Lords Sitting of 27 July 1874

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Alderney Harbour* (196); Shannon Navigation * (189); Statute Law Revision (No. 2) * (147); Public Health (Ireland) * (195).
Report—Intoxicating Liquors (Ireland) (No. 2) * (174).
Third Reading—Revising Barristers (Payment)* (175); Mersey Channels* (182), and passed.
Withdrawn—Poor Law Amendment (Removal) (168).

THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—THE LORDS LIEUTENANT—QUESTION.
LORD CARLINGFORD, in asking Her Majesty's Government, What they con-

747
sider to be the position of Lieutenants of Counties in Ireland as regards their responsibility for the appointment of gentlemen to the commission of the peace? said, before putting his Question he wished to make a few remarks in justification for doing so, and to explain why he thought the responsibility of the Lords Lieutenant had been affected by the course taken by the Lords Commissioners. On the 21st of May last a Question was asked in that House by his noble Friend behind him (Viscount Lismore), the Lieutenant for the county Tipperary, who had previously recommended three gentlemen to the Lords Commissioners of the Great Seal in Ireland for appointment to the magistracy—two for one petty sessional division of the county, and one for another; and he understood from the answer given, that only one out of the three was appointed?
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: What are the names of the others?
LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, he had not got them, but there was no doubt about the facts. His noble Friend asked why there should have been a selection from the names recommended, as it was an unusual course to take, and one which during his 17 years' lieutenancy had not occurred before. The answer his noble Friend got was, that the Lords Commissioners did not think it necessary to appoint more than one to the division named, and that there were sufficient justices at the other place. About a month later, a similar Question was asked in the House of Commons; and there the Chief Secretary for Ireland stated that of the two rejected gentlemen one was an agent and the other a doctor, and that there was an order in existence of the late Government that no agents or doctors should be appointed to the bench. He (Lord Carlingford) had never hoard of any such rule, but he knew it had been a common thing to appoint agents, and he believed many noble Lords were aware that agents had frequently been placed in the commission of the peace. He thought also that it was expedient that the appointments to the magistracy should not be confined to one class—namely, the landed gentry. It was sometimes impossible in Ireland to find sufficient persons amongst the landed gentry of a county qualified for the position; and in his opinion it was better, for sufficient
748
cause, to depart from the rigid rule, and, provided other persons than landed gentry could be found, who were fit and proper for the position, who were men of intelligence and independence, to appoint them, rather than that the bench should be unmanned or insufficiently manned, or composed exclusively of persons of one particular class or creed. When that course was taken, it could not be alleged that any persons of any particular class were excluded from the bench, and the result was, that the action of the magistrates was received with more confidence on the part of the people. He could not say whether it was in this case necessary to go outside the landed gentry, but the Lieutenant of the county, who was responsible, considered that there was a necessity, and the Commissioners of the Great Seal took it upon themselves to override his opinion. How many other cases of the sort there had been he did not know, but two similar cases had come to his knowledge. The noble Marquess the Lieutenant for the county of Meath (the Marquess Conyngham) had, as he understood, sent in the usual way the re-commendation of three gentlemen for the commission of the peace; one of them was rejected, and the reason given for such rejection was, that the Commissioners considered there were already too many justices for the divisional district named. Now the noble Marquess had been previously informed on good authority that the justices for the division in question were too limited in number. The third case was that of Viscount Monck, the Lieutenant of the county Dublin. He sent in the names of five gentlemen for the commission of the peace—that number was explained by the fact that the late Lieutenant had not recommended anyone for a long time—and the whole were rejected by the Lords Commissioners. As to one gentleman the reason given was, that he was a member of the medical profession. He (Lord Carlingford) had made inquiries, and had been assured that great inconvenience would result from the course which the Commissioners had followed. The only reason given for rejecting the other four gentlemen was that there was no necessity for increasing the number on the bench for the district named. Now, it appeared to him that all these cases, taken together, showed a

