Sitting of 20 March 1837

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL and several other Hon. MEMBERS, from various places, for Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill.—By Mr. HAMILTON, from Dublin, against the said Bill.

THE FACTORIES ACT.
Lord John Russellsaid, that before moving the Order of the Day, he was desirous to say a few words on the subject of a motion of which the noble Lord opposite (Ashley) had given notice for this evening, relative to the operation of the Factories Act. From the terms of the noble Lord's notice, he presumed that he alluded to certain regulations which had been established by Mr. Horner, one of the factory inspectors. About the end of January last, a complaint with reference to the operation of those regulations had reached him, and it then appeared to him to be a matter of much doubt whether these regulations were in conformity with the Act. The matter had been accord-
666
ingly referred to the law officers of the Crown, who agreed in opinion that the regulation which related to the judging of the age of children from their strength and appearance only, without referring to any other evidence which might be given of their actual age, was not in conformity with the spirit of the Act. On receiving this opinion, he had immediately issued instructions to Mr. Horner, requiring him to conform to the opinion so expressed by the law officers of the Crown, and to act strictly in execution of the Act. He would only add, that when the Bill of last year was given up, he had issued directions, after consulting with his right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, that the present Act might be put strictly into execution; and if any error had occurred upon the part of any factory inspector, he could assure the House that it did not arise from any desire to shrink from the execution of the Act, or knowingly and willingly to put a wrong interpretation on its provisions. The regulation complained of had, he rather believed, arisen from the desire to avoid the fraud and imposition which were so easily put in practice. Under these circumstances, he hoped the noble Lord would not press the motion of which he had given notice.
Lord Ashleyhoped the noble Lord would understand that it was not his intention, nor that of those with whom he had the honour to act, to make any personal charge against Mr. Horner, or the other Factory Commissioners. They had thought it their duty, however, to question that gentleman's acts. After the explanation which the noble Lord had given, he would not press his motion.
Mr. Hindleyexpressed a hope that the Attorney-General would state to the House upon what grounds he had arrived at the conclusion that the regulation adopted by Mr. Horner, for ascertaining the age of children, was illegal.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, the House must perceive that he could not be prepared to state his opinion upon an important question, the details of which were not a little complicated, in the off-hand manner which his hon. Friend required. He could, however, state, in confirmation of what had fallen from his noble Friend near him, that upon the matter having been referred to him for consideration, he had taken the utmost pains to inform himself upon the subject, and had stated to

667
the noble Lord the grounds upon which he proceeded.
Subject dropped.

ARCHBISHOP SHARPE—EXPLANATION.
The Attorney-Generalon the Order of the Day being moved, begged to call the attention of the House to a passage in the speech delivered by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, the Member for Scarborough, when the Irish Corporations Bill was last before the House. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had then alluded to a speech delivered by him three years' since, in which it was imagined that he had expressed himself in approbation of the assassination of Archbishop Sharpe. Now he would say with reference to that assassination, that he had always looked upon it as a most atrocious and cowardly murder. He had spoken of it, in the speech referred to, merely as an illustration of the state of public feeling in Scotland during the reign of Charles 2d. He had ever reprobated the act of assassinating that helpless old man and must disclaim having ever expressed any approval of that Act.

