Lords Sitting of 8 April 1845

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—The Bishop of Cashel.
BILLS. Public.—Reported.—Sugar Duties.
Private.—2a. Boileau's Divorce; Birkenhead Commissioners Dock.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Bishop of Hereford, from Dunoon, and 2 other places, for the Suppression of Intemperance.—By Duke of Buccleuch, Bishop of Lichfield, and Lord Denman, from Clergy of Derby, and from 3 other places, against any Increase of Grant to Maynooth.—By Lord Ashburton, from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, for Repeal of 57th Clause of Insolvent Debtors Act Amendment Bill.—By Viscount Combermere, from Clergy and others of Weobley, and several other places, against the Union of St. Asaph and Bangor, and in favour of the Appointment of a Bishop to the See of Manchester.—From Stoddesdon, against the Union of St. Asaph and Bangor.—By Marquess of Breadalbane, from Free Synod of Stirling, and Inhabitants of Melrose and Cordon, for the better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Earl of Shrewsbury, from Cork, for the Repeal of certain Clauses of the Roman Catholic Relief Act.—From Bishop and Clergy of Kilmaeduagh, and Inhabitants of Gort, against the Charitable Donations and Bequests (Ireland) Act.

THE IRISH CONSTABULARY.
The Marquess of Normanby, after pointing out some clerical inaccuracies in the manner in which the Returns ordered on the preceding night respecting appointments to the Constabulary in Ireland had been entered on the Journals of the House, said
302
he wished, in consequence of the alteration which the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) had made in these Returns as moved for by him, to apply for another Return also, namely, for the date of the Appointment of the present Inspector General of Constabulary in Ireland. He thought it necessary to have that return before their Lordships, because the noble Lord, in the course of the statement which he had made to their Lordships, in reply to his (the Marquess of Norman by's) remarks, had produced considerable effect, by stating that the alterations in the mode of appointments in the Irish Constabulary took place in 1839, and when, as he was pleased to say, the then Government were in extremis; that his (the Marquess of Normanby's) new light was directly opposed to his constant practice all the time he was Lord Lieutenant; and that the change which he then made was a sort of charitable bequest made by a repentant and expiring testator. These remarks of the noble Lord excited some applause and some laughter among noble Lords on that (the Ministerial) side of the House; and perhaps that applause was loud and the laughter prolonged in proportion to the ignorance of the noble Lords on the subject before them. He did not wish to bandy assertions with the noble Lord; but he wished at once to state, on the authority of Colonel M'Gregor's evidence, given before the Committee of their Lordships' House in 1839, that these arrangements with reference to his control over the Constabulary in every grade of the force were made previous to his appointment to office. And thus, so far from the arrangements occurring, as the noble Lord had staled, in 1839, they were actually entered into in May 1838. Now, what were the respective positions of the two political parties at that time? The noble Lord had staled that the Government were in extremis when the alterations were adopted; but in 1838 there was a pitched battle fought by the noble Lord and his friends against the Government, and the noble Lord's party were worsted on that occasion; or, to use a phrase borrowed from a speech of the noble Lord, they made their rush, and had been defeated. That occurred, as well as he recollected, in the month of May. It was in the first Session of the new Parliament, and it took place in the House of Commons on the Motion, he believed, of Sir John Yarde

