CLERKS OF THE CROWN (IRELAND). (Hansard, 15 May 1846)

The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE
rose for the purpose of calling the attention of their Lordships to the subject of a Motion of which he had given notice a few nights ago, in reference to the filling up of recently created vacancies in the office of Clerk of the Crown for counties in Ireland. It was with the greatest diffidence that he felt called upon to make any observations which could have the slightest appearance of anything like an attack upon Lord Heytesbury, who was at present the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; for he had reason to believe that Lord Heytesbury was sincerely desirous to act in a manner that would conduce to the benefit of that country; but the misfortune attending the present anomalous and absurd system of government in Ireland was, that it prevented the good intentions of the Lord Lieutenant from being carried into effect. The Lord Lieutenant was generally a person who had no connexion with the country, and no previous knowledge of it: the Chief Secretary was in the same condition very often; and thus neither the Lord Lieutenant nor the Secretary was acquainted with the personal qualities or political leanings of those by whom they were surrounded, and whose advice they must frequently 577 be expected to require. Their Lordships were aware that, in consequence of the decease recently of a gentleman named Pollock, in Ireland, the clerkship of the Crown in no less than fifteen counties had become vacant. That office had been the subject of much discussion on a former occasion, and had been made the question in a suit before their Lordships; and it was not, therefore, his intention to go into any inquiry as to its origin or establishment, as that had been fully investigated when it was before their Lordships; but it was sufficient for him to say that, in 1819, Mr. Pollock was in possession of the two offices of clerk of the Crown and clerk of the peace for several counties. The question as to the person in whom the appointment of clerk of the peace was vested had been made the subject of a legal investigation, upon the appointment, at a former period, of a clerk of the peace for the King's County by the Custos Rotulorum of that county. The case was brought, by writ of error, before the Judges in Dublin; and they, with the exception of two, decided that the right of appointment to the clerk of the peace vested with the Crown; but the matter having been brought before the House of Lords, they called in the assistance of the Judges; and those learned personages, with the exception of one, agreed upon reversing the decision of the Irish Judges; and their Lordships accordingly decided that the appointment to the clerkship of the peace lay with the Custos Rotulorum in Ireland, and was not in the gift of the Crown. The Irish Government entertained several years ago the intention of uniting the offices of clerks of the peace and clerks of the Crown; and a Commission of Inquiry into the Courts of Justice in Ireland, which sat in 1829, evidently was favourable to the union of the two offices: but it stated in its report, that as the case was then still pending, it did not feel necessary to report specially upon the union of the offices. The writer of the report, however, with the exception of being restrained by that circumstance, was favourable to the junction of those offices. The Report of the Commission over which Lord Devon presided, and which had been so frequently adduced by Members of the Government, stated that the union of the offices of clerk of the Crown and clerk of the peace had been recommended in the Report of 1842; and added that the members of that Commission were of a similar opinion, namely, that they should be united. 578 The Commission, which was appointed in 1840, and reported in 1842 (a Commission to revise the Grand Jury Laws of Ireland), stated that the duties of the clerk of the peace and the clerk of the Crown were, in several counties, fulfilled by the same person, without any inconvenience; and they added that, in their opinion, the duties ought not to be divided, as the separation of those duties only caused additional expense; and they, therefore, approved of the principle of transferring the duties of clerk of the Crown to the clerk of the peace. Who was that Report signed by? It was signed, amongst others, by Richard Greene, the present Attorney General for Ireland; and it was, therefore, only natural to expect that the Government would adopt the recommendation in the Report, and that the Irish Government would be induced to merge the two offices into one. Some assurance of the intention of the Government with respect to that question ought to be given. But what was the fact? On the demise of Mr. Pollock, a mass of applications were sent in to the Government—a mass so numerous as to number several hundreds—for the vacant clerkships. This pressure from without appeared to have been too strong for the Government to resist; and within a week after Mr. Pollock's demise, it was well known in Ireland who were to succeed in filling the vacancies in ten of the counties. When Mr. Pierce Gale, who was Crown Solicitor for one of the provinces of Ireland, died, it was deemed by the Government that one person ought not to hold the office of Crown Solicitor in a whole province; and three persons were appointed to discharge the duties which one had discharged before. In that case, however, the change which took place gave the Government three appointments instead of one; but in this latter case, the recommendation of the Commission, if carried into effect, would have a contrary tendency. The Gentleman who was appointed in 1818, by Mr. Pollock, as his deputy clerk of the Crown in four counties and the city of Kilkenny, and who had since that period held the office, and had given up much other business, it was to be supposed, in order to attend to its duties, was, on the death of Mr. Pollock, deprived of those appointments, and without the slightest compensation for the loss of his offices. He was not aware what were the abilities of the gentleman who was so deprived of his appointments; but he knew that he had received three recommendations 579 for the appointment from the county of Kilkenny, three from Wexford, two from the city of Kilkenny, and two from other places. He would say, that under all those circumstances there ought to be some explanation of why that gentleman had been passed over. It might be said, that his appointment would not be allowed to stand in the way of future arrangements; but he begged to be informed on what grounds the future arrangements were to be based. When the alteration in the arrangement of those offices had been so long spoken of, he thought that the public ought to be informed what were the intentions of the Government with respect to the future appointments, and on what grounds they intended to proceed. He hoped that his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of St. Germans) would not only tell them what were the proposed arrangements, but also why the Reports to which he had directed attention, and which were so clear and distinct, had not been acted upon. The noble Marquess moved for the Returns of which he gave notice on a former day.