749
remarkable departure from the usual practice—whether in regard to England or Ireland—in reference to the recommendations of Lieutenants of counties. He did not question the legality of the course pursued by the Lords Commissioners—moreover, he fully admitted that there were exceptional occasions when it was the duty of the Lord Chancellor to interfere—perhaps more frequently in Ireland than in this country—and refuse to make the appointment; and he could imagine that sometimes it would be his duty to make appointments where Lieu-tenants did not recommend names, in case the public interest imperatively required it. But this admission did not cover the cases which he had described in reference to the practice of the Commissioners of the Great Seal. It appeared to him that their practice was, to say the least of it, novel, and that, if it should be continued, it would seriously interfere with the due responsibility of Lieutenants in Ireland. The serious danger was not, as the Commissioners seemed to think, that there might be too many magistrates, but too few, and if the practice should be drawn into a precedent, and be followed by future Chancellors, that would be the result, for Lieutenants would not feel inclined to make any recommmendations, not being willing to subject themselves to such rebuffs as those he had referred to, and every Lieutenant of a county would imagine that his turn would come. Therefore, without going any further, and without imputing any motives to the Commissioners, he wished to ask the Question of which he had given Notice to the Government.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he was not at all sorry the noble Lord had brought the subject under the notice of their Lordships—though the subject had been brought forward by the noble Viscount (Viscount Lismore) with reference to the Tipperary case at an earlier period of the Session—for he thought he should be able to show their Lordships that the Commissioners of the Great Seal in Ireland had not been actuated by the motives which the noble Lord had—not attributed to them—but which the statements he had made, if not answered, might encourage other persons to impute to those learned personages. As to the Question of which the noble Lord had given Notice, and which he had just put
750
—what the Government consider to be the position of Lieutenants of counties in Ireland as regards their responsibility for the appointment of gentlemen to the commission of the peace?—he should have thought from the noble Lord's long connection with Ireland and the high official position he had held in that country, he would have been able to answer it himself without putting it to any Member of the present Government. He would, however, answer the question—no doubt the position of Lieutenants of counties was this—that if they thought more magistrates were required, it was their duty to inform the Lord Chancellor that such was their opinion, and at the same time to forward names for appointment. The noble Lord must know that on the form which the Lieutenants of counties filled up when making application for the appointment of magistrates, there were a number of questions to be answered. One of these was, "Whether he (the candidate) is an agent, and, if so, to whom?" He mentioned that in reference to the noble Lord's remark about the objection to a gentleman on the ground of his being an agent; but he referred to the queries generally to show that the matter was not regarded as one of mere formal recommendation to be followed by an appointment. The appointment was really made on the joint responsibility of the Lieutenant and the holder or holders of the Great Seal. Otherwise, why that paper of queries? The state of the case, he took to be this—that the Lieutenant of the county recommended on what he thought to be good and sufficient grounds; and on these having been laid before the Lords Commissioners, it was their duty to investigate the circumstances with a view of determining whether the grounds were good and sufficient; and if they thought they were not, they declined to make the appointment. Now, as to the particular cases referred to by the noble Lord, he was informed that the noble Viscount the Lieutenant of Tipperary sent up in May last the names of three gentlemen, named Hackett, O' Meara, and Ryan. Mr. Hackett was not appointed because the Commissioners were of the opinion that there were a sufficient number of magistrates in the division for which he was recommended. He was informed that a refusal to appoint based on that ground was by no means