MASTER OF THE ROLLS (IRELAND).
On the Order of the Day being again moved, for the House to go into a Committee on the Corporations (Ireland) Bill. Mr. O'Connell said, that he had a motion to bring forward respecting a subject which arose out of circumstances connected with this Bill, in which was involved the character of one of the highest judicial functionaries in Ireland. He alluded to the present Master of the Rolls, and late Attorney-General. His motion had reference to the statements in a speech which was published in the newspapers, from the manuscript of the hon. and learned Member for Belfast. The speech to which he alluded was delivered on the occasion of the last debate upon the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill. His intention was to submit to the House a motion for a return of the proceedings against a man named M'Carron, who was three times tried at Monaghan on an alleged charge of murder. He would also move for a return of the indictments preferred against him, the names of the judges who presided at each trial, the number of jurors set aside by the Crown on each occasion, and the names of the
668
learned gentleman who at each period filled the office of Attorney-General in Ireland. He would not stop to inquire how much of the speech to which he referred was spoken in that House, but it was therein stated, that the rule introduced by the late Attorney-General (O'Loghlin) had been productive of the very worst consequences; and the case of M'Carron was instanced to show the impropriety of adopting the regulation of dispensing with the right of the Crown to set aside jurors. The hon. and learned Member for Belfast had stated that the baneful effects of this rule were visible in the case of M'Carron, as well as in that of a man named Carter, which had been referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bandon. To the latter case he would call the attention of the House immediately after Easter. With reference to M'Carron's case, the hon. Member for Belfast said, that he spoke from authentic details, which he held in his hand. Now, he could fearlessly state, that the three trials in which M'Carron was concerned, had taken place before Mr. O'Loghlin was appointed to the office of Attorney-General for Ireland. The last of the three trials had taken place five months before Mr. O'Loghlin was appointed, and eleven months before the regulation complained of with reference to jurors had been made. The first trial took place during the Spring Assizes of 1834, the second during the summer of the same year, and the third and last in the spring of 1835. Upon all these occasions Mr. Blackburne was Attorney-General, and during the last trial Lord Haddington was Viceroy in Ireland. He wished for returns of the particulars of all these trials, in all of which (without any exception) the Roman Catholic jurors had been set aside. So much for the truth of the charge which had been preferred by the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Belfast. He (Mr. O'Connell) was authorised to deny most positively that there was any truth in the allegation that Mr. O'Loghlin had made any regulation by which murderers were allowed to escape. He had made a rule that no one should be set aside as a juror, unless good cause were shown for doing so; the consequence of which was, that now no man was set aside on account of his politics or religion. He (Mr. O'Connell) was furnished with dates to prove that the last of the three trials

669
had taken place five months before Mr. O'Loghlin's appointment to office, and that they had all taken place when Mr. Blackburne was Attorney-General, and, moreover, that in each of them the Roman Catholic jurors had been set aside.
Mr. Emerson Tennentsaid, it was not to be supposed, in alluding to circumstances which had occurred in another county, with which he was unconnected, and of which he had no personal recognizance, that he had spoken otherwise than on information derived from others, but on the accuracy of which he had every reason to rely; and he regretted that the short notice which the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny had given him on Saturday last, of his intention to bring this matter before the House this day, rendered it impossible for him to communicate with those parties from whom he had received his previous information. The House would remember that he had alluded to this case on a former occasion, not Merely for the purpose of exhibiting the prejudicial effects of the order against setting aside jurors, but as tending to show the abuse of the powers vested in the Irish Executive, by their indiscriminate exercise of those prerogatives of the Crown, which should always be applied sparingly and with prudence. He had likewise introduced the case of M'Carron, because it was one which had excited the utmost alarm throughout the north of Ireland, not merely from the savage deliberation of the murderer, but as exhibiting the almost impossibility which existed in Ireland, from the confederated feelings of the Roman Catholics, of apprehending or bringing to justice those criminals who had committed outrages on Protestants. The circumstances were briefly these:—A Protestant whose name he had forgotten, ventured to take a farm out of which a Roman Catholic tenant had recently been ejected for nonpayment of rent. Shortly after he was assaulted and most barbarously beaten by this M'Carron and two other confederates. Being of a peaceful disposition and hoping, as he stated, that a display of kindness and forgiveness on his part might induce a correspondent feeling on that of his neighbours, he forbore to prosecute, and pardoned his assailants. The farm which he had taken was at some distance from another which he continued to occupy, and on which he resided, coming daily a
670
distance of a mile or two to cultivate the new tenement, on which occasions his wife attended to keep him company and dress his meat at a neighbouring cottage fire. On the day of the murder, which took place in the middle of a summer-day, in July or August, the poor fellow was quietly mowing in his meadow, and his wife seated beside him, when a little child was sent to her to say she was wanted in a cottage hard by. She went, and whilst in the House she heard cries proceeding from the direction of the meadow. She jumped up, and from the door or near it she saw three men murdering her husband. She flew back to the House, and implored the inmates to return with her to his rescue, which they refused, and advised her to hide herself as she would be murdered likewise. Instead of this she again rushed out towards the field, when she saw the three murderers coming towards her down a narrow lane. With singular determination and presence of mind she performed one of those acts of which women in such awful circumstances seem occasionally capable. She threw herself behind the ditch, and applying her eyes to an opening in the fence, she lay breathless, and, as the three assassins passed close beside her, still chafed and excited with their recent slaughter, she marked deliberately the countenance and features of each with so much precision, that she was able at the trial to lay the wand on the head of each man as he stood at the bar. This scene took place within a short distance of a turf bog, in which some hundreds of persons were at the moment at work, within sight and within hearing of the cries of the murdered man—the three murderers had actually passed through this crowd of persons on their way to the meadow, and some of them were actually produced at the trial on behalf of the prisoners, to swear that they were not the criminals although, as the judge stated in his charge, they admitted that not one human being moved to the rescue of the victim. If he remembered aright, they even refused to assist the unfortunate wife in raising and removing the still breathing body of her husband. He did not die till sunset, and had still sufficient strength left to state that the men who murdered him were the same three whom he had before forgiven for assaulting him. The circumstances, as he had here stated them, were all proved upon the three trials