§ The EARL of ST. GERMANS
said, he agreed with the noble Marquess opposite in thinking that the Government was bound to pay respectful attention to, and seriously to consider, all the recommendations contained in those Reports to which the noble Marquess adverted; but he did not think that the Government, whatever might be its own opinions, was implicitly bound to act in accordance with those recommendations of one of the last Commissions? That the clerkship of the Crown should be merged in the office of clerk of the peace; and the Commission of Lord Devon recommended that the individual holding those united offices should also be appointed Crown prosecutor. Now, he would appeal to any one acquainted with the practical operation of the law to say, would this recommendation, if carried into effect, be convenient or even constitutional? The clerk of the Crown and of assize would have to prepare indictments, to record challenges, and to perform various other functions peculiar to an officer of the court; and, he would ask, were the duties of those offices consistent with the duty of Crown prosecutor? They were not consistent or compatible. The Commission of 1840 recommended that the clerkship of the Crown should merge in the office of clerk of the peace. That recommendation was merely on the ground of economy; and he (the 580 Earl of St. Germans) could inform their Lordships that the saving would be very small in amount, and that it would be necessary to appoint deputies if such a consolidation took place with respect to those appointments, He thought they ought to lie in the Crown, and not in an irresponsible individual; and he would add, that fourteen of the persons appointed under the system of allowing the appointment to lie with the Custos Rotulorum, were persons not educated for the profession of the law, and one of them had been a captain in the army. The Custos Rotulorum might be irresponsible to Parliament; but he (the Earl of St. Germans) believed that it would be better for the public service and the public interest that the appointment to the office of clerk of the peace should belong to the Crown. There was an arrangement proposed by the Government for the consolidation of the offices by a Bill; but that was to take effect only, in each case, after the decease of the custodee and the holders of the offices who were previously appointed; and he could assure the noble Marquess that this arrangement did not depend on a mere verbal agreement, but that an agreement in writing had been sent to the clerks of the peace and the Crown, appointed since that determination had been come to, by which agreement they bound themselves to consent to any arrangement to be proposed in future for the better regulation of those offices. With regard to the particular case of the gentleman who had acted as Mr. Pollock's deputy, he did not think that the fact of his having acted as deputy-clerk of the Crown gave him a right to retain the employment permanently.

The MARQUESS of LONDONDERRY
was obliged to the noble Marquess for having brought this subject under discussion. He conceived it to be of the utmost importance that the House should know whether the appointment of clerk of the peace was to remain in the hands of the Custos Rotulorum, or whether it rested with the Crown.

§ The EARL of ST. GERMANS
explained that it was intended to respect the rights of existing Custodes, and of existing clerks.

The DUKE of LEINSTER
thought it very advisable that the appointment should be in the hands of the Crown.

LORD BROUGHAM
saw no reason for not at once transferring the right of appointment to clerkships of the peace from 581 the Custodes to the Crown. The Custodes themselves were liable to be removed; and, certainly, the sooner the right of appointment was transferred to the responsible officer of the Crown the better.

The EARL of WICKLOW
was perfectly satisfied with the explanation which had been given by his noble Friend. When the Government took the matter into their own hands, he thought it would be desirable that the two offices of clerk of the peace and clerk of the Crown should be amalgamated.

The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE
agreed with the noble Lord near him, that it was desirable to vest these appointments in the hands of the Crown; and he himself, as an existing Custos, was quite ready to give up his right.