Lords Sitting of 16 July 1844

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1a. Art Unions.
2a. Actions for Gaming Discontinuance.
3a. and passed:—Customs Duties (Isle of Man); Three-and-a-Half per Cents. Exemption; Vagrants Removal; Prisons (Scotland); Turnpike Acts Continuance.
Private.—2a. Gape's Divorce.
Reported. — Wells Lighting and Improvement; Delabole and Rock Railway; Paisley General Gas; Middle Level Drainage and Navigation.
3a. and passed:—Werrington, etc. Curacy, or Hele's Estate (Marchioness of Lothian's); Market Harborough and Coventry Road; Leeds Vicarage (Dr. Hook's).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Kenyon, from Cheshire, and Shropshire, for Protection to Agriculture.—By Lord Beaumont, from County of Lancaster, respecting Bequests to Roman Catholic Clergy; and for Revision of the Law relating to Patrons of Roman Catholic, Chapels.

ART UNIONS BILL.
Lord Monteaglelaid on the Table a Bill for legalising Art Unions under certain circumstances. The noble Lord stated, that the proceedings adopted by Art Unions had gone on for many years undisturbed, and had met with the support of many of their Lordships and some of the Judges; and the result of them had been, that a new field had been opened to the Arts, which had given encouragement to many artists. It appearing, however, that these practices were strictly in violation of the Lottery Act, they had been put a stop to, though he believed that it never had been contemplated to direct the Act against societies united merely for the distribution of works of art. The Bill which he laid upon their Lordships' Table, therefore, provided that the practice hitherto pursued by Art Unions should be allowed to be pursued from and after January next by such Art Union Societies as should obtain a Royal Charter of Incorporation, and also by smaller Art Unions who might not be able to go to the expense of a Charter of Incorporation, if their rules had been previously approved of by the Board of Trade.
Bill read a first time.

ACTIONS FOR GAMING DISCONTINUANCE (No. 2).
The Duke of Richmond,
876
in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that it was merely a Bill to continue an existing Bill which expired at the close of the present Session, for staying proceedings in certain qui tam actions for penalties. The Committee which had been appointed upon this subject had not led to any settlement of the whole question during the present Session, and this was the ground upon which the protection afforded to certain defendants was sought to be extended.
Lord Campbellsaid, that he should not oppose the second reading of this Bill; but he thought it right to state, that he had been requested by certain parties interested in these actions, to present a petition, praying that they might be heard by counsel at the Bar against the Bill. That petition he had not yet received; but he begged to give notice, that if he did receive it before the remaining stages of the Bill were gone through, he should certainly present it, and make a Motion in conformity with its prayer.
The Duke of Richmondsaid he had no objection to the parties being heard by one counsel, or two if they pleased; but he only put it to the House whether there existed any precedent for hearing a party against a Bill which did not destroy a right of action, but merely suspended it?
Lord Campbellsaid, that to suspend proceedings might in itself incur a positive pecuniary loss.
After a few words from the Lord Chancellor and the Duke of Richmond,
Bill read a second Time.

PARTY PROCESSIONS (IRELAND).
The Earl of Wicklowwished to draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government to a subject which appeared to him to be intimately connected with the peace of Ireland. When, some years ago, the Party Processions Prohibition Act was passed, although it was evidently directed against the Orange party in Ireland, yet it was so framed that it might be extended to all processions of political parties in that country. Unfortunately, since that time a new party had arisen, and the right of meeting had been turned into a curse. A description of processions was now common in Ireland, which arising out of circumstances in themselves great blessings to the country, had been made the occasion for practices which had tended to increase animosity and ill-will (the

877
noble Earl apparently alluded to the Temperance Societies). The whole of those who attended the meetings and processions to which he referred were of one particular religion and one political party, and they had their distinguishing emblems and banners. Under these circumstances, and in this state of things, his object was to ascertain whether it was the intention of Government to renew the Party Processions Act? and if so, whether under this alteration of circumstances, it was intended to put down this new description of processions? If these processions were allowed under the Act, a new principle would be introduced by the Government that would tend exceedingly to lower their character for impartiality. For his own part, he was perfectly convinced that there was not the slightest danger to be apprehended, if this Act were not renewed. The parties against whom it was originally directed placed the utmost confidence in those to whom they conceived confidence to be due, and they had not shown any disposition to march in procession—he thought, therefore, that the Government might abstain from renewing the Act altogether. But if it were renewed, it ought, he submitted, to include the processions of all those societies and associations that had recently sprung up. He begged leave to observe, that he had abstained from putting these questions until the anniversary days had passed when certain processions formerly took place in Ireland—and those days, so far as he was yet informed, had gone by without the slightest breach of order having been committed.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, that although his noble Friend had, he thought, rather exceeded the bounds of order in the observations which he had made, he had no objection to give such answers as he could to the questions which he had put. His noble Friend, if he referred to the Votes of the House of Commons, would find that a Bill had been brought in on the subject he referred to, and that it stood for Committee this evening. In what state that Bill might come up to their Lordships it was impossible for him (Lord Wharncliffe to predict; he believed, however, that the Bill renewed till the 1st of June, 1845, an Act already existing against Party Processions in Ireland, which would give Parliament time to reconsider the whole subject. Under these circumstances he did not think it would be right for him
878
on the present occasion to enter upon any reply to his noble Friend's remarks. When the Bill came up from the other House there would be a proper opportunity for discussing the subject, and his noble Friend might propose any Amendment which he thought the Bill required. He would only add, however, that he thought he would find it very difficult to frame a Clause which would put an end to the temperance meetings which would not also put down all public societies whatever.

MR. ALEXANDER O'DRISCOLL.
Earl Fortescuesaid, he would make no apology for the Motion which he was about to bring forward, because he was persuaded that few questions could be submitted to that House of greater importance in their bearings on the social condition of Ireland than those which related to the conduct of her magistrates. And if he could shew from the papers which had been laid before the House, that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was borne out in the opinion which he had expressed "that Mr. A. O'Driscoll had not that command over his temper which was essentially necessary for the due administration of Justice," he Lord Fortescue thought, that their Lordships would feel with him that some information or explanation was due to that House and to the public, but more especially to the public of Ireland as to the grounds upon which in the face of this opinion of the Lord Chancellor recorded under his hand, Mr. O'Driscoll, after having been dismissed, was within six months restored to the commission of the peace. He should now shortly refer to the facts of the case, as they were detailed in the papers. The first of these is a memorial from one Daniel Dineen, stating that on the 2nd of November he was on the lands of Sulivan, a tenant of Mr. O'Driscoll, whilst a distress was taking for Mr. O'Driscoll's rent. That some cows of his (Dineen's) which had strayed on the land were seized, but soon afterwards rescued by parties unknown to Mr. O'Driscoll's Bailiff, in the presence of Dineen, who in consequence received a summons from Mr. O'Driscoll, calling on him to attend at Mr. O'Driscoll's own house. He attended accordingly on Saturday the 4th when he was required, on oath, to state who the parties were who committed the rescue. On his declining to answer, he was taken before another

