidence, and therefore, the noble Marquess must see, that the course he was about to pursue was clearly irregular. The noble Marquess might aver that to be the fact on the one hand, while he might be justified in denying it on the other; and as such a proceeding could not be otherwise than painful to their Lordships, he hoped the noble Marquess would postpone what he had to say until the papers were placed upon the table of that House. Their Lordships would then be in a position to determine who was right and who was wrong, and not before.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, that the noble and learned Lord had no right

563
whatever to trespass on his patience, or interfere with the exercise of his undoubted privilege of addressing their Lordships in the manner he had done. It would seem that the noble and learned Lord had interrupted him for the purpose of making a speech himself; but he must be allowed to tell the noble and learned Lord that such a proceeding was not consonant to the practice of their Lordships' House. In the line of conduct which he thought fit to pursue there was a difference of opinion between him and the noble and learned Lord; but all be wanted was to lay Parliamentary grounds for his motion, and this he contended he had a perfect right to do.
Viscount Melbourne. You can have the papers without any statement.
The Marquess of Westmeath. Yes, but the noble Viscount must permit me to give their Lordships the grounds upon which I call for their production. In March last, when he brought this matter before their Lordships, he was without proper information, because the Irish Government did not choose to enter into communication with him; and what was the result? why that libels had been showered upon him from all quarters, for which he might have brought the parties to the bar of that House, had he thought fit, or appealed to the laws of his country. The fact, however, was, that he had been grossly ill-treated by the Irish Government, and therefore it was, that he had no desire to see their conduct cushioned. The noble and learned Lord was fully aware of his intention to bring the subject forward that night, and if he were not prepared for the discussion that was not his fault. He must therefore stand upon his right, and as he was not bound to withdraw from his intention he would not.
Viscount Melbourne. No statement is necessary, as there is no objection to your motion.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, that the noble Viscount had no right to stop him in the course he was pursuing. He knew he was right, and therefore he would proceed. There was on the evening to which he adverted a tumultuous meeting at a public-house in Mullingar, and after the police and resident Magistrates had arrived there Mr. Sheil and Mr. Fitzsimons introduced themselves to this meeting. In March last he stated, as he believed at the time, that the two individuals whom he
564
had named were found in the public-house by the police; but in this he was wrong, as they were not found there, but made their appearance immediately after the police had obtained admission to the house. They, however, identified themselves with the transactions which took place, and, consequently, the error into which he had fallen was of no importance whatever, as the effect produced was exactly the same. The fact was, that he had been misled in this instance. But why had he been misled? Simply because the Irish Government wished to take advantage of him. He would now state nothing which could not be borne out. The parties who went to the public-house on the occasion referred to were twenty-five policemen, and they were accompanied by the chief constable, and the resident magistrate. The chief constable, as was his duty represented the transaction to the proper authorities. Indeed, he would have been guilty of misconduct if he had not. But what was the consequence? Why, that Mr. Deglisau received the thanks of both Colonel Shaw Kennedy and Colonel O'Donoughue for his conduct. He begged their Lordships to bear this in mind. Mr. Deglisau heard nothing more of the affair for many months, not until he was called upon by the Government to furnish a copy of his report. The occurrence took place in August, and it was not until December that this report was called for by the Government, although their attention had been previously directed to the circumstance. Mr. Deglisau had not only been grossly insulted and spat upon, but his personal safety rendered it necessary, that he should be attended by two orderlies during the whole of the election. On the night of the 11th of August he was accosted by Mr. Fitzsimon in an insulting manner. Mr. Fitzsimon asked him what business he had there; and although Mr. Sheil knew Mr. Rowan, the resident magistrate well, he allowed him to be shoved and pushed about without even once interfering to prevent it. The Irish Government thought the matter of sufficient importance to institute an inquiry and it was not a little remarkable, that when he first stirred in it he was informed, that the official report had been lost. Although this statement had been made, it appeared from the testimony of Mr. Fitzsimon, that the report had passed into the hands of Mr. Sheil. It was afterwards in the pos-

565
session of Mr. Fitzpatrick, the secretary of the Liberal Club; and he was able to show that its contents were known to Priest O'Brien, Priest O'Farrell, and several other parties connected with that club, in subsequent committees. Mr. Drummond, in a studied manner, endeavoured to get rid of the subject, and it was not until he had been suddenly called on for the report by Lord Morpeth, that he took any steps to obtain it. How was it possible, after such prevarication on the part of the Irish Secretary, that the affairs of that country could be properly carried on. On the 11th of December Mr. Drummond wrote to Mr. Rowan as follows:—
"I have to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 9th instant, referring to the conduct of Messrs. Fitzsimon and Sheil, and I am to inform you that these gentlemen having been called upon for an explanation in consequence of your report, they transmitted to the Government statements differing in many respects from yours. In consequence of this variation, it was directed that the papers should be sent again to you for any observations you might have to offer; but owing to some accident, which cannot at present be accounted for, the papers cannot be found in the office. Search is still making for them, and a letter has been written for the purpose of ascertaining whether they have been sent to the Irish Office in London. If found, they will be immediately transmitted to you. If not found, it will be necessary to call on all parties concerned for copies of the letters and statements.'
