DWELLINGS FOR LABOURING CLASSES (IRELAND) BILL. (Hansard, 10 July 1856)

THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATH
objected to the seventh clause, which prohibited landlords who were magistrates from acting in matters in which they were personally interested. He had had the honour of holding Her Majesty's commission for fifty years, and he did not know of the occurrence of a single case of the kind. It was a libel on the magistrates of Ireland to insert such a clause. The clause further prohibited agents from acting in the causes of their principals. Now, what constituted an agent? An agent was one who did anything for another person, and the most nonsensical objection might be taken under such a clause. The clause was an insult, from whatever quarter it came, upon the magistrates of Ireland. He should move that 544 the seventh clause be expunged from the Bill.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
intimated that the Motion could not be made upon the third reading of the Bill. It could only be taken before the Motion that the Bill do pass.

THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATH
then moved that the seventh clause be struck out of the Bill.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE
, after suggesting some verbal amendments, said that as to the seventh clause, although he had the greatest respect for the Irish magistracy, who had done their duty in times of great uncertainty, yet he must say that the noble Marquess opposite was quite mistaken in supposing that no cases of magistrates sitting in judgment in their own case bad occurred. He himself had been personally concerned in the removal from the magistracy of a magistrate for having done this very thing. There could be no doubt but that the thing was done. Still he did not think that this part of the clause was of any great importance. But the part which related to agents was of importance. The noble Marquess was mistaken when he said that an agent could not be defined. There could be no doubt as to the meaning of the term, and it was perfectly understood in Ireland. As to the insult on the magistracy, it was no more an insult than a precaution taken against offences by clergymen were insults on the clergy. These things were not insults; they were only safeguards against human frailty.

LORD CAMPBELL
wished to preserve their Lordships from the discredit of passing such a clause as the seventh clause of this Bill in its present form. It was absurd to prohibit that which was actually illegal, and nothing was more certain than that it was unlawful for a judge of any degree to be a judge in his own cause. Any justice of the peace so offending could not only be removed from the commission, but would be liable to a prosecution at common law for a misdemeanor; and if a case came before a bench of magistrates, present was interested Now, what constituted an in such case, he was bound to leave the bench, and if he did not the Queen's Bench would quash the decision. He therefore considered the clause, so far as it related to landlords who were magistrates, was quite unnecessary. As to what was said about laws passed respecting the clergy, 545 these laws were intended to prohibit practices which the clergy had previously done and considered lawful; but there was no instance of a law being passed against that which by law had been already declared illegal and void. If, however, its operation was restricted to agents of landlords, who might also be magistrates, he should feel inclined to support the clause. Their Lordships knew very well what an Irish agent was—one who often had a very strong personal interest in his principal's property, and who therefore could not be an impartial judge in any dispute affecting that property. There ought, therefore, to be a disqualification against his sitting where his principal was concerned.

VISCOUNT DUNGANNON
regarded the clause as an uncalled-for reflection on the magistracy of Ireland, and would support the Motion of the noble Marquess for expunging the clause.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE
said, that there were no body of men who performed their official duty better than the Irish landlords. They had done so in times of difficulty and danger. However, he looked upon the measure as so useful a one, that he would not wish to see its progress through Parliament endangered by a division on an Amendment such as that moved by his noble Friend.

THE EARL OF WICKLOW
hoped that his noble Friend would not withdraw his Motion. He looked upon the clause as unnecessary. No magistrate would act in the way contemplated by the clause.

THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATH
could not consent to withdraw his Motion, for he thought the clause offensive and unnecessary.

LORD DENMAN
would vote with the noble Marquess if he divided the House, but he recommended his noble Friend to withdraw his Motion.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE
said, he would adopt the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Campbell), and would propose to amend the clause by confining its operation to the agents of landlords, instead of referring to landlords and agents indiscriminately.

VISCOUNT DUNGANNON
objected to casting a slur upon the agent of the landlord any more than upon the landlord himself. Most agents in Ireland were magistrates, and their conduct as magistrates was, generally speaking, unexceptionable.

THE EARL OF WICKLOW
presumed that if the landlord who sat in judgment upon his own case was violating the common law, the agent of the landlord, if he sat to hear the landlord's case, would be guilty of the same offence. Why, then, should the agent be prohibited by this clause if the landlord was not to be? If they omitted the word "landlord," which he thought they should, there was no reason for inserting the word "agent."

LORD CAMPBELL
said, that the case of the landlord and that of his agent were not quite parallel. The landlord would clearly be sitting in judgment on his own case. There could be no difficulty about that. But could they say that the agent sitting on the landlord's case was sitting on his own?