879
magistrate; and persisting in his refusal, he was placed in the bridewell at Skibbereen, and confined there from the 4th to the 8th of November, when he was brought before the Petty Sessions, of which Mr. O'Driscoll was chairman, and in that capacity began to examine his Bailiff respecting the rescue, but on being reminded by the magistrates that he ought not to act in his own case, he descended from the Bench and continued his examination at the Table below. The magistrates did not consider that there was sufficient ground for a criminal information, but they remanded the prisoner for the purpose, as he considered, of obtaining further evidence. He was accordingly remanded to the Bridewell from the 8th to the 14th of November, on which day, without any application from him, he was set at liberty. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland sent this memorial to Mr. O'Driscoll for explanation, and he received an answer, giving a different colour to the transaction, but admitting the main facts, Mr. O'Driscoll adding that he had suspected the man of instigating the rescue. The Report of the Magistrates was very nearly to the same effect, except that they stated that it did not appear from the evidence that the man had instigated the rescue. Upon a revision of all the circumstances, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland made a communication to Mr. O'Driscoll to the effect that he ought not to have acted in his own case, but that he (the Lord Chancellor) did not intend to interfere any further in the business, but would leave the man to whatever remedy the law gave him. He made a similar communication to Dineen, who justly enough observed that this to a poor man like him was, indeed, no remedy at all. Whilst this inquiry was pending, Mr. O'Driscoll was again brought up before the same Bench of Magistrates on a charge of assault under the following circumstances:—a gentleman was shooting in the neighbourhood of Skibbereen, and seven or eight boys were looking on. Mr. O'Driscoll, who was hunting near the spot, hearing a shot, rode up to the boys, who dispersed in alarm. One of them, named Dempsey, he pursued to the cottage of a poor woman. The boy ran into the cottage and hid himself under a bed. Mr. O'Driscoll called on the woman to turn the boy out, and the woman, as she stated, in consequence of her own and her chil-
880
dren's alarm did so, whereon Mr. O'Driscoll asked him where the gun was. The boy answered, and he (Earl Fortescue) believed truly, that he could not tell, as he had nothing to do with it. Mr. O'Driscoll then, according to his own account, gave him a blow with his whip, but, according to other accounts three or four severe blows. It also appeared that language was used by Mr. O'Driscoll to the boy and afterwards to the woman, when she told the boy to "quit the house so that he might not be killed at her door," such as he would not disgust their Lordships by repeating, as it was not only unsuited to a person holding the office of a Magistrate, but utterly unbecoming any person with the common feelings and habits of a gentleman. On the evidence brought before the Bench, the Magistrates unanimously convicted Mr. O'Driscoll in the fine of 2l., one half of which was allotted to the boy as an indemnity for what he had suffered. On this decision being announced to Mr. O'Driscoll, he resumed his place on the Bench and stated in presence of all the Court that justice had not been done; and repeated this statement more than once on which an altercation) took place between him and the other Magistrates which could not have been very edifying to that portion of the public which was assembled in the court—but Mr. O'Driscoll was at last forced to make a public apology to the Bench. These circumstances having been brought under the cognizance of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, that learned Lord felt it necessary to notice what had occurred, and he called their Lordships' attention to the learned Lord's Minute on the subject. After detailing the particulars of both cases, the Lord Chancellor proceeded to say,
"In an ordinary case I should not feel myself called upon to take any further notice of this charge; but from Mr. O'Driscoll's explanation it may be inferred, that he would not have struck the boy if he had told him the name of the person who carried the gun that had been shot off. Mr. O'Driscoll states, upon his honour as a gentleman, that he merely gave him one slap of the thong of the whip across the shoulders; but this, like the first act, appears to bear the character of a punishment for not giving evidence to Mr. O'Driscoll in his own case. Mr. O'Driscoll after his conxiction committed one of the gravest faults of which a Magistrate can be guilty; he openly accused his brother Magistrates of not baving done justice in his case; he was,

881
however, greatly excited, and shortly after wards redeemed his fault, as far as a gentleman could, by returning into Court, and making a public apology, which was kindly received by the sitting Magistrates; and I should, under ordinary circumstances, be most unwilling to advert to his prior conduct on that occasion. But all these charges taken together satisfy my mind that Mr. O'Driscoll has not at present that command over his temper and actions, even when acting in his Magisterial capacity, or appearing as a Defendant before the Bench, which is so essential to the due administration of justice; he is, I am told, far advanced in life, and has suffered lately from occasional ill health, and I therefore beg to suggest to him that it will be advisable that he should retire from the Bench. If a supersedeas issue it will be solely on these grounds." E. B. SUGDEN, C.
Now, with all due respect for the eminent person who held the Great Seal in Ireland, to whose ability in the discharge of his high judicial functions, no one was more willing to bear testimony than he (Earl Fortescue) was, he must say that this minute appeared to him a most undignified, inconsistent, and inconclusive document. If a case of this kind had occurred in this country, which, he thanked God, he thought to be impossible, as the Magistrates in England, thanks to the control of public opinion, through the medium of the press, were better acquainted with and more observant of their duties, he should have been astonished, indeed, if the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, or his noble Friend who preceded him there, after denouncing an individual as not having that command over his temper and actions which was so essential to the due administration of justice, should have superseded him, not on that ground, but merely on the grounds of age and ill health. But he should have been much more astonished if, after having got rid on any ground of a person who had so abused his functions, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack should have, within six months, without any disproof of the facts, restored him to the commission of the peace. Such was the case, as appeared from the Papers on their Lordships' Table; but, if he was rightly informed, this was not the first time that Mr. O'Driscoll had fallen under the censure of the Executive Government, nor the first time that he had been erased from the Commission of the Peace. In addition to this, he must observe, that during the
882
progress of these proceedings Mr. O'Driscoll had taken part in some proceedings of the Magistrates at Macroom Sessions, so improper, and so at variance with the provisions and intent of the Arms Bill, as to call down on that Bench the pointed animadversions of the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland. On these grounds, he called upon their Lordships to support him in the Motion he was about to make for information respecting the ground of Mr. O'Driscoll's restoration to the Commission of the Peace. The Irish Government, he was afraid, had within the last twelve months done much to impair the confidence of the great mass of the people of Ireland in the administration of the law in that country by the sweeping removal from the Commission of the Peace, on the grounds of political opinions, of many gentlemen well qualified to be in it by character, station, and property, some of them also much experienced in the discharge of magisterial duties, and endeared to the great body of the people by the profession of those opinions which had led to their dismissal. But the Government would destroy all confidence in the administration of justice, and would take from the people every inducement to obey the law, except the fear of its penalties, if they retained, on the grounds of personal favour, or political partisanship, in the Commission of the Peace men who, like Mr. O'Driscoll, outraged the law which it was his duty to administer, and who, in his whole conduct, displayed a spirit and temper utterly unsuited to the magisterial office. The noble Earl concluded by moving:—
"That there be laid before the House, Copies of any Memorials or Representations addressed to the Irish Government recommending the Restoration of Mr. Alexander O'Driscoll to the Commission of the Peace."
Lord Wharncliffewished to observe in the first place, in reply to the noble Earl, that he had not heard any Parliamentary grounds for the information he sought for. The noble Earl had not shown any grounds for interfering; for he apprehended that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, like the Lord Chancellor of England, when he dismissed from or restored a person to the Commission of the peace, acted in a quasi judicial manner, and unless it could be shown that he had acted from personal favour or political motives, there could be no ground for impeaching his proceedings

883
on the subject. The Chancellor might put an exceedingly improper person on the Commission of the Peace, or he might remove a very proper person from it; but who was to be the judge of his conduct? It was not the noble Lord's opinion that was to determine the matter, even though he might have a strong opinion with respect to it; but that was no Parliamentary ground in calling for Papers. He did not, however, lay much stress upon that objection, which in its nature, he admitted, was a mere technical objection; and he should, therefore, come to the facts of the case at once. It was to be observed that, in all the attacks that had been made upon the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, there was no impeachment of his motives either in dismissing or restoring this Gentleman to the Commission of the Peace, nor any imputation that he was influenced by personal favour, or by any political reason whatsoever. It was very true that this Gentleman had behaved in a manner which every one must feel to have been very improper; but at the same time it must be allowed that both cases in which he was concerned had been greatly exaggerated against him. There was then, first, the case of Dineen. That person was a marksman; and let any one read his memorial to the Lord Chancellor, and they would instantly perceive from the style and manner of it that Dineen was the mere tool of somebody else, whatever injury he might have received. Then Dineen, it was said in the first place, was carried before Mr. O'Driscoll. That is, he had been told to come to Mr. O'Driscoll. He was taken to that Gentleman's room. He was asked to state what he had seen. [The Earl Fortescue: He was summoned to Mr. O'Driscoll's own house.] That was denied by Mr. O'Driscoll. He said there was nothing more natural than that when an offence was committed against a Gentleman, and he was informed that one of his neighbours had seen it done, there could be nothing more natural than that he should ask that person to come to his House, and give him whatever information he could. It was very natural. [The Marquess of Normanby: Yes; but here Dineen was summoned before Mr. O'Driscoll as a magistrate.] Dineen said, he was summoned: Mr. O'Driscoll said he was told to come—but what he (Lord Wharncliffe) meant to say was this, that whether Dineen was summoned or not, he at once went and called upon Mr. O'Driscoll, and
884
he was then taken by Mr. O'Driscoll before another magistrate. That other magistrate tried to get whatever information he could out of him, and then, certainly not in a mode in which matters were conducted in this country—they committed the man to bridewell. Again, however, they were to observe that the man was taken before another magistrate, and whether the man had or had not any knowledge on the subject on which he was questioned, he did not know; but the man was committed, and of course at the request of Mr. O'Driscoll. He was ready to admit that both parties, Mr. O'Driscoll and the other magistrates, were greatly in fault in committing the man, and he thought that the Lord Chancellor was bound to take notice of the fact, and to reprimand them. In the course of the memorial presented by this man (Dineen), it was said that Mr. O'Driscoll had, on one occasion, been censured by the Lord Chancellor, and that he had on another occasion been dismissed. Now, it was but fair to know what Mr. O'Driscoll said in his defence on this subject. He said that the suspension was made in mistake, and that it was immediately recalled; and that, at another time, he had been reprimanded, but it was in a mistake also. The censure was in mistake, and it had been notified by seventy magistrates on both sides of politics, with the Earl of Bandon in the Chair. They had, then, the fact of his having before been both reprimanded and dismissed—and then the explanation of Mr. O'Driscoll as to both cases—and, if Mr. O'Driscoll's explanation was the true one, it took the sting completely out of the charge. They then came to the boy Dempsey. He did not defend Mr. O'Driscoll's conduct on that occasion. He had lost his temper, he had not behaved as a magistrate ought to do, and he had, too, used very improper language to the woman. It was an offence, after all, which perhaps their Lordships would think natural, for a person to commit, Mr. O'Driscoll was out hunting, and he heard a shot, and he took it for granted, as he was afraid a great many gentlemen in this country would have done, that the shot was fired at the animal that was affording him sport. Mr. O'Driscoll, as, he was afraid, too many others would have done under such circumstances, lost his temper. He called to have the boy turned out to him, and then, it was said, he lashed him; according to the account of the boy himself, or rather