751
an uncommon occurrence. Mr. O' Meara was appointed—and as the noble Lord, while not himself imputing bad motives, spoke of what might be said if Roman Catholics were not appointed, he might observe that Mr. O' Meara was a Roman Catholic. Dr. Ryan was not appointed because he was the doctor of a dispensing district.
LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, he understood Dr. Ryan had at one time been the medical officer of a dispensing district, but had ceased to be so for the previous 12 months.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDwas giving the reason assigned by the Lords Commissioners; and he wished to call the attention of the House to the fact that the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland (Lord O' Hagan) who was now in his place, had declined to appoint to the Commission of the Peace doctors of dispensary districts, and had caused that fact to be notified to Lieutenants, and had almost gone the length of turning in his mind whether he should not remove such gentlemen from the list of the magistracy already appointed if they still continued to be dispensing.
VISCOUNT LISMOREsaid Dr. Ryan was not a dispensing doctor when he recommended him.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDwas informed that Dr. Ryan was not appointed because he was a dispensing doctor.
VISCOUNT LISMORE: No.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDtrusted the noble Viscount would allow him to make his statement, and address to their Lordships any observations which he might think necessary when it came to his turn to speak. He had stated what he had been informed were the facts in respect to Tipperary. As regarded the case of the County Meath, his noble Relative the Lieutenant of that county (the Marquess Conyngham) recommended five gentlemen—three at one time, and two at another. Four were appointed, one of them being stated to be a brother of Cardinal Cullen. The fifth, who was not appointed, was Mr. Delaney. He was a nephew of Cardinal Cullen; but of course that had nothing to do with his not being appointed, but he had an uncle on the bench—which was regarded as an objection. These appointments wore for the Navan petty sessions bench, and the Lords Commissioners considered that there were already a sufficient
752
number of magistrates there. He (the Duke of Richmond) believed the Lords Commissioners of the Great Seal had every reason to conclude that his noble Relative was satisfied with the course they adopted in this case, and he could not but think himself that his noble Relative was satisfied. Now, as to the case of the county of Dublin. The application was for the appointment of five magistrates, two of whom were to be of the sessional district of Cabinteely and two for the sessional district of Swords. In each of these districts there were already 10 magistrates, and there had been no instance of the adjournment of the sessions in either place owing to a want of attendance of magistrates. Under those circumstances the Commissioners of the Great Seal arrived at the conclusion that additional magistrates were not required for Cabinteely and Swords, and they did not appoint any of the four gentlemen whose names had been sent in for those districts. The fifth name sent in by the Lieutenant was that of Dr. Eustace—the reason he was not appointed was this—their Lordships were aware that the summary jurisdiction in cases of lunacy vested in one magistrate. Dr. Eustace was the manager of two lunatic asylums, and it was thought that summary jurisdiction in cases of lunacy would be rather a strong power to put in the hands of a gentleman who was manager of two lunatic asylums. He would observe that the course of not appointing additional magistrates in districts in which the bench was already sufficiently strong did not prevail in Ireland only. The Lord Chancellor of England would decline to appoint in such a case; and he could state from his own experience that his noble Friend the Lieutenant of Sussex (the Earl of Chichester) had declined to recommend some gentlemen, friends of his, on the ground that there were already a sufficient number of magistrates in the district. He trusted he had shown that the Commissioners of the Great Seal in Ireland were perfectly justified in the course they had adopted in all the cases brought forward by the noble Lord; and on their part, he ought to thank the noble Lord for the opportunity he had afforded them of making the facts known to their Lordships and the public.
VISCOUNT LISMOREsaid, he had to acknowledge the uniform courtesy of

753
the noble Duke; but the explanation given in the other House of Parliament with reference to the non-appointment of two of the gentlemen he had recommended to the commission for Tipperary was not the same as that which the noble Duke had given on a previous occasion to their Lordships. The explanation of the noble Duke and that given in the letter of the Commissioners of the Great Seal was that additional magistrates were not required. In their Lordships' House, he was told it was because additional magistrates were not wanted; but in the other House it was stated that one gentleman had been rejected because he was a doctor, and the other because he was an agent. As to Dr. Ryan, he had ceased to hold any medical appointment at the time he (Viscount Lismore) recommended him; and as to the exclusion of agents, it was a very extraordinary reason to adduce, seeing how many agents there were actually on the Bench. Several noble Lords, who had large estates in Ireland, placed them under the management of agents, who were very able men, and almost all of them were in the commission of the peace. He remembered that when a former agent of the late Earl of Derby retired, and his successor was appointed, that noble Earl wrote to him, as Lieutenant of the county of Tipperary, requesting him to recommend the new agent for the commission of the peace. He did so, and the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland at once appointed him. As to doctors, he did not know the rule, but he heard that one was appointed to the commission not very long ago. The gentleman whom he had recommended had retired from the dispensary practice before he recommended him. As to the sufficiency of the number of magistrates, without being presumptuous, he thought that, as a resident proprietor, he ought to be as good a judge of that as the Commissioners could possibly be. Before their refusal, his recommendations had never been rejected.
LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, that when he referred to possible cases, in which too many of one creed might get upon the Bench, he made no allusion whatever to any particular appointments or rejections by the Commissioners of the Great Seal. He was referring to cases in which a departure from the
754
rule of appointing from the landed gentry only might be desirable, and to cases in which the action of the holder of the Great Seal might be necessary by way of interference. He made no charge whatever, except that interference with the recommendations of the Lieutenants of Counties had been carried by the Commissioners to a pitch it had never been carried before, and he hoped, never would be again.