303
Buller. Therefore, the assertion of the noble Lord was groundless, that the Government were in extremis when they made arrangements for which he contended with respect to the Constabulary Force in Ireland; and he should say that that sort of declaration was not very discreet, and should not have been resorted to by a person circumstanced as the noble Lord was. The noble Lord was not correct in the substance of his remarks—he was not correct in his dates—and it was also clear that he had not read Colonel M'Gregor's declaration on the subject; for if he had it was impossible that he could have made the charges which he had put forth, and it was equally impossible that those charges could have been cheered by their Lordships if the facts had been known to them. The House might depend on it that when such charges were made against him, he was determined on all occasions to try them by the test of fact; and as he was determined that in the present instance that test should be laid before their Lorships, he had therefore to move for the date of the appointment of Colonel M'Gregor, in order to show by the evidence given by that officer before the Committee of their Lordships' House, that there was no foundation for the allegation of the noble Lord, that the Government were in extremis at the time they entered into these arrangements with the Inspector General of the Constabulary.
Lord Stanleysaid, he could not help thinking that the noble Marquess had exhibited some unnecessary warmth on the subject. The assertions which he had made the preceding night were founded on evidence given by Mr. Drummond, the late Under Secretary for Ireland. He would not say that all these appointments were made, as he had described, in 183S, or enter into the subject of those palmy days of the late Government, when, with a Parliament of their own choosing, they had a majority of twenty-one in the House of Commons on a Vote of want of confidence in the Administration. But what he would say was, that these arrangements were not completed in the month of May, 1839; and that fact he stated on the authority of Mr. Thomas Drummond, who declared that the noble Marquess had adopted the alterations with respect to the appointment of chief and head constables at the time that he quitted the Government of Ireland, and that these alterations
304
had been carried into effect by the noble Lord who succeeded him. The noble Marquess quitted the Government of Ireland in May, 1839; and in that month the discussion on the Jamaica question occurred which led to the temporary resignation of his Government. But if these alterations were made earlier, and immediately after the appointment of Colonel M'Gregor, it left the noble Marquess in a worse position than before; for if they had been adopted prior to May, 1838, it was to him inconceivable how the noble Marquess could have instructed his Chief Secretary to make, on the 23rd of March in the same year, a declaration in his place in Parliament that these offices had never been abandoned by the Government, and that they were not intended to be abandoned. The noble Marquess had advised him to be very confident with regard to his dates and facts; he would beg leave to return the advice the noble Marquess had offered him on that point—for the noble Marquess forgot at the time that the palmy and triumphant majority of which he boasted on Sir John Yarde Buller's Motion of want of confidence in the Government was had in 1840, and not, as he had stated, in 1838. The noble Marquess brought forward that error into which he had fallen as a triumphant position; while be at the same time, took the opportunity of warning him (Lord Stanley) to be particularly accurate about his facts and dates. With respect to the other matter alluded to by the noble Marquess, it was evident that a clerical error had been committed in entering the return, which should of course be corrected. According to the doctrine of the noble Marquess, the appointment of Major Priestley was an original appointment, and therefore the Inspector General had nothing to do with it.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, he was very unwilling to detain their Lordships; but the noble Lord had shown such extreme carelessness as to the facts stated in the evidence, that he was compelled to call their Lordships' attention to what had been distinctly stated by Colonel M'Gregor before their Lordships' Committee. That officer stated that there were to be no original appointments made in the force except to the office of Chief Constable; and yet the noble Lord now says, eight years after, that the appointment of Major Priestley did not come within the terms of his objection, because it was an

305
original appointment. The very essence of the understanding with Colonel M'Gregor was, that all officers should rise step by step to the higher appointment; and if that were so, he would like to know what variance did the noble Lord detect between the evidence of Colonel M'Gregor and that of Mr. Drummond? Colonel M'Gregor said, that the appointment of all the higher grades should be left to him; while Mr. Drummond's evidence was on an entirely different subject—namely, that the Government of the day had not any plan in contemplation for making still further concessions. The noble Lord accused him of having fallen into a mistake about the date of Sir John Yarde Buller's Motion; but if that were so, then the noble Lord had fallen into a still greater mistake, for he accused him (the Marquess of Normanby) of having been influenced by the result of that Motion the year before he said it was carried. It was plain that the noble Lord's party did not make any attack on the Government sooner, because they did not feel themselves strong enough, since the moment they had the power they did not hesitate doing so. There was one other point in reference to the debate of the preceding night, on which he wished to offer a remark. He had mentioned to the noble Lord that he had received information of a Constabulary officer, at a dinner given by the High Sheriff of Armagh to the grand jury of that county, at which he attended in his uniform, having drunk a toast which was regarded as hostile to the feelings of the great mass of the population of the country. He would not now mention the name of that officer, as he believed him to have been borne away by the acts of companions in a superior position; but he would communicate his name to the noble Lord opposite in private, and after allowing sufficient time to make inquiries on the subject, he would again allude to it in the House. He might also take that opportunity of observing that he had, last year, recommended that Colonel Verner, who had been removed from the commission of the peace for drinking a party toast, should be restored, as he probably regretted the act since then; but he should now beg to retract that recommendation, as he understood the gallant Colonel was present at the dinner to which he alluded, and had joined in the objectionable toast drank at it.
Alteration in the Returns agreed to.
House adjourned.