885
the account of Dineen, who appeared again in this case, although he had nothing to do with it, the boy was treated most cruelly. Let them now see whether the charge was made out. The boy himself said, that he was struck two or three times with the thong of the whip. Mr. O'Driscoll said that he struck the boy once, and Mr. Jones—undoubtedly an impartial party—said that the boy was struck with the whip; but there was no reason to call it an aggravated assault. He now put it to their Lordships whether or not they had seen persons excited under such circumstances, whether there was not very great excitement felt, if they had even seen a party of Gentlemen interrupted in their sports. How strong, he said, must be a person's feeling on such an occasion? for if there was one thing more than another that annoyed Gentlemen, it was to disturb them in their sports [cries of "Oh, oh."] He did not defend Mr. O'Driscoll's conduct. It was the duty of that Gentleman never to have put himself in such a situation; but then he did say, without letting that fact at all out of consideration, whether or not there was some palliation in such a circumstance for his conduct. He then came to the scene before the magistrates, and he must say that he entirely agreed with the Lord Chancellor, that whatever might have been his fault before, the greatest of all was his conduct to the Bench. He certainly, however, it did appear from the Report of Mr. Jones, repair it to a certain degree, by at once tendering an apology. That, then, being the case as to the grievous circumstances which led to the dismissal of Mr. O'Driscoll, let them now come to the restoration of that Gentleman to the Commission of the Peace. Mr. O'Driscoll remained for some time off the Bench, and the Chancellor took no step—had no intention of restoring him. There was an application, however, made to the Lord Lieutenant of the county, backed by a memorial, such as was very seldom presented in favour of any one, asking for his restoration to the Commission of the Peace. That memorial stated that Mr. O'Driscoll was now restored to his health, and that, though advanced in years, there were many older persons in the Commission of the Peace, and that he was now in the full and active possession of his mental faculties and physical powers; that as a magistrate he had always conducted himself with reputation and credit, and, though a Roman Catholic, was a favour-
886
ite with persons of every creed, that Protestants and Catholics had met with equal justice from him, and the memorialists desired that, by his restoration to the magistracy, no imputation might be allowed to rest upon him. This memorial was signed by five noblemen, thirteen clergymen, forty-one esquires, and 2,842 persons. He must say, that if this Petition were untrue, then all that could be said was, that not only noblemen and gentlemen, but 2,840 persons had told the Lord Lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor that which was not the truth. Surely some credit must be given to these persons. They must believe that the character of the Gentleman was such as they described it to be, and that memorial being forwarded to the Lord Chancellor, he did restore Mr. O'Driscoll to the Commission of the Peace, having made a minute upon the circumstance. This minute was to the effect, that the Chancellor having considered with attention the memorial signed by 2,900 persons, at the head of whom was the Lord Lieutenant of the county, and which included men of all ranks, collected from the memorial that Mr. O'Driscoll's general conduct as a magistrate was such as rendered it desirable that he should be restored to the Commission of the Peace, that Mr. O'Driscoll's previous conduct was mainly attributable to the irritability arising from ill-health, from which he had now recovered; that he therefore reinstated him in his position, feeling confident that from his experience of the past, and from his having nearly 3,000 sureties for his future behaviour, he should hear no more complaints concerning him. He (Lord Wharncliffe) admitted that Mr. O'Driscoll's conduct justly exposed him to reprimand; and he thought the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had acted properly in dismissing him from the Bench; but, on receiving such a memorial as that he had referred to, the Lord Chancellor might fairly think, that after having punished the individual by reprimand and dismissal from the Bench, he might, nevertheless, give credit to the representations in the memorial, and re-instate the party in the position from which he had been dismissed, without danger, These were the reasons of Mr. O'Driscoll's restoration to the Commission of the Peace, and, as the noble Earl had stated no Parliamentary grounds for the production of the papers he had moved for, he (Lord Wharncliffe) must decline to give them.
The Marquess of Normanbyowned that he had listened with perfect astonishment to the speech which had just been delivered by his noble Friend, the President of the Council. From the very first word to the last he had heard that speech with astonishment—from the very first word in which his noble Friend laid down the extraordinary doctrine that no Parliamentary ground had been stated for this Motion, down to the very last sentence he had uttered, when he again repeated the opinion. His noble Friend had, on a former occasion, declared he would meet the question boldly. He knew his noble Friend sufficiently well to be aware that it was his disposition boldly to meet every question—to expose himself, even where he was not obliged to do so, in defence of others; and when his noble Friend proposed to meet this question, he only gave another extraordinary instance of readiness to fling himself into the breach—to defend, too, a proceeding, even when every word that fell from him must have convinced every one who heard him that he did not think that the step of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland could be justified. His noble Friend had said that he did not think there were Parliamentary grounds for this Motion; and yet how did his noble Friend come to admit that there were good grounds for the original Motion? When he had formerly moved for Papers on this subject they were conceded, and he took no further step in the matter. Why? Because he felt that substantial justice had been done by the removal of Mr. O'Driscoll from the magistracy. But then, when the unexpected, as well as the unexplained, step was taken by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland of restoring Mr. O'Driscoll, there was no person in or out of that House, who heard of it, who was not taken by surprise—and yet his noble Friend said there were no Parliamentary grounds for the Motion! Papers were granted to justify the removal of Mr. O'Driscoll, but when the Government reversed its own decision, were they to be told that no Papers were to be granted to justify his restoration to the magistracy? But, then, indeed, his noble Friend had said, that this objection was merely a technical objection. But his noble Friend said, that what the Lord Chancellor had done was from no political motive — he did not charge the Lord Chancellor with political motives. He
888
made no accusation against that learned personage; but, at the same time, when his conduct was justified by a memorial signed by 2,900 persons, he must own that he should like to know whether those 2,900 persons were not the habitual supporters of the Government; he should like to be satisfied whether they were not persons whom Her Majesty's Government would not like to offend. He was making no accusation against the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Lieutenant of acting from political motives; but he was anxious for further iuformation—he rather wanted to see who were the parties who, upon such slight grounds as that memorial had stated, had persuaded Her Majesty's Government so soon to reverse their solemn decision on this subject. His noble Friend in undertaking the defence, ought, he thought, to have read the Papers a little more completely. He said, that Mr. O'Driscoll had sent for Dineen, whereas Mr. O'Driscoll himself admitted that he sent a summons for him. He said, "I issued a summons to have him brought before me, or some other magistrates." Was he not justified, then, in saying that he ought to have read these papers more carefully? But then his noble Friend said that it was a matter of no consequence, whether Mr. O'Driscoll sent for the man to his own house or summoned him. Why, by the Petty Sessions Act, such a step was a violation of the law, except in cases of the greatest emergency. Now then as to Dempsey—he appealed to his noble Friend whether there was a palliation to be found for his conduct. He had himself looked over the depositions in this case, and he could say, that the language used by Mr. O'Driscoll to the woman who sought to protect the boy, were so disgusting that he would not utter them in the hearing of their Lordships, and they were such as to disqualify Mr. O'Driscoll for the situation in which he had now been restored. There was, then, another important ingredient in the case of Mr. O'Driscoll, which his noble Friend had rather slurred over. He came next to the proceedings in the Court itself. Now, when the Lord Chancellor undertook to give a minute of proceedings, he must say that he ought to give them fairly. The Lord Chancellor's account of the transaction was not that of Mr. O'Driscoll. Mr. O'Driscoll said that for his language to the Bench he had apologised instantly. Was that so? In short,

