Lords Sitting of 7 March 1845

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1a. Jewish Disabilities Removal.
3a. and passed:—Constables (Scotland).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Duke of Buccleuch, from Dunblane, for Improving the Condition of Schoolmasters (Scotland). — By Duke of Buccleuch, and Marquess of Normanby, from Bristol, and Guardians of Bury Union, for the Adoption of Measures for securing to populous districts a Cheap Supply of Water, and for perfect Drainage, Sewerage, etc.—By Lord Brougham, from Amlwch and Brechin, for the Suppression of Intemperance.—From Stranraer and Isle of Skye, in favour of the present system of Banking (Scotland).

THE IRISH CONSTABULARY AND THE ARMY IN IRELAND.
The Marquess of Normanby, in bringing forward the Motions of which he had given notice, said that, having most unwillingly declined postponing his Motion beyond that night, after having, on a previous occasion, consented to let it stand over till now, he would wish to give some explanation of his reasons for his refusal. The ground upon which he had been asked to postpone his Motion was the absence, from indisposition, of two noble Lords who had read over the Papers, and who would be prepared to answer him. Neither of those noble Lords, however, had a direct official or departmental connexion with the subject, and he had by postponement given ample time for some other Member of the Government to make himself equally acquainted with the circumstances of the case; were he to defer
408
his Motions, it would be equivalent to a postponement until after Easter. The first of these Motions was for—
"A Return of the Appointment of the Deputy Inspector General of Constabulary in Ireland in the room of the late Major Galway, with the recommendations of the Inspector General (if any) on which that Appointment was made."
What he (the Marquess of Normanby) wished to obtain was, an assurance from the Government that that should not again occur which had occurred in this instance relative to the appointment of the Deputy Inspector, which amounted to this, that the recommendation of the Inspector General had been utterly set at nought, in defiance of a distinct understanding between all parties both in that and the other House of Parliament—Certainly, there was no one from whom he would so gladly receive such an assurance as from the noble Duke—[The Duke of Wellington; But you won't have it!] It might be very well for the noble Duke to lay down the course he intended to take, before he had heard what remarks he had to make on the subject; but, with every respect for the noble Duke, he (the Marquess of Normanby) would not be deterred by such a proceeding from bringing forward the statement he was about to make. What he was about to state, when he was interrupted by the noble Duke, was, that he should rejoice at receiving such an assurance from the noble Duke, because from no man in that House could he expect a greater regard for the good faith of a Parliamentary understanding. When he (the Marquess of Normanby) recollected that a gallant officer had undertaken the arduous duties of the post of Inspector General, with a distinct engagement from the Government of the day, and an understanding that under all circumstances that engagement should be kept,—and when he remembered that the successors of that Government not only had concurred in that arrangement, but had been parties to it, and had even orignated it in the other House of Parliament, and that that arrangement had been concurred in by their Lordships in Committee,—then he must say, he had hoped to hear from the noble Duke an assurance that that which he could not but consider as setting at nought a Parliamentary understanding, should not again occur. When he recollected, too, how important were the services of the Constabulary Force in Ireland, and the

409
high position and character of the Inspector General, he must express the astonishment he felt at the slight put upon that distinguished officer. Lately, their Lordships had meddled little with the affairs of Ireland, and he felt it necessary to request their attention to the nature of the Constabulary Force there. It might be termed unique in its character: it fulfilled its duties most efficiently, but those duties were beset with difficulties, demanding superior qualifications on the part of members of the corps. In respect of discipline, number, and appearance, the Constabulary Force was almost a standing army. At the same time, it was dispersed in small divisions over the country, and often some of its inferior members were called upon at the spur of the moment to exercise difficult and delicate duties. Nor was that all. Every member of the corps was expected not only to have the usual qualification of reading and writing, but to have the capacity to make reports which might be used in courts of justice, and even be called for by Parliament itself. If, in addition to these things, their Lordships remembered the nature of the country in which this force had to act—that the members of it, disciplined as they were, and dispersed over the country, were the citizens of a free constitution, natives of the poorest country in the world, and one of the most remarkable for political agitation—when they remembered, too, the changes that had taken place of late years—they could not account for the respectability and efficiency of the Constabulary, except by referring it to the completeness of its internal organization, and to the skill and respectability of the chief under whom they were organized; and he felt that the position of the Inspector General of such a force was worthy of the best consideration of Parliament. In the first year that he assumed the government of Ireland, his attention was directed to making some fresh regulations for the force; towards which, from the change of circumstances since its original constitution, and notwithstanding the pains that had been taken by those who had preceded him in the office of Lord Lieutenant, there was a considerable party feeling: the Constabulary was, in short, at that time, very unpopular. It was necessary, therefore, to make a revision of the force, and to remove the ill feeling against it, but at the same time to take care not to give a party character to a measure that should
410
be adopted. The Bill introduced by him in 1836 was brought in with those objects; and he, in connexion with the Government of the day, was most happy in being able to offer the chief position in the force to Colonel Shaw Kennedy, with regard to whom there was but one feeling, that he would discharge his duty not only most efficiently, but with perfect freedom from political bias. One fact connected with his appointment was, that as there were many new appointments to be made, and he was unconnected with Ireland, and to a great extent with Irishmen, it was determined that the Government should receive recommendations from other sources besides himself, but that the fitness and capacity of persons to serve in the corps should be submitted to him; and Colonel Kennedy understood, that from the moment he became the head of the force, every individual who became a member of it was to look to him for his future promotion. He (the Marquess of Normanby) could bear testimony to the energy and zeal evinced by Colonel Kennedy in organizing the corps, and making the rules and regulations for its government. But it unfortunately happened that Colonel Kennedy mistook his position, in thinking he ought to exercise a control over the stipendiary magistrates — that they ought to report to him—and that the stipendiary magistrates ought to be from members of the Constabulary Force recommended by him to the Government. In short, his view of his position was rather that he should be a kind of Minister of Police. That became a point of difference between the Colonel and the Government of that day; and he (the Marquess of Normanby) did not regret that he had stood out upon it, because he felt, that while it was his duty to combine under one head all the officers actually in the force, so as to make that body complete as an Executive force, it was at the same time indispensable that the Inspector General should not be mixed up with the appointment of judicial officers like stipendiary magistrates. The local magistrates acted with the stipendiary magistrates; and as the former made their reports to the Government, why should not the latter do the same? At that time, Colonel Kennedy had furnished him with the grounds of his resignation on a paper which he had read to him, but of which he had never retained a copy. This, however, had afterwards been read to a Committee