In this letter Mr. Drummond stated, that Mr. Fitzsimon and Mr. Sheil had been called to account; but what was the testimony of Mr. Sheil on this head? Why he denied, that he had ever been called on for explanation by the Irish Government. [Lord Plunket: How does that appear?] It appeared from the evidence given by Mr. Sheil on the inquiry. What was it that further appeared from that evidence? Why, that Mr. Drummond was in communication during the whole of these transactions with Mr. Sheil. Mr. Sheil declared, that the Lord-lieutenant was perfectly satisfied with his conduct; but what did Mr. Drummond say? Why, that Mr. Sheil had been written to for explanation. There was, then, mistake somewhere; for Mr. Sheil not only denied Mr. Drummond's statement, but asserted, that the Lord-lieutenant was satisfied with his conduct. It was true, that after the occurrence at the public-house, Mr. Fitzsimon apologized
566
both to Mr. Rowan and Mr. Deglisau, but he at the same time used language towards the police, which was insulting to them and the Government. Mr. Rowan declared that he appealed to Mr. Sheil to maintain tranquillity, but without effect; and he was then told, that the police had no right to be there to interrupt the freeholders. From the evidence of the son of the person who kept the public-house, it appeared, that there was only five beds in it, and consequently, as the persons assembled in it, amounted to fifty-one, it was clear they were amenable under the "Tippling Act." The Government, however, dispensed with the law, and turned round on their own officers; but what sort of tribunal was it by which they were tried, Mr. Deglisau was ordered, on Tuesday, to appear at Mullingar; on the Monday following, to take his trial. On Wednesday he went to Dublin, to see Major Warburton; and it was not until the Friday that he reached Mullingar; so that, in point of fact, he had only a single day to prepare for his defence. He applied to the Commissioners to enforce the attendance of the witnesses he was anxious to examine; but what was the answer of the Commissioners to that application? Why, they told him, they possessed no such power. All they could do, they said, was to administer an oath, and if a witness refused to come forward, they had no means of compelling his attendance. This was singular, but strange; still he was himself called on to appear, simply because he had brought this matter under the notice of their Lordships. He really should be glad to hear from the noble and learned Lord whether such Courts as this were to be resorted to in all future times? It was Mr. Sheil who gave rise to the disturbance, and yet he supposed that Gentleman was to be continued in the commission of the peace for the county of Westmeath. He had no doubt, that when these papers were placed on their Lordships' table, they would exhibit a pretty picture, with respect to the manner in which the Irish Government was carried on. He would defy them to get rid of the conduct of which their protegé had been guilty. But how different was the course of proceeding in this and in other cases. Mr. Blacker had been dismissed from the commission of the peace, merely because, an Orange emblem had been placed in the balcony of one of his windows, without

567
his knowledge; and, because Mr. St. George, one of the most respectable men in Ireland, had done something that was distasteful to the Government, he also was removed from the magistracy. The truth was, that the present case was the parallel of that in which Mr. O'Connell was concerned. Mr. O'Connell was a magistrate for the county of Kerry, and although he had used denunciations at Carlow, which Mr. Vignolls, the chief constable of police, was ready to verify, his statement being substantiated by the testimony of two of the officers of the 71st regiment, yet Mr. O'Connell was allowed to continue in the commission of the peace for the county of Kerry. This, then, was anything but even-handed justice. He (the Marquess of Westmeath) brought the subject forward, on public grounds, and not wishing to say anything of Mr. Sheil more than he could help, for he did not even know him, the only additional remark he would make, was, that he did not think Mr. Sheil was in such a situation in life as to justify his being placed on the bench of a county where the magistrates were all men of great respectability and large property. The noble Marquess, in conclusion, moved for the production of the evidence taken during the inquiry at Mullingar, and the report of the Commissioners thereupon.