889
was that true? Let them turn to the account of Mr. Gore Jones:—
"After the Court had intimated to Mr. O'Driscoll the decision to which they had come, he took his seat beside them, and after many observations from him, in such a tone that the persons round the witnesses' table could not hear, and which the Chairman and other Magistrates seemed not to wish to hear, either, as they were proceeding with another case, Mr. O'Driscoll said aloud, 'I say you have not acted with justice.'
"Chairman (Mr. Somerville): Mr. O'Driscoll, you have used an expression which I would not expect from you; you have insulted the Bench, and I don't think you ought to have done so.
"Mr. O'Driscoll: I think I ought, and that I have grounds for it, and you may take it in any way you please.
"Mr. Somerville: Very well; then, Sir, I shall, and we shall see if you be permitted to insult a Bench who have had a most painful duty to discharge. [Here Mr. Somerville took down in writing the expressions used, and put the paper into his waistcoat pocket.]
"Mr. Fleming: And I tell you also, Sir, that I shall see if you can use such language with impunity.
"Mr. O'Driscoll: I have done so, and care little for the course you adopt."
"Mr. Fleming: Very well."
The Earl of Glengallhere observed across the Table—Mr. O'Driscoll had done nothing to apologise for.
The Marquess of Normanbyobserved, that it was said by his noble Friend, that Mr. O'Driscoll had done nothing to apologise for; and this after telling the Court and his brother Magistrates, that they had not acted with justice. But hear what was further stated of the conduct of Mr. O'Driscoll:—
"The case which was thus interrupted was then proceeded with, and after it was concluded, Mr. Gore Jones called Mr. O'Driscoll out of the Court, and after a short absence both returned, when Mr. O'Driscoll said in rather a low voice, 'I have been guilty of insulting the Bench, and I will apologise for it, except to the—.'
"Mr. Fleming: Don't be muttering, Mr. O'Driscoll; speak out! Do I understand you as excepting me?
"Mr. O'Driscoll: Yes.
"Mr. Fleming (to Mr. Somerville): Hand me the paper in which you took down his words.
"The paper having been handed to Mr. Fleming, he said (addressing Mr. O'Driscoll, and reading from the paper), 'You have, Sir, said, that this Bench has not acted with justice towards you. Remember these words.
'Mr. Somerville: An insult offered to the
890
whole Bench, and I will not receive an apology individually.
"Mr. Jones having again conversed with Mr. O'Driscoll, the latter said, 'Well, if I must, I must,' and continued in a low tone of voice, 'Well, I will apologise to the whole Bench.'
"Mr. Somerville: Then do so publicly.
"Mr. O'Driscoll (in a distinct voice): Well, I do apologise.
"Mr. Somerville: Then I destroy the paper on which I took down your words. [Here Mr. Somerville tore the paper.]
"Mr. Becher: I am glad of it, as the decision was unanimous."
He complained that although all the circumstances which he had related occurred before the apology was made, which Mr. O'Driscoll represented to have been instantaneous, Lord Chancellor Sugden took no notice of them. Ultimately, Mr. O'Driscoll said, "Well, I do apologise to the whole Bench," and then Mr. Somerville destroyed the paper on which he had taken down his words. He now came to the memorial. He should like to know whether those who signed it were aware of the facts to which he had just referred, and knew that Mr. O'Driscoll had given such an account of the matter to the Lord Chancellor, although he had shown so much pertinacity in refusing to apologise for an act which had admitted of no justification; and he was also anxious to know whether those amongst whom and those over whom Mr. O'Driscoll was to act, had signed it—whether Mr. Somerville and Mr. Becher and Mr. Fleming had signed it? He spoke with great respect of the noble Lord Lieutenant of the county and of those Gentlemen who had signed the memorial, but he said they ought not to have done so unless they had consulted the feelings of those amongst whom Mr. O'Driscoll had misbehaved himself. It was easy to produce an effect, and to procure signatures to a memorial by appeals, such as "Poor old O'Driscoll — he is breaking his heart about their having turned him out of the Commission—don't you recollect the capital run we had when he struck the boy?—it was all about that." But he (Lord Normanby) said that with the facts of this case before him, he should never have signed such a memorial. And how had this consistent Government acted with respect to other parties? What was Lord Lucan's case? He thought, and always had thought, Lord Lucan a very ill used man. He had, perhaps, under extreme provocation, forgotten himself, and

891
used one term of which he repented as soon as be was delivered of it; it was a very objectionable one, but it was to a person who was at the time irritating and aggravating him, and misbehaving himself in an extreme degree. But did Lord Lucan insult the Bench? Did he tell them as Mr. O'Driscoll did, that they had not done justice in his case? And his learned and noble Friend reminded him that Lord Lucan had first thrown himself upon the protection of the Bench. He had thus shown his innate good feeling until his temper was aggravated beyond control. He had never heard of so extraordinary a course as that pursued by the Government in the case of Lord Lucan. Could there have been any difficulty in Lord Lucan procuring a memorial in his favour if he had condescended to such a course? The Government, it was true, offered to restore him; but they stated at the same time that the condition of restoration would be the reinstatement of the person who had been the cause of the quarrel, who was his agent and who had no qualification for the Bench, except what he derived originally from the favour of the person whom he insulted. He held that the greatest weakness a Government could show was to be afraid of being thought afraid of doing justice in such a case as that of Lord Lucan. But this was not all that was to be expected with respect to persons dismissed from the commission of the peace, if the Lord Chancellor of Ireland persevered in his present course. He (Lord Normanby) had had the misfortune to recommend to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who acted upon his recommendation the dismissal of a gentleman of high character from the commission of the peace—he meant Colonel Verner. He much regretted it at the time, but felt it his duty to do so. The circumstances had been often before the public, and it was only necessary for him to remind their Lordships that when the Act against party processions was brought in, Colonel Verner, at a late hour in the evening, proposed a toast which was considered as necessarily exciting one class of the people against another. He (the Marquess of Normanby) wrote to him for an explanation, and should have been happy to have received such a one as would have prevented the necessity of his proceeding further; but Colonel Verner acting upon that feeling against the Government which the high Protestant party
892
in Ireland at that time cherished, refused to give any explanation; and he (the Marquess of Normanby) felt himself bound to take the step of recommending his dismissal; but Colonel Verner was in every way qualified for his station as a magistrate, and he said, that if Mr. O'Driscoll was restored, the Government would commit an act of great injustice to Colonel Verner if they did not also restore him to the commission of the peace: and he thought, considering the length of time since the affair had occurred, that such an act would be meritorious and praiseworthy on their part. There was nothing in the Papers to show where the Lord Chancellor had picked up the story about Mr. O'Driscoll being in ill health. He had certainly shown his vigour on Dempsey; but even supposing the Lord Chancellor to have been right in assigning the state of Mr. O'Driscoll's health as the justification of the course which he had pursued, he begged to ask how did these 2,800 people know of Mr. O'Driscoll's restoration to health? He (Lord Normanby) thought that if the dismissal of a magistrate was good for anything, it was only a good thing if the fair and honest grounds upon which it was felt to be necessary were stated to the public; but could any man read the minute of Lord Chancellor Sugden without seeing, that by way of softening the proceeding to Mr. O'Driscoll it was put upon grounds which were not the real ones? It stated—
"He is, I am told far advanced in life, and had suffered lately from occasional ill health, and I therefore beg to suggest to him that it will be advisable that he should retire from the Bench. If a supersedeas issue, it will be solely on these grounds."
He hoped the Lord Chancellor of Ireland would not persevere in giving such reasons for his acts. He had been the more anxious to take an opportunity of saying a few words on this subject, because at this moment a change of Government was about to take place. As to the noble Earl who was about to leave this country, he had every feeling of personal kindness for him, and it was notorious that from ill health that noble Lord had not been able to pay that attention to his duties which no doubt he otherwise would have done; but he (Lord Normanby) was not prepared to say at present that the Lord Lieutenancy ought to be abrogated. Although we must look for-