411
of their Lordships' House, sitting on the state of Ireland, and from this they would perceive, that there was only one case mentioned in which his recommendation had not been attended to as to promotion; and this having been explained as originating in mistake, Colonel Kennedy expressed himself satisfied, but persevered in his resignation on the other grounds detailed by him. He (the Marquess of Normanby) much regretted this—he felt the difficulties of his position — as any officer recommended by him or the Government would be considered a partizan. He had at that time near him Colonel Yorke, who had been his private secretary from the time of his appointment as Governor of Jamaica, and who of all men would have filled the vacant post with efficiency and credit; but at the same time, on account of that gallant officer's connexion with him (the Marquess of Normanby), he felt a delicacy in selecting him for the appointment. But he also knew Colonel M'Gregor, who had served in his father's regiment, and who was well known for his gallant conduct on the occasion of the burning of the Kent East Indiaman, and whom he had also known in command of a regiment in the West Indies, where he was almost the only officer who succeeded in keeping up the discipline of his regiment without having recourse to corporal punishment. At the time Colonel Kennedy resigned, Colonel M'Gregor was not on the spot, being at Halifax in command of the 93rd regiment, and, as might be imagined, it was not a very pleasant thing to keep a situation of such importance vacant for two months; but such value did he attach to the services of Colonel M'Gregor that he submitted to that inconvenience and considered himself repaid, when he heard that the Colonel had accepted the offer of the appointment. Colonel M'Gregor was examined before a Committee of the House of Lords as to the nature of his control over the constabulary; and their Lordships would find in the Report, that that gallant officer had informed the Commitee that he had accepted the office on the distinct understanding that, although the original appointments should remain vested in the hands of the Executive Government, yet all promotions of all the superior officers, should rest upon the recommendation and responsibility of the Inspector General. Now, with respect to the recent appointment, he had heard it said that the office
412
of Deputy Inspector was too high and important to be determined by the recommendation of the Inspector General. What! When the Inspector General had to appoint, as it were, his alter ego, the man with whom he was constantly to confer and advise, and ask his opinion on points of difficulty and in emergency — was it then to be said, that the Government, who did not pretend to be acquainted with exact details, or with the particular merits of individual officers, should say to the Inspector General that the office of his Deputy was too high and important to be left to his recommendation in regard to the person to be appointed to it; and so deprive the principal of an advantage at the moment, and in the precise case when it was most necessary to him. Now he wished to say one word as to the hon. Gentlemen whose names had been mentioned in reference to this appointment. The gentleman recommended for the office of Deputy Inspector General by the Inspector General was Mr. Brownrigg—one who had been connected with the Constabulary Force for about twenty years, having been in 1826 brought under the notice of the Irish Government by the late Sir Henry Torrens, the Adjutant General to the Irish Government, as a person who had distinguished himself by the faithful discharge of his duties in the recruiting service. Mr. Brownrigg had likewise been selected by Colonel Shaw Kennedy as the person to assist him in framing the rules and regulations in the Constabularly Service upon its reorganization, and had afterwards received a letter from him, in which the latter spoke very highly of his qualifications and abilities. It therefore, did require some explanation, in order that the House might understand why this gentleman had been passed over by the present Government, notwithstanding, as he assumed, the recommendation of Colonel M'Gregor. He (Lord Normanby) begged to state that he had had no communication on this subjuct with Colonel M'Gregor, and also that in bringing it before the House he was uninfluenced by any political feeling, as he knew nothing of Mr. Brownrigg's politics—at least, all that he did know would lead him to suppose that Mr. Brownrigg's politics were the same as those of the present Government, and opposed to his own. He had nothing to say against the character of Major Priestly, the Gentleman appointed; but he was decidedly of opinion that the Inspector General's recommendation

413
ought not to have been overlooked. It should be observed, that the military rank of the parties had nothing whatever to do with the case, as in that case length of service in the Constabulary, which must check the usual course of military promotion, would be a disqualification. Having stated the understanding upon which these promotions were to be made, and upon which Colonel M'Gregor had accepted the post of Inspector General—he would now go to the introduction of the Bill into Parliament, and refer their Lordships to what was then said by the highest and the lowest official authorities. And first he would refer to what had been said by Sir Robert Peel as the highest authority. The right hon. Baronet, on the 18th of February, 1836, said—"He, however, would suggest that when appointed to the head of the force, Colonel Shaw should have the appointment of all the officers employed under him, and for whose conduct he was responsible." That was the opinion of Sir Robert Peel. But another Gentleman also spoke in that debate, to whose opinion, in regard to this particular question, a degree of importance was to be attached, greater probably than would be accorded to it on other topics. Mr. Lucas, now Under Secretary for Ireland, addressed the House, and it appeared that he had a great horror of Castle patronage, for he entreated the House to remember that the Castle had an enormous amount of patronage, and then, after protesting against the transfer of the appointment of the constables from the local Magistrates to the Government, Mr. Lucas concluded by saying that—
"He meant no disrespect to His Majesty's Ministers, or to the noble Lord opposite; but he for one could not consent that the appointment of the police force, on which depended the tranquillity of Ireland, should be hung dangling round the neck of any Chief Secretary of Ireland."