Lord Plunketsaid, that it was not his intention to reply to that part of the speech of the noble Marquess which applied to himself in relation to the appointment of Mr. Sheil to the magistracy of the county of Westmeath, and he thought their Lordships would also excuse him if he declined to follow the noble Marquess through the imputations which he had cast on the Lord-lieutenant, Mr. Drummond, and Lord Morpeth. He mentioned Lord Morpeth, because he was one of those against whom censure had been pronounced by the noble Marquess; for it was Lord Morpeth who had recommended the appointment of Mr. Sheil, on the ground that it would not only be satisfactory, but lead to the peace and tranquillity of that part of the country. It was, in fact, on the recommendation of Lord Morpeth that he (Lord Plunket) made the appointment; but still he denied, that the noble Marquess had any right to complain of that appointment, inasmuch as he had been applied to for information on the subject, but had failed
568
to state any objection which could be considered as valid. This was the reason why he had used Lord Morpeth's name. The observations which the noble Marquess had made about Mr. Deglisau, Mr. Blacker, and others, had no relation whatever to the present subject; but although the noble Marquess had spent upwards of half an hour in making statements respecting the trial which had resulted from a transaction which took place in an alehouse in Mullingar, he should like to know on what authority the noble Marquess rested these statements. The only authority on which such statements could be made, was the evidence; and that was not before their Lordships. How, then, could they judge whether the noble Marquess was right or wrong? If he were to give a peremptory contradiction to the statements of the noble Marquess, he should be liable to censure; and, therefore, he conceived, that the noble Marquess could not be held blameless for having brought forward as facts, matters which it was impossible he could verify. He would not impute any thing like wilful mistake to the noble Marquess, but if he thought fit to cast imputations, he ought to enable that House to judge for themselves, whether those imputations were just or not. His belief was, that the noble Marquess was mistaken; but how could he verify this assertion in the absence of the evidence? On the evidence, the whole case rested; and no doubt when it was produced, the noble Marquess would take an opportunity of going over the whole ground again. So far as he knew of the evidence, he believed the noble Marquess was in error from beginning to end, in all that he had stated; and this he would find, when the papers for which he had called were produced. He would not have said thus much, if he had not felt it to be his duty to contradict the extravagant statements in which the noble Marquess had indulged; but with respect to his own conduct in the affair, all he could say was, that when a recommendation was forwarded to him by the Lord-lieutenant, he had a right to act upon it without reference to the noble Marquess. Mr. Sheil was a highly respectable gentleman, and, although he might not possess as large a property as other magistrates, still his property was considerable. It was no objection to Mr. Sheil that there were enough of magistrates without him; and that was the only

569
objection which the noble Marquess had urged against his appointment. The noble Marquess said, that his prognostications with respect to Mr. Sheil, were borne out by the evidence; but if it should turn out that the contrary was the case, why had not the noble Marquess attended the inquiry, as he might have done, in order to make good the charges he had brought forward? In conclusion, he must say, that he had scarcely ever witnessed a more unprecedented course than that which had been adopted by the noble Marquess that night in moving for these papers; and he could only add, that, if he was rightly informed, the statements made by the noble Marquess, so far as the charge against Mr. Fitzsimon and Mr. Sheil were concerned, were strongly denied by the evidence relating to the transactions themselves.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that he could not agree with the noble and learned Lord who had just sat down, that the course taken by the noble Marquess on the present occasion, was very unusual—although it was one which might not, perhaps, be exactly in accordance with the Parliamentary rule. The noble Marquess had risen for the purpose of calling the attention of their Lordships to that which must ever be considered a very important subject by their Lordships—namely, the appointment of magistrates in Ireland, and the conduct of the noble and learned Lord with respect to those appointments. He held in his hands, the papers which had been moved for by the noble Marquess on a former occasion, and, in moving for others, the noble Marquess had taken occasion to advert to the conduct of the noble and learned Lord in the appointment of magistrates, and to the conduct of those magistrates. The noble Marquess had also moved for other papers, the object of which was to show what had been the nature of the conduct of the Irish Government with regard to appointments to the magistracy, as well as what was the state of society in Ireland, which was produced by those appointments. He found, that one of the gentlemen who had thus been appointed magistrates, having thought proper to place himself at the head of an illegal meeting in Ireland, held for the purpose of stimulating the destruction of property, which had ever been considered sacred by Parliament, had been dismissed from the magistracy by the Marquess of
570
Anglesea. And yet some time afterwards the noble and learned Lord opposite had thought proper to appoint this very gentleman to the magistracy—contrary to the remonstrances of the lord-lieutenant of the county, the noble Marquess who had introduced this motion—and subsequently to the transactions complained of. [Lord Plunkett: The appointment was not, in any way, connected with those transactions.] He begged the noble and learned Lord's pardon; but no one could doubt that the appointments of both the gentlemen alluded to in this motion—appointments made in the teeth of remonstrances on the part of lords-lieutenant of counties—were nothing less than political appointments. He was prepared to prove it, if necessary, from the papers he held in his hand. They were recommended to be appointed to the commission of the peace by the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland himself—and were appointed in spite of the remonstrances of the lieutenant of the county in question. It appeared, that the Government had thought proper to order a party of police to preserve the peace in the county of Westmeath during the period of the elections, and that one of those gentlemen, although himself a magistrate of the county—had opposed himself to another magistrate, who was in the discharge of his duty, keeping the peace in a public-house in the county. Would any one say, that this was justice—or that this was the manner in which a just Government should be carried on? He only wished to justify the noble Marquess in bringing this case before their Lordships, a thing which the papers already produced fully justified him in doing. He was sorry to be under the necessity of referring to the subject; but he must say, that until Ireland should be governed with justice and fairness—they might give her either poor-laws or corporations, if they pleased; but they would not render her condition by any means so happy a one as he was most anxious and desirous to see it.
Returns ordered.