893
ward to the time when the two countries should be placed upon a footing of perfect equality, and when that office could be dispensed with, he was not prepared to say that we were yet arrived at the time when the protection arising from the presence of a resident governor could be withdrawn. But if a Lord Lieutenant was to continue to reside in that country, it must be understood that he did his own business. To the Lord Lieutenant every one looked, and the moment a question arose as to this being the act of one person and that of another, the whole system became one of intrigue, instead of being what it ought to be, and what he believed it must for some time continue to be, one of protection to the people. He did not know whether he rightly understood his noble Friend to say, that he would refuse the papers on the ground that no Parliamentary case had been made out for their production.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, he had observed—rather as a protest than for any other purpose—that no Parliamentary ground had been made out for the Motion; but if the noble Lord wished for the Papers, he had no objection to their production.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid if his noble Friend had any doubt on the subject, he should recommend him to take the sense of the House upon it; but he conceived that the strongest possible parliamentary grounds had been shown. If his noble Friend did not refuse the Papers, he should say no more; but he thanked his noble Friend for bringing the case forward, and he thought the more such cases were brought forward, the more substantial justice would be done.
The Earl of Riponsaid, as his noble Friend did not mean to press his objection to the production of the papers, he did not think it necessary to enter into the particulars of the case. He felt no disposition to palliate or at least to excuse the conduct of Mr. O'Driscoll in the matter which was first brought under the notice of the Lord Chancellor; but he thought there was nothing of which he was accused which implied misconduct in his magisterial capacity except the insult to the Bench. The noble Marquess had said that he did not wish to throw so much responsibility upon the Lord Lieutenant, because the state of his health had rendered him unable to attend to the duties of his office. Now he must, on the part of the Lord Lieutenant, disclaim all ex-
894
cuse on that ground. He would venture to say that those who had to deal with the Lord Lieutenant, however they might have witnessed the suffering which ill health produced had never seen any indolence in the discharge of his duties as one of its effects, or any disposition to permit himself to be urged to any course to which, in his conscience, he did not feel himself bound; and he would venture to say that whatever was the course he had pursued — whether it was right or wrong—it was the result of his own deliberate consideration, and not of putting his conscience at the feet of any other person.
The Earl of Wicklowalso bore testimony to the assiduity and vigilance with which Earl De Grey discharged the duties of his office. With regard to Lord Lucan's dismissal, he (the Earl of Wicklow) considered it, as he had before strongly declared, one of the most unjust transactions that had ever been known; and he thought that the conditions that had subsequently been proposed—viz. the concurrent restoration of Mr. O'Malley increased the impropriety of the conduct which had been pursued towards Lord Lucan; but with regard to Mr. O'Driscoll, he would not participate in the condemnation of the course pursued by the Irish Government, for he saw nothing in that Gentleman's conduct which would justify his permanent exclusion from the commission of the peace.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, he totally differed from the noble Earl who had just sat down, in the conclusion at which he had arrived, with respect to the degree of propriety in Mr. O'Driscoll's conduct. The report made by an authorised person, showed that after the Court had intimated to Mr. O'Driscoll the decision to which they had come, he took his seat amongst them, and, after many other observations, said aloud, "I say you have not acted with justice." [Lord Wicklow: He sat on the bench near the magistrates, as many persons do, but he was not acting in a magisterial capacity.] Mr. O'Driscoll began by saying "Let us do justice in this case, which was not done in the last," and it was clear that he did misbehave himself in his magisterial capacity in that case, as well as in the case of the man whom he summoned to his own house in defiance of the Petty Sessions Act, and of all the rules

895
for magisterial procedure. He (Lord Clanricarde) said that any man of whom such facts came out as were proved in this case, was incapacitated, both by his temper and his conduct, from being a proper and a good magistrate. It was new to him that any man was entitled by his property to be a magistrate, if he was not also qualified by his conduct and his temper. No attempt worth notice had been made to excuse the act of which Mr. O'Driscoll had been guilty with respect to the boy; but beyond that he said, that in this correspondence Mr. O'Driscoll was convicted of two, if not three distinct falsehoods. His statement that he had instantly apologised was inconsistent with the facts, and was an endeavour to mislead the Lord Chancellor, and he thought a person capable of such an attempt was not a proper person to be continued in the Commission of the Peace. Again, after it had been distinctly proved that the boy whom Mr. O'Driscoll struck was not poaching, but that it was a gentleman named Townsend who fired the gun, Mr. O'Driscoll, twice in his letter after that disproof, stated that the boy was poaching. He thought that there was not a shadow of justification for restoring him to the Commission of the Peace. The President of the Council, by way of excuse for Mr. O'Driscoll, said that he had been betrayed into violence in consequence of excitement produced by the sports of the field; but this Mr. O'Driscoll himself denied, and there was no reason to suppose that Mr. O'Driscoll would not again do what he had already done, for he showed not the least compunction for it. He had expressed his regret for his conduct to the magistrates; but with respect to Dineen, or the "poaching urchin," as he called the boy, he did not seem to think he had done anything wrong. Mr. O'Driscoll denied the fact of his temper being inflammable, except in the one instance, to his brother magistrates. This was the gentleman whom the Government restored to the Commission of the Peace, and then they wondered that the people had not confidence in the magistracy, and that they resorted to what was called the wild justice of revenge—this gentleman having been twice restored, for he had before been dismissed by the deliberate judgment of the Lord Chancellor. The President of the Council must have forgotten his own speech with
896
reference to votes of the late Government, although he (Lord Clanricarde) defied him to show that they did not rest upon as good grounds as this. The only excuse given for restoring Mr. O'Driscoll was the high character and the number of those who had signed the memorial in his favour. Why, if the Government were to restore to the Commission a gentleman, who no one could say had behaved as he ought, because he had been recommended in a Memorial signed by 2,800 persons, they might turn out of it for their political opinions persons in whose favour—he did not exaggerate when he said he could procure a million of signatures if necessary. If Mr. O'Driscoll was to be restored because there were 2,800 signatures in his favour, why should popular magistrates be turned out of the Commission because they entertained an opinion which, he was sorry to say, many honest persons entertained, that a Repeal of the Union was desirable. The facts of Dineen being a poor and illiterate man, and of the paper being written for him by some one else, were brought forward apparently to weaken the case. Why, he said that was the strength of the case. The best reason why Mr. O'Driscoll should have been removed was, because it was a person of the humbler class upon whom he had attempted to trample. Was there any proof that he assaulted Mr. Townsend, who was the person really shooting? No; but he directed his gross and violent language to a poor woman, treated a boy with severity, and attempted to act with oppression towards Dineen. He was sure the President of the Council did not mean that Dineen was not entitled to justice because he was a poor man; but the Lord Chancellor's minute showed that he considered his Memorial not entitled to so much attention, because it was written for him by another person, Dineen himself not being able to write. Was he not right in applying to a person who could put the case forward fairly and properly? But he believed that this was not a solitary case as regarded Mr. O'Driscoll, and he would refer as a proof of that to the statement made in open court of the cause for not serving a summons on that gentleman. The attorney for the complainant stated in open court, that the official of the court refused to serve a summons upon Mr. O'Driscoll; and what excuse did that official give?