The phrase used by Mr. Lucas was rather an extraordinary one — that Gentleman now no longer indulged in figures of speech in Parliament, but filled the office of Under Secretary in Ireland, and whether he now allowed the patronage to be "hung dangling" round the neck of even an Under Secretary—whether these appointments were now made substantially by Mr. Lucas, or whether they were made ostensibly by him, but really by Mr. Brewster—he did not know. Neither did he care whether this appointment was a
414
legacy left by the noble Lord who was lately Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, although it only made the case worse, that one no longer responsible should exercise patronage of this kind. But he would contend that the Irish public, and such of the English public too as paid attention to these subjects, would be convinced that such patronage would be more efficiently and impartially exercised if left in the hands of Colonel M'Gregor than it would be in the hands of either Mr. Lucas, or Mr. Brewster, or any one of those who now occupied the principal situations in Ireland. If ever there was a moment when it behoved the Government to attend to the recommendation of an old and trusted public servant, in regard to such an appointment, it was when a new Lord Lieutenant was appointed. He wished to obtain a distinct opinion from the House upon this change in the principle of the appointments, which, he must say, had disturbed that feeling of confidence in the pure distribution of patronage in the Constabulary Force which had greatly contributed to the peaceful condition of Ireland; and if he did not succeed in getting such an assurance from the Government, he should submit to the House, sooner or later, whether there ought not to be a change in the system. He had given notice of another Motion for this evening, which was for "a Return of the Number of Her Majesty's Army serving in Ireland on the first days of January from the year 1835 to 1845, both inclusive." As he was on his legs, it might be might be more convenient for him at once to make the few observations he desired to offer, instead of troubling their Lordships a second time. He did not think that the forbearance which it was his desire to maintain as to the line taken by Government with respect to Ireland, had in some quarters met with the return it deserved. He had read, with great regret, a speech delivered at his election by a right hon. Gentleman, now a Member of Her Majesty's Government. For that right hon. Gentleman, he (the Marquess of Normanby), in common with all who knew him, entertained feelings of sincere personal regard; but there were statements in the speech alluded to, which it was absolutely impossible to pass over without notice. The present Secretary at War, at his election for South Wilts, was reported in the Times of the 21st of February, to have said, "When the present Government came into office, they found that country (Ireland) in a state of agitation

415
and excitement almost amounting to rebellion, and tending to the dismemberment of the Empire." He (the Marquess of Normanby) felt himself particularly bound to give the most direct contradiction to that statement, inasmuch as for six years previous to that time he was himself, first as Lord Lieutenant, and then as Home Secretary, particularly responsible for the tranquillity of that country. He would not say that it was an overcharged statement, but that there was not the slighest ground for stating anything of the kind. He was quite sure the right hon. Gentleman must have made a mistake as to date, and when he spoke of an approximation to rebellion, alluded to what occurred at a later period. He regretted the absence of the Earl of St. Germans on this occasion, as, although he had felt compelled in the earlier part of his observations to become the noble Lord's accuser, there was as to this part of the case no one whom he would have sooner called as a witness in his behalf. He remembered that at the time of his retirement from the Government of Ireland, at the request of Sir R. Peel, he had had an interview with the Earl of St. Germans (at that time Lord Eliot), Earl De Grey, and Sir James Graham, on their coming into office. If Ireland were then in the state described, it must have been either his fault or his misfortune. If it were his fault, it was natural to suppose that these right hon. Gentlemen would have been, of all things, desirous to avoid him; if it were his misfortune, the first subject of discussion between them would naturally have been the unfortunate state of Ireland, and the measures to be taken to remedy it. But during the whole interview, it never seemed to enter the minds of those right hon. Gentlemen that Ireland was in the state now supposed, and he had never seen any persons depart with greater certainty of a quiet life than did those noble Earls and the right hon. Baronet. But if the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War would refresh his memory, he might recollect how very long after the country had enjoyed the advantage of the change to which he referred; it was when as Secretary to the Admiralty, he had been obliged to reestablish a naval station at Cork, and to provide against consequences with men of war and extra complements of marines. He (the Marquess of Normanby) was as strongly opposed as any of their Lordships to the mischievous doctrines of repeal,
416
being assured that it would do as much harm to Ireland as to this country; but when he said this, he could not but regret that a right hon. Gentleman, the proprietor of half Dublin, should, on taking office under the Crown, show so bad an opinion or so little knowledge of that country with which he was so beneficially connected. The right hon. Gentleman had in this imaginative mood addressed his most favoured dependants, the moonrakers in Wiltshire. He regretted to say anything disrespectful of the inhabitants of that worthy county, in the presence of the Lord Lieutenant (his noble Friend the Marquess of Lansdowne); but noble Lords knew the origin of the legend from which they derived the name of moonrakers, and the right hon. Gentleman must have appealed to an amount of credulity worthy of the reputation of the moonrakers, when he represented Ireland as having been found by the present Government on the verge of rebellion. