Lord Brougham, having presented a petition from Stockport against the 20l. Clause in the Court of Requests Act, said he wished to put a question to his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, in reference to a statement which he had read in a foreign newspaper—copied, however, from an English newspaper — respecting an Irish magistrate, Mr. O'Driscoll, who had been twice removed from the Commission of the Peace, and twice replaced. And he must say that never in his life had he seen the administration of justice brought into more flagrant contempt than it had been by the outrageous conduct — that was, supposing the statement were not altogether a fiction—of this individual. If the circumstances detailed were true—though he was bound to tell their Lordships that it rested upon the authority of a newspaper—he hoped to have an answer to the question, whether Mr. O'Driscoll was still to be retained in the Commission of the Peace? The statement to which he referred professed to be a report of the 828 proceedings in a case at the Skibbereen Sessions, and proceeded thus:—
Mr. O'Driscoll (turning himself back in his chair); I don't understand this, and will not put the question.Mr. Galway: Mr. Fleming, I must ask you how you'll vole?Mr. Fleming (after some hesitation): I regret feeling bound by law to vote for informations.Mr. O'Driscoll, without saying a word, entered informations; and, after a few moments, said, 'By G—I don't understand those popularity-hunting magistrates.'Mr. Galway (standing): Gentlemen, is such language to be borne? Are our votes here as magistrates to be thus characterized by saying publicly that it is seeking popularity we are?Mr. O'Driscoll; Sit down, sir; hold your tongue.Mr. Galway: I will not, sir; and I tell you your observations are improper—very improper, sir.Mr. O'Driscoll; You had better sit down. I'll meet you elsewhere.[A laugh.] Their Lordships laughed at this. Now, he (Lord Brougham) considered this language of Mr. O'Driscoll as a challenge to break the Queen's peace given by a presiding magistrate administering criminal justice at petty sessions, to another magistrate, his colleague, on the same bench, and in the same commission; and supposing such language were used, he must say it exceeded in indecency anything that he ever remembered to have occurred in the administration of public justice. The report went on—Mr. Somerville here interposed, and appeared to be expostulating with Mr. O'Driscoll on his conduct, when the latter said, 'I tell you, man, I did not mean him at all.'Mr. Galway: I am bound to believe you.Mr. Fleming: We understand you, Mr. O'Driscoll, that the matter is not to go further outside this court, in any possible way, otherwise we will bind you over.So that here was a magistrate presiding at sessions, threatened by his brother magistrate to be bound over to keep that peace which, by the terms of his commission, he was the conservator of, but of which he had himself committed the grossest breach, by giving, while on the bench, and sitting as magistrate, a challenge to a brother magistrate to fight a duel. This was the amount of what occurred at the Skibbereen Sessions.
The Lord Chancellorsaid his noble and 829 learned Friend must be aware that he had nothing to do with the appointment of Irish magistrates. With regard to the individual in question, his conduct had been investigated by their Lordships in consequence of what had occurred on a previous occasion; and he believed their Lordships were satisfied with the explanation then given. ["No, no."] This, he understood, was a charge against Mr. O'Driscoll for some subsequent conduct; and he (the Lord Chancellor) knew nothing, and could not have known anything until now, and with which, as far as his official duty was concerned, he had nothing to do. If, however, his noble and learned Friend wished him to do so, he would write to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland directing his attention to the statement, and requesting him to call for an explanation.
Lord Broughamdid not hold his noble and learned Friend in any way responsible in the matter. The question was, whether the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, seeing this statement in the public papers, had made any inquiry into its truth or falsehood?
The Lord ChancellorIf his noble and learned Friend would give him the newspaper containing the report, he would inclose it to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who would demand from Mr. O'Driscoll an explanation or not, as he might think proper.
The Earl of Mountcashelsaid, as Mr. O'Driscoll was a magistrate in the county with which he was more directly connected, and as he knew him well, he wished to be informed whether the charge was in respect to anything of recent occurrence?
The Earl of MountcashelIt appeared to him, then, somewhat remarkable—if he understood the noble and learned Lord right—that the reference to the circumstance was made in a French paper, and not in an English paper.
The Earl of MountcashelI well remember that strong charges were brought against Mr. O'Driscoll on a former occasion; and that the whole subject having been fully examined, he was not found to 830 be the guilty man. The truth of the matter is, that Mr. O'Driscoll is a Roman Catholic; and, being so, is also a Conservative. This is a crime not to be forgiven in Ireland. Other Conservatives are not much in favour in Ireland, but a Roman Catholic Conservative is a man condemned to all eternity. I believe several of the other gentlemen on the bench with Mr. O'Driscoll happen to be Roman Catholics, and bear great spite and animosity against him for the union I have stated, that being a Roman Catholic he is also a Conservative.
§ Earl FortescueAs I felt it my duty to bring forward the charges against Mr. O'Driscoll last year, which were inquired into, though certainly I heard nothing in the House in the shape of any sufficient defence of that gentleman, with reference to his conduct on the matter with which I charged him at the time, and which rested, not on mere newspaper report, but on a conviction before that quarter sessions of which he was himself a member, I feel it my duty to repeat now what I then said, that his conduct on that occasion was most improper, and unbecoming a magistrate and a gentleman. I am, therefore, in no way surprised at the occurrence which has been referred to by my noble and learned Friend; and which I saw reported some days ago in an English newspaper, and also in an Irish newspaper; and which I intended myself to have mentioned in this House if my noble and learned Friend, with whom I have had no communication on the subject, had not done so. I believe the circumstances under which Mr. O'Driscoll was restored to the commission was, that the conduct for which he had been dismissed had resulted from irritability of temper produced by ill health; and his restoration to health would, it was thought, conduce to an amendment of his temper and prevent the repetition of such scenes. I can only suppose that he has had a serious relapse; but whether that be so or not, if what has been stated by my noble and learned Friend, and which has appeared in a great many newspapers, should, on inquiry, prove to be correct, I trust the Government will not allow Mr. O'Driscoll to remain any longer a member of the Commission of the Peace, in order that we may not run the chance of another relapse, occasioning further instances of his irritability of temper.
Lord WharncliffeI quite agree that more improper conduct than that which this report charges against Mr. O'Driscoll could not have happened; and I can by no means admit the excuse offered by the noble Earl Mountcashel as sufficient. The members of the magisterial bench must conduct themselves in a decent and proper manner, and like gentlemen; and they must remember that they are the servants of Her Majesty, and bound to keep the peace. But the matter is now in its proper course, my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack having undertaken to communicate with the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who will, if he think it necessary, open the question and call for an explanation.