897
He said the person who was in the habit of serving summonses stated to him that he dared not serve a summons upon Mr. O'Driscoll, because if he did Mr. O'Driscoll would drive a ball through him. [Lord Wharncliffe: That is a statement from a newspaper.] He said it appeared as a Report of the proceedings in a court of justice, but he was satisfied if the noble Lord wished to rest his whole case upon that. That reason assigned for not serving the summons showed pretty clearly how well the character of Mr. O'Driscoll was understood in the country.
The Earl of Bandonsaid, that he would not enter into the merits of the case, but he wished to state that he knew nothing of the memorial until it was brought to him numerously and respectably signed, and of course he had no previous knowledge of the intention to get up that memorial. Before the memorial reached him, it bore the signatures of nearly 3,000 persons of all political and religious opinions, and two of the Peers who signed it were of the politics, he believed, of noble Lords opposite; in addition to which, it was signed by a number of magistrates, who had been in the habit of acting with Mr. O'Driscoll, when he was on the Bench. He (the Earl of Bandon) had known Mr. O'Driscoll for a long time as a respectable magistrate, and he believed, when that memorial was brought to him, an old magistrate had been sufficiently punished by the degradation of being dismissed from the Commission of the Peace—a punishment which he would not say had been unjustly inflicted.
Lord Campbellsaid, that the noble Earl had shown a great deal of good feeling in the part he had taken; but he had shown strongly the truth of what fell from his noble Friend—he had shown that the memorial had proceeded merely from good nature. He stated that he was not acquainted with the facts.
The Earl of Bandonsaid, he was well acquainted with the facts; but he had said that he should not enter into them, as it was his intention to confine himself to the subject of the memorial, and the portion of the transaction in which he had been concerned.
Lord Campbellsaid, that the House had a right to be thankful to the noble Earl for the manner in which he had come forward to explain all the transactions with respect to the memorial. It was his
898
(Lord Campbell's) duty, as a Member of their Lordships' House, to give his opinion in the most frank and free manner upon this subject, and he should therefore say that the noble Earl sat down without showing one reason why the decision to which the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had come in dismissing Mr. O'Driscoll from the Commission of the Peace ought to be reversed, and that gentleman re-appointed. There were in such a case the true reasons and the ostensible reasons. Now, the true reason was his conduct with regard to Dineen, a man whom he had summoned in his own case to his own house, and did what amounted to the infliction of torture in order to obtain a confession of his knowledge of certain proceedings. He had, in fact, shown by his conduct that he was unfit for the office of a magistrate. There were offences in which those engaged in the administration of justice might be forgiven, but there were others which ought not to be forgiven. Now, with regard to the ostensible reason for dismissing Mr. O'Driscoll, what was it? The ostensible reason was, that Mr. O'Driscoll was a gentleman of bad temper, and bad health, and of advanced age. The memorial stated that Mr. O'Driscoll had recovered his health, but it was silent as regarded his temper—it had not stated that he had any. Homœopathic application recovered his temper with his health. Then there was another of the ostensible reasons which could not have been removed, namely, old age; he could not have grown younger unless, like a crab, he went backwards. It appeared that, taking the health, and the temper, and the conduct displayed by Mr. O'Driscoll into consideration, he was not considered fit any longer to hold the Commission of the Peace. Now, had the memorial, or had anything they had heard to-night, shown that these grounds were altered, and that he ought to be restored? If a magistrate were dismissed from the Commission of the Peace for a grave cause, which showed that he was unfit to be a magistrate, was it to be said that any memorial, however respectable, was to be considered sufficient ground for reversing the punishment? Did not the memorial itself show the evil that might by possibility arise from such a practice? The memorial was signed by 2,800 persons before it was brought to the Lord Lieutenant of the county, but if it were brought

899
to him in order to have his signature before any other—if he were consulted in the first instance, he would not have signed the memorial—he would have said, "By no means; the Chancellor has properly dismissed him, and he ought not to be restored." He (Lord Campbell) rejoiced to perceive that the Government were ashamed of the course which had been pursued with respect to Mr. O'Driscoll, and that they had altered the course which they had originally been prepared to take. The noble President of the Council at first said that there were no Parliamentary grounds for giving the information; but when the arguments appeared so strong, and the case irresistible, for once, although they possessed authority and power, and might have a large majority, yet they thought better of the matter, and agreed to give the papers required.
The Earl of Glengalsaid, that this was altogether a party proceeding from beginning to end, and the real motives which actuated persons in relation to it, were motives which did not appear on the papers that had been laid before their Lordships. People in this country were not aware how much persecuted magistrates in Ireland frequently were; the lowest, and meanest, and most contemptible species of attornies attended the petit sessions, for the purpose of picking holes in the conduct of the magistrates. Mr. O'Driscoll was a Roman Catholic gentleman, and like all the magistrates who were Roman Catholics, and were at the same time opposed to Repeal, was odious to the conspirators, who were destroying a country that, only for the detestable machinations of those persons, would be one of the most flourishing countries in the world. The case was made up against Mr. O'Driscoll in that low pettifogging manner—it was a case like that which was tried a few days ago in the county of Roscommon, in which the Repeal Association sent down 25 l. for the purpose of carrying on proceedings against a Conservative gentleman, who had made himself obnoxious to the Repealers. Two cases of nearly a similar nature happened in the county with which he was connected, and they afforded instances of the persecutions to which magistrates are frequently subjected in Ireland. Mr. O'Driscoll was obnoxious to the Repealers because he was opposed to
900
Repeal, and he had also made himelf obnoxious with respect to the Arms Bill, knowing what description of persons many of the Repealers were. But, at all events, the account of those proceedings which had been so much spoken of was copied from a Cork paper, the reporter of which made it up perhaps partly out of his own head and partly out of the facts of the case. The charge in reality against Mr. O'Driscoll was, that he was not a Repealer.
The Earl of Mountcashelknew Mr. O'Driscoll for a great number of years; that Gentleman had often visited at his House, and he was able to state from his personal knowledge that he stood very high in the opinion of the whole country. He had been a magistrate for a long time, and their Lordships were aware that magistrates in his condition were often obliged to do do things which tended to make them unpopular. Mr. O'Driscoll had been placed in that position and had found himself in the discharge of his magisterial duties opposed to a large number of those around him. He was a Roman Catholic gentleman, and being a Roman Catholic, he was also a Conservative, which caused him to be placed in the black list, and to be extremely unpopular. It ought to be recollected that Mr. O'Driscoll resided in a wild part of the country, where gentlemen were very scarce. [Laughter.] Yes, he repeated, where gentlemen were scarce, and it was desirable that in such a place men of independent character and property should be upon the list of magistrates. If there were not such men as Mr. O'Driscoll scattered through the country, he (the Earl of Mountcashel) did not know what might occur. They were very different from the low description of magistrates, of which so many were appointed during the late Administration. Mr. O'Driscoll might have been a little warm, but it was not always the man who was most easily excited that was the least worthy character; and he could assure their Lordships that this gentleman had earned the esteem of all who knew him. The real cause of this persecution against Mr. O'Driscoll was that which he stated himself in a letter, which would be found in page 11 of the papers relating to this subject, which were on their Lordships' Table. The Clause was, in his own words, "I am a Roman Catholic, professing Conservative principles." That would explain

901
the reason of this persecution against Mr. O'Driscoll.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he felt it his duty to offer a few words in defence of his learned Friend, that most excellent Judge, whose administration of justice was approved of by all Ireland—one of the most learned and able Judges that ever sat on the Bench—one of the most upright, honourable, and independent men that ever held the office which he now holds—a Judge who has on all occasions been actuated by no other principle and motive than the desire to perform his duty. In his (the Lord Chancellor's) opinion an attack had been made which, in severity and extent, was not warranted by the circumstances; and he believed in his conscience that it arose from nothing but what had been alluded to by two noble Lords who had last addressed the House, and who were well acquainted with the condition and the state of politics in Ireland—namely, the union in the person of Mr. O'Driscoll of what was considered by some as two opposite and inconsistent principles—namely, of being a Conservative Catholic and Anti-repealer. He attributed the attack more to that cause than to any other. What were the facts of the case?—He did not mean to justify Mr. O'Driscoll—but what were the grounds which had been adopted with respect to him. The first charge against him was a charge of committing a person to prison whom he had summoned to appear before him in his own case. He admitted the irregularity of that summons, but this man so summoned went with Mr. O'Driscoll voluntarily to the police barrack, where Mr. Galway, a neighbouring Magistrate, attended. He ought not to have summoned the man before him, but the man walked, not with a constable, but quietly with Mr. O'Driscoll to the police barrack, and Mr. Galway endeavoured to persuade him to admit the name of the party who had committed an offence, and it was because he refused to answer the question, which he was bound by law to answer, that he was committed to prison. The facts were greatly exaggerated.
The Marquess of Clanricarde: Why was he bound to answer the question.
The Lord Chancellor: It was a case of misdemeanour.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, there was a particular statute in Ireland relating to poaching, under which he might be committed to prison if he refused to answer.
The Marquess of Clanricarde: The
902
person against whom he was required to give evidence was not poaching.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he did not allude to the subject of poaching; the offence was driving away cattle, which had been seized under distress. The man was asked a question in reference to that offence, and did any man say that if, in such a case, he refused to answer a question which he was legally bound to answer, he could not be committed to prison, he would be committed to prison, and he must say that there appeared to be gross exaggeration and extravagance in the statements. Then there was the assault. It was quite ludicrous. ["Ironical Cheers."] What authority had they for this statement about the assault?
The Marquess of Clanricarde: It appeared in the papers, which gave an account of the proceedings.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland wrote for an account of the matter to the chairman of the tribunal before which the subject was brought, but it would appear that some noble Lords had not read that account. The Chairman said that it was by no means an aggravated assault.
The Earl of Fortescuesaid, that the Lord Chancellor had described it as a ludicrous assault.
The Lord Chancellordenied that it was an aggravated assault. He did not say ludicrous assault; but in reference to the extraordinary course which had been taken, he said that the exaggeration had been ludicrous. How was it proved by the documents? The Chairman's account which was sent to the Lord Chancellor, said, that it was not an aggravated assault. When they came to the affront—to the insult—he (the Lord Chancellor) admitted that it was very improper conduct on the part of Mr. O'Driscoll, according to the statement in the newspaper; but Mr. Jones in his account stated, that when the apology was made it was immediately accepted by the Magistrates, and the Chairman tore in pieces a written paper which he had in his hand (an account of the transaction), and threw it away as if he looked upon the matter as concluded by the apology. Did he (the Lord Chancellor) justify Mr. O'Driscoll in that conduct? Far from it. He thought his conduct highly improper, but he apologised for it, and the Lord Chancellor of Ireland stated to him that it was a grave offence of which he had been guilty. Fault had been found with the minute of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, but no terms