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded to say, "Without asking for additional laws, and trusting to the established power they already possessed, the persons who had excited that agitation had been punished." He did trust that this had been said from mere inconsiderateness at the moment. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman must regret the assertion that those individuals had been punished, when their Lordships, sitting as the highest court of judicature in the country, had decided that they were unjustly sentenced; and when, probably, at the very first Cabinet Council that right hon. Gentleman attended after his return from the election, he must have heard his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack proposing the Bill (for Bail in Error) now before their Lordships, and stating that it was necessary to prevent on future occasions the recurrence of that injustice of which the right hon. Gentleman had so indiscreetly boasted as a triumph. He thought there could be no better test of the tranquillity of Ireland, than the fact that the number of troops sent by the late Government to that country, was thought sufficient by the Government which succeeded them for eighteen months afterwards. He hoped the noble Duke might be able to state something which would quiet the minds of the people of Ireland on the subjects respecting which he had spoken; but if he did not get a satisfactory answer, he should certainly bring the question before their Lordships in another

417
shape. With respect to the last Return moved for, it would be as well if, for the reasons he had stated, the right hon. Gentleman to whose department it was addressed, should study its details a little before he forwarded it to the House. As to the first, though unimportant in itself, it related to a question on which, as he thought, not only the efficiency but the just public estimation of that important force, the Constabulary of Ireland, for the future depended.
The Duke of Wellington: My Lords, I have first to apologise to the noble Marquess for having been guilty of the irregularity of interrupting him, by stating that I was not authorised to make the declaration which he supposed I might be authorised to make. I thought, if I so stated at once, that seeing all those noble Lords were absent whose presence the noble Marquess expected at the discussion, when he gave notice of his intention to bring it forward, probably the noble Marquess might consent to postpone it to some future time; more particularly as he has ended by telling us that, as my noble Friends the late Secretary for Ireland, and the noble Earl late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, are not here this evening, it is his intention to bring this question under the consideration of your Lordships at a future period of the Session in another shape. Really, under these circumstances, I hoped that, since I had informed the noble Marquess I had not had an opportunity of considering these Papers, he would have refrained from bringing it forward now. It was my intention to consider them at the time the noble Marquess gave his notice, but I could not do it. Subsequently, between the 22nd of February and the 3rd of Marco, when the noble Marquess had some communication with my noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies upon the subject of this Motion, and the period at which it was likely the noble Marquess would bring it forward, I was in such a situation that I could not attend to any public business. Under those circumstances, on Tuesday I expressed an entreaty to the noble Marquess that he would be so kind as to put off the Motion until the period at which my noble Friends could attend, inasmuch as they had taken charge of the subject, and had perused all the documents upon it; and I hoped that he would have acceded to that request. I have considered it my duty since last Tuesday to give my best attention to the subject, which is one involving
418
great detail. There are Acts of Parliament to be perused, Proceedings of a Committee, consisting of not less than three folio volumes, relating to the subject, and I have taken great pains to make myself, as much as possible, master of it since the day at which I have been able to attend to it. I am very sorry that my noble Friend the Secretary of State, the noble Earl late Secretary for Ireland, who may be supposed responsible for this question, and my noble Friend the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, have not been able to attend this evening, for I am sure any one of them would have been better able than I could possibly be to give an explanation of this subject, and your Lordships would have listened to them with greater satisfaction; while the noble Marquess must also feel that, bringing forward a question of this description, it is desirable he should have antagonists who have had an opportunity of making themselves masters of it. When the noble Marquess, some weeks ago, gave notice of his intention to bring forward this question, he stated to your Lordships that he had no complaint to make as to the qualifications of the gentleman who has lately been appointed by the Lord Lieutenant to fill that situation. He has repeated something of the same sort this evening, gone so far as to express his friendship for him, and stated that he had considered it proper himself to appoint him to a high situation in the Constabulary. There is, therefore, no complaint against the gentleman himself. I beg your Lordships to bear that in mind, for it is essential to the just consideration of this question. There is no complaint against the gentleman who has been appointed to fill this situation; he is an officer of rank in the military service of Her Majesty; he has served in the Constabulary, and, as I will show your Lordships, he merits the approbation of his country and the confidence of Government for his actions in that country. I repeat what I said before—there is no complaint whatever against this gentleman; on the contrary, the noble Lord approves of him, appointed him to a high situation, and there is nothing whatever to be said against him. Now, my Lords, the Lord Lieutenant has in this appointment exercised a power vested in him by the Act of Parliament. The noble Lord does not deny this; if he does, I'll bring forward the Act. If there is any doubt about it I will have the Act. The Act of Parliament gives the Lord Lieutenant the power of

419