POOR LAW AMENDMENT (REMOVAL) BILL—(No. 168.)
(The Lord Henniker.)
POOR LAW AMENDMENT (REMOVAL) BILL—(No. 168.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD HENNIKER, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, observed that the noble Duke the Lord President had very properly said the other day that he disapproved Bills being brought in which were not intended to pass. He must apologize to their Lord-ships for bringing in this Bill at such a late period of the Session; but the subject it proposed to deal with was a very difficult and a very important one, and it really was almost impossible for him to bring it in sooner. However, it was a Bill which was meant to pass, and he could not expect, as a private Member of the House, to pass it in one Session, even if he had been able to bring it in sooner; and so he had thought it best to ask their Lordships to read the Bill a second time, in order that it might be well considered throughout the country during the winter, and that he might be able to bring in a Bill, drafted in the most complete manner, early next Session. He was aware that, short as the Bill was, it had its faults in detail, and he had no doubt whatever he could frame a Bill far more complete, far more satisfactory, by postponing it till another year; but it would secure a full discussion during the Recess if it were read a second time. He did not even wish to pledge their Lordships to the principle of the Bill, except to the extent that legislation of late years had taken the right direction on this question, and that if a satisfactory plan could be proposed, they would not be unwilling to entertain it, particularly after what he had said as to the probability of its being made a far better Bill by giving

  755
  more time for the consideration of its provisions. Some noble Lords might say it would establish the principle of the Bill to the full extent to read it a second time. If it were the general opinion of the House that such a course would establish the principle of the Bill to a greater extent than was desirable at the present time, he would withdraw it at once; but being anxious to have it fully discussed, to gain opinions from all quarters, so that he might bring in a complete measure, he should be extremely glad to have it read a second time. All he could say was, he believed the feeling of the country generally would be in favour of the change, even if some large towns were not so. He hoped their Lordships would allow him to withdraw the Bill, if they would not allow it to be read a second time, for he had but one object in view—to be of service in the matter, and it might prejudice the full discussion of the question next year, were the Motion negatived. The Bill was simply intended to make an alteration as far as the removal of paupers was concerned, and to improve the operation of the Poor Law generally. This was a question which had cropped up from time to time, and no doubt legislation tended in the direction the Bill took. Within a short period, the time when a pauper was irremovable had been reduced from five to three years, and from three years to one year. These changes had caused little, if any inconvenience, and the change proposed now was proposed in 1865 by Mr. Henley, whose judgment could hardly be disputed in matters of this kind—even before the changes in question had been fully tried. The Bill was simply to do away with removal, and not to deal with the law of settlement of the poor. The clauses were based on 9 and 10 Vic. cap. 66—the Act which was, perhaps, the most important of all the Acts in the present state of the law. The Bill only sought to do away with removal in England, leaving Ireland and Scotland un-touched. Of course, that would affect the law of settlement, but although some thought it did so altogether, he maintained removal and settlement were two distinct questions in many respects. With these remarks he would ask their Lordships to read the Bill a second time, and he, on his part, would undertake to place the matter in a proper
  756
  form before the House, to the best of his ability, next Session.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Henniker.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he would ask his noble Friend not to press the second reading. Except under very special circumstances, it was not desirable to read a Bill a second time if there was no intention of proceeding with it till another Session. He saw no object in reading this Bill a second time in the present Session; but he saw great inconvenience attending such a course. Though the Bill was a small one, it treated with a part of what was a very large subject. Other questions besides that of removal would have to be considered in dealing with it. He did not think their Lordships should commit themselves to the principle of the Bill; and they would be doing so if they gave it a second reading. He would therefore recommend his noble Friend to withdraw the Bill.
  Lord EGERTON OF TATTON and Earl FORTESOUE concurred in the request that the Bill should be withdrawn for the present Session.
  LORD HENNIKERassented.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Order for the Second Reading discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, 'till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.