903
could be more apt and proper than those which he had used; and he would ask any noble Lord who had read it to say if the opinions in that minute could be better expressed. Mr. O'Driscoll had been a magistrate twenty or thirty years, during which time he had well discharged his duties; and what did the Lord Chancellor of Ireland do? The Lord Chancellor suspended him from the Commission of the Peace, he wrote to him that he ought in consequence of his conduct to be removed from the Commission of the Peace. He was dismissed, and he remained so for six months. What happened afterwards? The Lord Lieutenant of the county, who knew Mr. O'Driscoll well, and who was acquainted with all the particulars relating to this subject, attached his signature to a memorial requesting his restoration to the Commission of the Peace. This memorial was not only signed by the Lord Lieutenant of the county but by Magistrates and others of the greatest respectability, and of all parties of all political opinions. It was signed by upwards of 2,800 persons, by all respectable friends and neighbours of Mr. O'Driscoll who knew him and were acquainted with all the particulars. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland then restored the Commission of the Peace to this old Magistrate, who had for thirty years properly discharged the duties which belonged to the Commission. And this the more particularly, if he had reason to believe that the persecution against Mr. O'Driscoll was founded on the grounds he (the Lord Chancellor) had already stated, that being a Roman Catholic he had had the courage to be a Conservative and an Anti-Repealer.
The Earl of Radnorsaid the course of the debate had shown him that the subject was of more importance than he at first supposed it to be; and certainly his estimate of that importance was greatly enhanced by the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. The testimony which the noble and learned Lord had borne to the general manner in which the Lord Chancellor of Ireland discharged the functions of his high office was, he believed, from all he had heard, perfectly just, and thoroughly well merited. Yet it must be admitted by all dispassionate persons, that blame attached to that distinguished person for his restoration to the magistracy of Mr. O'Driscoll. It was stated by the noble and learned Lord, that the memorial in favour of Mr. O'Driscoll emanated from the Lord-lieutenant of the
904
county, whereas that nobleman distinctly said he knew nothing of the memorial till it was put into his hands to be forwarded to the Government. It was quite clear that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, after he had seen reason for dismissing Mr. O'Driscoll, on the ground of utter unfitness for his office, consented to reinstate him, not because he had revised his opinion of the individual's fitness, but because he yielded to the solicitations of the party with whom Mr. O'Driscoll was connected. He (Lord Radnor) quite differed from noble Lords opposite on the merits of the transactions in which Mr. O'Driscoll had figured. The noble Baron, for instance, was of opinion, that as Dineen was only a marksman, anything done to him was of comparatively slight importance.
Lord Wharncliffehad said nothing of the sort; what he stated of Dineen was, that he looked upon him as a person who had been made use of as the tool of other people for a particular purpose; but he had said nothing implying that because he was a poor man he was not entitled to equal justice with the greatest Duke in the land. All he said about his being a marksman was, simply that he was a marksman, and could not, therefore, write any such memorial to Government.
The Earl of Radnor: Well, then, and precisely because he could not write himself, was it necessary that, when injured, and seeking redress, he should get others to write for him, without subjecting himself to the charge of having been made a tool of by those whom he sought to aid him in this way. What alarmed him (Lord Radnor) most in this matter was, to hear the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack say, that the proceedings in reference to Dineen were regular and legal.
The Lord Chancellorhad said no such thing. The noble Earl really seemed disposed to misrepresent everybody.
The Marquess of Clanricarderose to order. It was altogether out of the rules of the House for any noble Lord to impute to another noble Lord that he had misrepresented a statement.
The Lord Chancellorwould admit that he should not have used the term misrepresented; he should have said misapprehended, and that in consequence of the noble Earl's misapprehending, he had, therefore, though not wilfully, misrepresented what he had said. Most assuredly,

905
what he had said was, that the proceedings were irregular and illegal.
The Earl of Radnor: Yes, the issuing of the summons, but the subsequent proceedings were not spoken of by the noble and learned Lord as irregular or illegal. Again, the noble and learned Lord spoke of the assault upon Dempsey as ridiculous and contemptible, just as if the administration of justice ought not to be alike for rich and poor. Suppose that instead of Mr. O'Driscoll assaulting Dempsey, the latter had assaulted O'Driscoll, would this have been treated as a ridiculous and trumpery affair, not worthy the attention of justice?
The Lord Chancellorhad not spoken of the assault as being ridiculous; what he had said was, that the nature of the assault had been ridiculously exaggerated.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, that at all events it was perfectly clear on the face of these papers, on the face of the minutes of the Lord Chancellor, that Mr. O'Driscoll was an entirely unfit man to be in the commission of the peace, and the Lord Chancellor had been, therefore, greatly to blame in reinstating him merely on the ground of a party application in his favour.
Lord Wharncliffedenied that the memorial in behalf of Mr. O'Driscoll was a party application, it was signed by persons of all parties.
The Marquess of Clanricardeasked, if the memorial was not a party one, why were those who advocated the case of Dineen to be charged with party motives?
Lord Campbellbegged to repeat, in reference to what had fallen from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, his conviction that Dineen was perfectly justified in refusing to answer Mr. O'Driscoll's questions, and that the committal of Dineen to Skibbereen Bridewell was wholly illegal.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that it was by no means an unusual thing, in getting up such memorials as that in favour of Mr. O'Driscoll, to get one or two names of persons of the opposite party, precisely for the purpose of giving the thing an air of impartiality.
Earl Fortescuebriefly replied: his noble Friend having, on second thoughts, abandoned his opposition to the Motion, he should trouble the House with very few observations, but he must protest against the doctrine, that when a grievance had been
906
inflicted on the public (which he maintained to have been the case in the reappointment of Mr. O'Driscoll), the Chancellor, was not amenable unless there were primâ facie grounds for attributing corrupt or improper motives. He had expected from the noble Earl, the Lord Lieutenant of the County of Cork, and from the other noble Earl, who spoke to the character of Mr. O'Driscoll, he expected to have heard from them some confirmation of Mr. O'Driscoll's assertion respecting his former dismissal, but not a word had been said by either of them on that subject. As the question had been put to him, he must say, that however numerously or respectably signed the memorial might have been, he should, as Lord Lieutenant, have thought it his duty to return a distinct and decided negative to the application for restoring Mr. O'Driscoll. He did not say that after years of good conduct he might not have been induced to reinstate him; but in the face of such an opinion as that expressed by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, he certainly would not have thought it consistent with his duty to the country to have restored him within six months. Nothing had fallen from noble Lords opposite during this debate which at all altered his impression that Mr. O'Driscoll was a most improper person to exercise the functions of a magistrate; and he was happy to find that the conduct on which he founded that opinion, though excused by some, had found none to defend it.
The Motion was then agreed to.

THE CHARITABLE BEQUESTS (IRELAND) BILL.
Lord Wharncliffe, in moving that this Bill be re-committed, said he had delayed proceeding with it for some time that he might find out what objections were urged against it, in order, if possible, to remedy them. He was very glad he had done so, because he had been enabled to amend the Bill in several points, which he hoped would render it completely satisfactory, although God knew in the present state of feeling in Ireland, it was very difficult to say what would give satisfaction in that country. But this he would say, the Bill was such as he thought should be taken by Roman Catholics as an earnest of the desire of Her Majesty's Government to do every thing they could consistently with their duty to support the Established Church, to place Roman Catholics and Protestants in all other respects on an equal footing.