making these appointments. [The Marquess of Normanby: I stated that distinctly.] But the noble Lord says there was an understanding that those appointments were to be made, not by the Lord Lieutenant at his own selection, but at the recommendation of the Inspector General. Now, my Lords, by whom was this understanding come to, and when, and where? It is true there may be a regulation between one Lord Lieutenant and this or that Inspector General that certain recommendations for appointments shall be made by the Inspector General; but I should like to know when and where there was an understanding that the Lord Lieutenant was not to exercise the powers given him by Act of Parliament? I say that Act confides to him powers which it is his duty to exercise—I say it his duty to exercise those powers; and, my Lords, it is his duty to exercise them when and where he thinks proper, in spite of any understanding that may be come to. But I deny the understanding—I deny that any such understanding as that stated by the noble Marquess exists. I deny it; and not only deny it, but I do so on the acts of the noble Marquess himself. The noble Marquess himself was the Lord Lieutenant under whose auspices the Bill was introduced into Parliament. The noble Lord who was the Chief Secretary to his Government was the Member of Parliament who introduced the measure in the other House. Its chief object was, that all the appointments which had theretofore been made by the magistrates in Ireland, should in future be made by the Lord Lieutenant; and the understanding which was come to on that occasion, and the only understanding which was ever come to, was, that the appointment of the police constables and sub-constables, theretofore made by the magistrates, should be made by the Inspector General. It was stated that it was desirable that he who was to command and regulate the conduct of the men should nominate them; and, accordingly, the Inspector General was to select the policemen in Ireland. He does it, as I understand from the examinations before the Committee, at the recommendation of certain magistrates and others in the county. They are required to have certain qualifications; but the understanding seems to have been, that he was to have the original appointment, and that he was to make those appointments which had been just before made by the magistrates
420
and constables. If your Lordships will look at the records of the discussions in Parliament on this subject, you will see it particularly stated that it was deemed desirable by Ministers that the appointments in the Constabulary Force in Ireland should be regulated on the plan on which the Metropolitan Police Force is regulated. Now, my Lords, how is that force regulated? The officers at the head of that force nominate all the inferior classes, and make the usual promotions of the officers of the force; but did anybody ever hear of the higher officers, of the superintendents and inspectors, such as Captain Mayne, being appointed by the chief officers of the force? No, my Lords, they are appointed by the Secretary of State; and that is the very description of appointment to which this gentleman has been named. But let us see how the noble Lord himself, who talks of this understanding, executes his office on this understanding. Read the account of Colonel Shaw Kennedy's evidence on the very matter of these appointments. This Act of Parliament gives certain appointments of inspectors, paymasters, and others, to the Lord Lieutenant. Did the noble Lord appoint the persons recommended by Colonel Shaw Kennedy to those offices? I ask him if he did? [The Marquess of Normanby: Yes; except in one instance, and in respect of the appointment of stipendiary magistrates.] No, no; I am not talking of stipendiary magistrates—I am talking of promotions to be paymaster, deputy inspector, and other officers of that description, recommended by Colonel Shaw Kennedy. The noble Lord did not appoint the persons so recommended. What becomes, then, of the understanding? I say, no such understanding existed; and if it did, I want to know what became of it, seeing the noble Lord's own acts—he himself having been the person under whose auspices the Bill was brought in, being the first person to carry the Act into execution, and to carry into execution this very understanding? But, my Lords, I will go a little further. Is there an under, standing that all appointments and promotions of officers are to be upon the recommendation of the Inspector General? Why, the very first arrangement made after the appointment of Colonel M'Gregor was, that the office of head-constable, that above all others desirable to the police sub-constables and constables, was limited, if not taken away from him; he is to recommend one from every three vacancies, while the other

421
two are to be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant. What, then, becomes of the understanding? There is an understanding which proposes that the Inspector General should hold out anticipations to every man in the corps that he will be promoted, and may arrive at the highest ranks. There is an understanding, says the noble Marquess, purposely for that object: what becomes of it? Why, that two-thirds of these promotions are taken into the hands of the Lord Lieutenant, and become part of his patronage; one-third is in the hands of the Inspector General, which he is required to give to the most deserving man. That is a mode of acting on this understanding. But I deny the understanding. I say that the Lord Lieutenant has the right, if he choose, to make all these appointments. All I desire is, that I may not be called upon, by consenting to this Motion, to criminate the Lord Lieutenant wholly on the ground of an understanding which does not exist, and never did exist in the way stated by the noble Lord, and which, even according to the terms on which it is stated to have existed, has been violated by the noble Lord himself and his successor. The noble Marquess admits the Lord Lieutenant has a right to make this appointment; there is not a word to be said against the gentleman who has been appointed; and therefore you cannot call upon the Government to give an account of the recommendation without interfering with the legitimate functions of Government, nor can you enter into such a comparison as was made by the noble Marquess between this gentleman's merits and those of Mr. Brownrigg. I have no doubt the latter is a highly-deserving gentleman; but I maintain that this House has no right to enter into that comparison, if there is no complaint against the gentleman who has been appointed; and, moreover, it is quite contrary to the usages of this House to enter into such comparison. My Lords, I will not quote from the books before me to prove what I have stated; but I think I have sufficiently shown that there was no such understanding as that alleged by the noble Marquess; that the noble Marquess's own practice was totally contrary to it, as well as that of the noble Lord who succeeded him; and, therefore, that there is no ground whatever for the Motion. Upon these grounds, I entreat your Lordships to negative the first Motion of the noble Marquess. With respect to the second, I confess I do feel it extraordinary that the
422
noble Marquess should have thought proper to have founded such a Motion in this House upon a speech made by a Member of Parliament to his constituents at his election. That speech never attracted my notice; I had no notion it was to be the ground on which the noble Lord meant to call for these Returns, else I should have taken care to inform myself of the particular grounds that existed for the notions entertained by my right hon. Friend when he made that speech. Bur it appears that my right hon. Friend in that speech adverted to the state of Ireland at the period at which Her Majesty appointed her present servants. Does the noble Lord mean to say that there was any want of meetings in 1840 and 1841? If he denies it, I shall be able to show him that there were plenty. I think I can show him a list of not less than a dozen in each of those years. Were there no speeches at those monster meetings? No speeches by foreigners? No foreigner attending those monster meetings, the law supposing them to be for the purpose of considering petitions, while the word petition was never mentioned by any accident at any one of them, but much declamation against the constituted authorities of the country? Foreigners present, money collected in foreign countries to promote the objects of these meetings? And yet we are to be told that the country was in a state of tranquillity, and a Member addressing his constituents at an election is not to say that in the years 1840 and 1841, that country was not in a state of tranquillity! My Lords, let us call things by their right names. I must say, that if the state of Ireland in the years 1840 and 1841, is to be called tranquillity, I do not know exactly what tranquillity is. With respect to the Returns asked for, I have not the least objection to give them. But I should like to amend the noble Lord's Motion by calling for other Returns, showing what was the number sent away from Ireland in the same years as those to which his Returns refer. Perhaps, the best way of amending the Motion would be, to have those troops in Ireland on the 1st of January, and the number subsequently sent elsewhere. I think the noble Lord will find the number sent away nearly equals those retained. It is hardly necessary for me to remind your Lordships that, both in this country and in Ireland, no forces are kept up but such as are absolutely and essentially necessary to recruit the force

423
employed abroad to guard the Foreign possessions of England, and protect the lives and property of Her Majesty's subjects in her Colonial possessions. The other regiments remain here no longer a time than that necessary to recruit and re-equip them; and at this moment there are some about to be sent from this country which have not remained in England during the period which it is admitted they should. In these Returns the noble Lord will find nothing to criminate the Government or the Secretary at War, or any person connected with the Army, with respect to the tranquillity of Ireland, or to falsify the description given by my right hon. Friend in his speech on the occasion alluded to. As the noble Lord has thought proper to make two Motions, I can only say, that to the second I have no objection, but that I hope your Lordships will give a negative to the first.
Earl Fortescue: I wish to address your Lordships very shortly, the state of my voice not permitting me to tresspass on your attention long; but as some of the observations made by the noble Duke implicate me as well as my noble Friend with reference to the "understanding" stated to exist on the subject of constabulary appointments, or rather constabulary promotions, and as I think the noble Duke has been led into a misconception of Col. Kennedy's evidence, and of the complaint he made, that the undertaking entered into on his taking command of the Constabulary Force was not complied with, I hope I shall be excused for offering a few remarks in reply. I can only testify as to what I found the state of things to be when I assumed the government of Ireland. I took no part in the discussion of the Constabulary Bill, and had no knowledge of it except that derived from the usual sources. On the introduction of that Bill on the 13th February, 1836, the following expressions are attributed to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government. He said,—
"He, however, would suggest, that when appointed to the head of the force, Col. Shaw Kennedy should have the appointment of all the officers employed under him, and for whose conduct he was responsible. He believed it to be of the highest importance that the police force in Ireland should be kept perfectly free from the influence of party animosity and party excitement. The appointment of police officers, therefore, was a trust which, if honestly administered, he thought had better be intrusted to the hands of the Representative
424
of the Crown, than to any local authority. But he made that admission on the assumption that the trust was to be administered with perfect honesty. If it were otherwise—if the power conferred by the trust were perverted to other purposes, and were employed to gratify party animosities, or to confirm political advantages—then he should say the efficiency of the Bill would be totally destroyed. He thought that the noble Lord should adopt the same rule in Ireland as had already been adopted in the metropolis; and that those who were responsible for the good conduct of the men, should have the appointment of them; and that the Government ought in no case to interfere in the nomination of officers for the purpose of gratifying any of its political friends."