907
First of all, he understood there was an objection to the word "minister," although he was surprised there should be, as that word in France was applied without disrespect to persons in Holy Orders generally. But the Roman Catholics, it seemed, considered it as a term applicable only to the pastors of Protestant Dissenting congregations, and therefore he had erased it altogether from the Bill. Then, as to the composition of the Board; the old Commission was composed of the Lord Chancellor, the Judge of the Prerogative Court, all the Judges, all the Bishops, and all the Ministers of all the Parishes in Dublin. That was, to say the least of it, a very clumsy body, and he was not surprised that the Roman Catholics had not much confidence in it. He proposed to leave out the Lord Chancellor from the Commission altogether, because it was the object of this Bill to enable the Commissioners to bring issues before the Lord Chancellor in order to enforce a right application of the funds. He would put in the Commission first of all the Master of the Rolls, then the Judge of the Prerogative Court; together with ten other persons, of whom five would be Protestants and five Roman Catholics. So much for the constitution of the Commission. But he meant to propose an entirely new Clause to remedy other objections that might be made. It might be said by Roman Catholics that the majority on this Board were Protestants, and yet they were expected to submit to a body so composed matters affecting the discipline and rites of their Church. He must say the bequests in Ireland for Roman Catholic purposes had increased immensely since the passing of the Emancipation Act; there were some enormously large funds in the hands of some individual bishops of that Church. There was one Roman Catholic bishop who had in trust, almost in his own power, one bequest of 55,000 l., and another of 35,000 l. Since the beginning of this year there had been bequeathed altogether for charitable purposes in Ireland above 30,000 l., of which 6,523 l. was for Protestant purposes, and 23,477 l. for Roman Catholic uses. The proportion of bequests, then, for pious and charitable purposes connected with the Roman Catholic religion was in Ireland in a very enormous proportion greater than on the part of the Protestants; there would, therefore, be great injustice and impropriety in leaving to the decision of a Board, of which the majority were Protestants, matters affecting the
908
discipline of the Roman Catholic Church in the first instance. He, therefore, proposed that when any question arose concerning the doctrine, discipline, or constitution of the United Church of England and Ireland, or of any body of Protestant Nonconformists, it should be submitted, in the first instance, to a Committee of five who should be Protestants on the Board; and when any question arose respecting the doctrine, discipline, or constitution of the Roman Catholic Church, it should be submitted to the five Roman Catholics on the Board, who would give a certificate of the facts relating to the case to the Committee at large, on which they would then act. This would be a material improvement in the Bill. He would also introduce a Clause compelling the Board to keep minutes of their proceedings, to enter them in a book, and make an annual report. The noble Earl then read the 11th Clause of the Bill as he proposed it should stand, which required that three months should elapse between the date of the deed and the death of the testator, in order to render it valid; but that provision applied only to real estate. Personalty might still be disposed of at the last moment. He had thought it right to set that three months against the English law of mortmain, which in fact required that a year should elapse. He earnestly hoped the amendments he had made in the Bill would give satisfaction. The greatest anxiety was felt by the Government that their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects should possess a fair and safe footing on which to rest their charitable trusts, to be executed according to the intentions of the founders and the law of the land. This was a fair and honourable tender, which he hoped would be accepted in that spirit in which it was offered.
The Marquess of Normanbysincerely presented his thanks to the noble Lord for every one of the alterations he had made in the Bill. From the fair and candid spirit which dictated those Amendments he felt confident the Bill would meet with general approbation.
Lord Beaumontsaid, that he rose for the purpose of thanking the noble Lord in the first place for the liberal Bill he had presented, and for the purpose of stating his regret in the second place—he might say, even his disgust—at the manner in which it had been received by those for whose benefit it was intended. He con-

909
sidered this measure to have been from its commencement to its final completion a most honest measure on the part of the Government, conceived in a spirit of true liberality, and carried out with sincerity of purpose, as well as with judgment, in respect to its details. Yet, monstrous as it might appear, this very Bill had been attacked by the Irish priesthood, and described as treacherous and atrocious, and "more oppressive than the penal Acts themselves." Yet what was this Bill, and what had the noble Lord done who presented it? He repealed the clumsy and unsatisfactory Bills which established the old Board of Trusts; and in their place set up a machinery, and constituted a Board, by which pious persons might secure their donations and bequests being applied to the objects they intended, and which could be called to account, did it divert them to any other purposes. In fact, the Board thus constituted, was an assailable body, obliged to keep a minute of its proceedings, and to make an annual return of its affairs; while the counter-proposition, the failure of which had caused the outcry against this Bill, was to create an irresponsible body, a corporation sole, who would have the control of the funds, without being obliged to account for their outlay. They would make no returns, keep no minutes—the donors would never know that the money was applied to the purposes they intended. On the other hand, the constitution of the Board, as proposed in the amended Bill of the noble Lord, was all that could be desired by Catholics; and yet he (Lord Beaumont) feared it would not satisfy the priests. The objection to the word "minister" was absurd, as the word was used as a title of respect by the French, in speaking of their priesthood. This objection, frivolous as it appeared, had, however, been made by the Irish priests; but the points on which they seemed to feel most, was the Clause requiring the deed to be executed three months prior to the demise of the testator. That Clause had been modified; and he (Lord Beaumont) regretted that it had been so, for he should have liked to have seen the same provision made in respect of personal, as had been made in respect of real property. He repeated what he had often endeavoured to inculcate, namely, that there was a Catholic laity as well as a Catholic priesthood; and that they were
910
bound to legislate for the protection of the one as much as for the conciliation of the other. Their Lordships must also bear in mind, that the priesthood had the means of making their complaints heard, while the laity generally endured in silence. If the priesthood had a grievance, their voices were loud at public meetings, and letters such as that which had lately appeared in the papers, signed "John, Archbishop of Tuam," were certain to attract attention; but the hardships of those families whose property had been bequeathed to other purposes than the support of surviving relatives, were not likely to come under the public notice. He (Lord Beaumont) was therefore convinced that though they might draw down the abuse of such persons as the writer of the letter he had just alluded to, by extending the principle of the Statute of Mortmain to personal as well as real property in Ireland, they would by such a provision merit and receive the grateful approbation of the Catholic laity. In reference to this subject he might quote an instance which had been reported in that day's paper, of a large amount of personal and real property being left to a Roman Catholic clergyman and the failure of the attempt on the part of the family to recover it, although the will had been drawn up by a priest and signed by the testator within two hours of his death. Convinced as he (Lord Beaumont) was, that undue influence was occasionally exercised by the side of the death-bed and that considerable sums were bequeathed to the Church in articulo mortis, he could not help regretting that any alteration should have been made in the original draft in the Clause. There was one more Clause and only one more to which he thought it necessary to allude. He (Lord Beaumont) differed with his noble Friend in respect to the exclusion of the regular clergy from the advantages of this Bill. If a priest in regular orders performed the duties of the parish he ought to be equally intitled to remuneration as a secular priest, and so far from the seculars being superior to the regulars, he (Lord Beaumont) knew many places in England where Jesuits from Stonyhurst did the duties of parish priests and were well suited by their unobtrusive manners to the task. He (Lord Beaumont) did not therefore see the necessity of the distinction. This was the last detail he would allude to. The Amend-

911
ments of his noble Friend were conceived in the same liberal spirit as the original Bill in its rude state, and he would therefore conclude as he had commenced, by thanking the noble Lord and hoping that certain parties in Ireland would change their tone and acknowledge, though tardily, their debt of gratitude for one of the most liberal and conciliatory Bills that had ever been proposed to the Legislature.
Lord Camoyssaid, that the Bill being an enabling Bill, leaving all parties to bequeath, as they may now do by law, he saw no necessity for naming the Roman Catholics in it, except as describing the constitution and duties of the Commission. In this view he was confirmed by the first improvement that was proposed, viz., to strike out from the title of the Bill the words alluding to them, and he, therefore, thought that it would be more consistent with its title if all further allusion to them were omitted. The adoption of this suggestion would merely have the effect of leaving the Roman Catholics to take the same advantage of the Bill that they could do if named in it, and would avoid an unnecessary distinction, because Protestants, who were not named, were to be benefited by its provisions equally with the Roman Catholics who were. If their Lordships would not accede to this proposition, he felt bound to object to the restrictions imposed in the 11th Clause, preventing bequests being vested in the Commissioners, if made within three months of the testator's death, not so much on the ground that such a restriction was uncalled for, as because it was imposed on Roman Catholics only, for if the principle is to be extended to Ireland, it ought to embrace Protestants also.
The Marquess of Clanricardehighly approved of the Amendments that had been made in the Bills.
The Earl of Wicklowbegged to caution his noble Friend against the confusion that might arise from the terms "real and personal property." By real property, land was, of course meant; but in Ireland much of the land, almost all the Church lands, and many of the leases, were held to be personal property.
Lord Monteaglethanked the Government for introducing the Bill, thanked his noble Friend (the Marquess of Normanby) for having called their attention to the subject, and expressed his gratitude, on behalf of the Irish people, for the
912
readiness with which the Government adopted the Amendments which he had suggested on a former occasion.
Amendments agreed to.
House adjourned.