Under that understanding, I believe every promotion of the officers in the force was left to Col. M'Gregor by my noble Friend. Such was stated to have been the case when I assumed the government of Ireland, and on that principle I constantly acted. As to the arrangement to which the noble Duke refers, of the promotion of one in three, that was tantamount to the elevation of a sergeant, or, in constabulary language, head constable to the rank of officer or sub-inspector, and did not refer to cases where an officer was promoted from one rank to another. The original appointments of sub-inspectors were made by the Government; but that was not inconsistent with the privilege of promotion conceded to Col. M'Gregor, and considered by me binding to this extent, that every promotion of an officer was left absolutely to his recommendation, and every third vacancy of a sub-inspector-ship was filled up by him out of the force. But Colonel S. Kennedy complained that officers recommended by him for the stipendiary magistracy were not appointed. He had no right to make any such complaint. The stipendiary magistracy was totally distinct from the police force. I believe my noble Friend, on the recommendation of the Inspector General occasionally selected persons whom he considered fit for that duty from the police force. I did the same; and I am happy to say, that whilst such appointments were considered a great encouragement to officers of the Constabulary, and deemed by them a great honour, there were none amongst the stipendiary magistrates who performed their duties in a more efficient manner than those so chosen. But the Chief Inspector never made the slightest claim to any such appointments; and, in point of fact, he had no right whatever to

425
them. I must say that the fact of appointments of that description not being made on the recommendation of the Inspector General, stands on very different ground from that of my noble Friend's present complaint, and the subject of his Motion. It is true that the Inspector General submitted all promotions for the approval of the Lord Lieutenant, who, in compliance with the Act of Parliament, signed the appointments; but the recommendation substantially rested with him, and was held by me conclusive. It was on that understanding that Colonel M'Gregor took the present situation, and I need not point out to the noble Duke, that a slight cast on him, by passing over his recommendation, was one calculated to weaken his influence with the corps. The noble Duke said most truly, that no complaint was made against Major Priestly's character. I had an opportunity of seeing and knowing that gentleman, and I should not be acting justly if, upon such an occasion as the present, I did not bear testimony to his zeal and ability in the discharge of his duties; but it is not attempted to be said that he is in any respect superior to the other gentleman recommended by Colonel M'Gregor; and under such circumstances the recommendation of the Inspector General being slighted is a just cause of complaint and an injury to the force. On these grounds I shall cordially support the first Motion of my noble Friend. On the second Motion the noble Duke made some comments, which seemed to justify the rash expressions used by a right hon. Gentleman in an election speech, in which he is reported to have stated that when the present Government entered office, Ireland was in a state bordering on rebellion—rather a description not at all applying to the period referred to, but if at all, to a subsequent time, when the affairs of Ireland were administered by the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends. But the noble Duke says there were monster meetings in 1840 and 1841. I do not deny that there were meetings at which very improper language was used; but I am sure, at the same time, that the noble Duke is far too candid and just to consider those meetings, either in number or in any characteristic likely to render them formidable, at all comparable to the really monster meetings of 1843, which were so frequently canvassed in this House. I am certain, if there had been such meetings during my period of office, I, being responsible for the tranquillity of the country,
426
should not have had the audacity to get up in this place and take credit, as I have done, not to myself, but to the people of Ireland, for the tranquillity of the country. But the fact rests on better authority than mine. When Sir R. Peel took the Government in 1841, I recollect, that in answer to some complimentary observations of Lord J. Russell upon the construction of the Government of Ireland, he congratulated himself upon having triumphed over the difficulty he had expected to meet with there. The noble Lord late Lord Lieutenant, too, with that fairness and manliness which belong to his character, adverting in this House to the state of Ireland in the spring of 1842, admitted the peace which prevailed when he entered office, and that it was the result of the rule of those who had preceded him. Now, as to the collection of repeal funds alluded to by the noble Duke. Why, during the whole time I was in Ireland the average rents were under 100 l. a week—they never in any week exceeded 200 l. But your Lordships are aware that in 1843 and 1844 the rent amounted sometimes to 1,000 l. or 2,000 l.; and even at the present time it sometimes reaches 500 l. or 600 l. per week, the average being I believe above 300 l. Now, these certainly are the tests of the interest and feeling which prevail in the country on the subject of Repeal. I am afraid that another indication of the state of the country, to which I attach much importance, will not show a very favourable comparison at the present time, with the period of former administrations. I allude to the number of outrages. However, we shall shortly have the Returns on this subject, and it is better not to draw inferences until they are before us. At the same time I am bound to say that I perceive indications (since a change has taken place in the Government) of a better order of things in that country. I think I have seen in the recent church promotions that a systematic and violent opposition to the Government scheme of National Education is no longer considered as a necessary passport to advancement. I think that the grants to be made to Roman Catholic colleges are likely to secure in future a great improvement of the state of things in Ireland in that respect. I must also say, that having always looked forward with hope of the good to be effected by the Landlord and Tenant Commission, I for one have not been altogether disappointed. I do not agree with all the suggestions the

427
Report contains; but there are some which fully meet my own views, and which I earnestly hope Government will carry into effect; and I must add that the tone and temper in which it is drawn, accords with the character of my noble Friend who presided over that Commission, and in my opinion does honour to the humanity and ability of himself and his Colleagues.
Lord Brougham: I rise merely to say a word with regard to a right hon. Friend of mine, whom the noble Marquess—I will not say attacked, for he was only defending himself—but represented as having made remarks in "another place," not, as it is technically understood, the other House, but in a place still more distant—the hustings. I hope my noble Friend's speech will not be drawn into a precedent for calling on us to answer all attacks on the hustings of England, Scotland, and Ireland. If such were the case, I should have to answer many an attack made on me on account of the Poor Law or of the Imprisonment for Debt. But I am perfectly certain that if anything is stated in the report referred to, which imputes to the distinguished Member of the Government named by my noble Friend anything inconsistent with strict truth and fact, it must be a misrepresentation, and that my right hon. Friend is incapable of being led, even by the spirit of the hustings, into such a statement. But if he said that Ireland was in a state of disturbance at the time alluded to, it must be taken as a figure of speech and not as a deliberate statement of fact; for no man in his senses could have asserted what was so grossly contrary to notorious facts. We must not deal very critically with expressions used in the heat of eloquence, for even in this place, in the fervour and animation of the rhetorical moment, things are uttered which are not to be scanned as arithmetical or mathematical certainties. Such a considerate construction ought also to be put upon words uttered by my right hon. Friend on the occasion referred to. Of this I am sure, that he is incapable of a wilful misstatement; for his high honour and strict integrity, are, I was going to say, equalled by, they cannot be greater than his splendid talents. Now, as to the Motion of my noble Friend as jobbery is known in Ireland (though it exists, I admit, to a greater extent elsewhere), the best way to obviate it is to place such appointments as those referred to, in the hads of the officer who presides over the corps. But still as the power exists
428
in the Lord Lieutenant, and as the present nomination is a good one, I agree with the noble Duke, that no case is made out for impugning the selection. In the same way, the Chancellor is supposed to take the recommendations of the Lords Lieutenant as to magistrates, but he is not thereby precluded from exercising an independent judgment when he thinks fit. Though I admit the rule in the present case to be a good one, I do not think it should be followed in all cases.
The Marquess of Normanbyreplied: He did not charge the right hon. Gentleman with intentional misrepresentation, but with carelessness and oblivion in asserting a fact which involved a serious charge against himself. But it appeared that Ministers were not to be held responsible for speeches delivered on the hustings. The responsibility of Opposition was sometimes spoken of; but surely that of Office was stronger. If the doctrine of the noble and learned Lord were sound, what became of the comments on the Stroud and Tamworth manifestoes, or of the strictures on that speech of the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department in 1834, when he declared that it was impossible he should join Sir Robert Peel's Government as he had always advocated those principles which his present Colleagues passed their whole lives in opposing? It was true that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Herbert's) name, not having been previously so much before the public, so much importance might not be attached to his personal opinions; but the weight attached to such statements, when made on entering office, served as a useful control over public men; and it was right that Ministers should know, that when they addressed their constituents, and as Ministers attacked one who was absent, the person so charged should be enabled fearlessly to meet such assertions in his place. But there was another part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech which was not alluded to by the noble Duke, in which, beyond all doubt, a fact was stated which could not be interpreted as a figure of speech. It was true that certain persons in Ireland were punished, but it was equally true that punishment would never again be inflicted under similar circumstances. The noble Duke said that he had himself departed from the "understanding" of which he had spoken. He did so in one instance, which he had never attempted to conceal, and which he explained to Colonel

429
Shaw Kennedy. The noble Duke had indeed been much misinformed as to the whole of the details of this question, on which its entire merits depended. He had, in spite of the explanation given in introducing this subject to the House, persisted in confounding original appointments with promotions. He had distinctly stated that after the reorganization of the Constabulary it was necessary to introduce persons, of whom Colonel Shaw Kennedy, then a stranger to Ireland, had no knowledge. The noble Duke had, too, made a confusion between chief constables and head constables. He had never taken anything away from the Inspector General with reference to head constables, but he had proposed to give him that which he had not before—one third of the original appointments of constables, to be distributed amongst the most deserving head constables. This arrangement had been completed by his successor. He had admitted that Major Priestly was a respectable man, but he thought Major Brownrigg a more fit person for the appointment in question. The noble Marquess concluded by reading the extract from Sir R. Peel's speech already given.
On Question, That there be laid before this House, A Return of the Appointment of the Deputy Inspector General of Constabulary in Ireland in the room of the late Major Galway; with the recommendations of the Inspector General (if any) on which that appointment was made;
The House divided:—Contents 12; Non-contents 32: Majority 20.
So it was resolved in the Negative.
Then it was moved, That there be laid before this House, A Return of the Number of Her Majesty's Army serving in Ireland on the First Days of January, from the year 1835 to 1845, both inclusive; On Question, agreed to; and the said Return ordered accordingly.
Their Lordships then adjourned.