671
which took place. On the first of these, he believed that jurors had been set aside by the Crown, and the consequence was, that eleven of the jury were for a conviction, and one only obstinately refused to join in the verdict. A second and a third trial took place, with a similar result, and the charges which he had brought against the Government were—first, that they had not removed the case, as it was in their power to do, into a different court, where they would have been certain of a verdict, either of guilt or acquittal; and secondly, that having induced the prisoners to plead guilty to the minor offence of manslaughter, having already thrice established an alibi at a fair, they then discharged them as innocent persons, and permitted them to emigrate to America. Thus, in a country exasperated by party feeling, and amidst a community so brutified, that some hundreds of persons looked calmly on at a savage murder—a community, above all others, requiring some example to be made within it—three men, whom the popular opinion set down unhesitatingly as homicides, and whom crowds of witnesses knew to be murderers, whom three successive juries had refused to pronounce innocent, were, by the act of the Irish Government, virtually pronounced to be guiltless, and permitted to retire as settlers to the colonies. What must be the result in practice from the establishment of such a principle as this, but that if one man could be smuggled on a jury who would pertinaciously differ from his colleagues, justice must be derided, and crime set at liberty unpunished. As to the dates of the three trials, as stated by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, he was not prepared, from the reasons he had before stated, either to contradict or to argue on their correctness till the return should be made for which the hon. Member had moved. But since he had last mentioned this subject in the House, two circumstances had come to his knowledge connected with the case, which he was anxious that the hon. and learned Member should embody in his motion. One was the fact, that the solicitor for the prisoners on the three trials was a gentleman of high respectability, he believed, in his profession (Mr. O'Reilly), who was employed in a confidential situation by the Government as solicitor to the Corporation inquiry; and the other, which he confessed he could scarcely credit was,
672
that M'Carron and his conspirators were not only liberated by the Lord-Lieutenant as he had stated, but had actually received a sum of money out of the public treasury to pay their passage, and establish themselves in America. He trusted the hon. Member would not, therefore, object to add, to the return for which he had moved, the names of the counsel and solicitors who had acted for the prisoners on their several trials, and the sum or sums of money which each had received on the occasion of his departure for America. As to Mr. O'Loghlin, whom it seemed to be the chief object of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny to defend, he had no disposition whatsoever to attack him. It was the system and not the individual which he found fault with. Whether he or Mr. Perrin were the Attorney-General on the occasion of these trials, when jurors were not set aside, the case was equally sustained, which he wished to make against the impolicy of the rule, and the improper and injudicious clemency of the Government.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, what when the hon. Member had brought forward charges he should have been prepared to sustain them. It was evident he was unable to do so, and he had not now even attempted to say he could.
Mr. Tennentsaid, he was prepared with all the details, but that at present he could not supply the dates.
Lord Morpethexpressed a wish, that the hon. and learned Gentleman, Mr. O'Connell, would withdraw his motion, for the purpose of allowing the House to go into Committee on the Bill. He could again bring it forward towards the end of the evening, or on some future occasion. He would take the opportunity of saying, that other accusations against his right hon. friend, Mr. O'Loghlin, which had found their way from the Committee on fictitious votes to the Ulster Times newspaper, were also most unfounded.
Motion withdrawn.
The House resolved itself into a Committee on the

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (IRELAND) BILL.
The clauses from the commencement to the 96th Clause were agreed to with only verbal alterations causing no debate but some conversation.
On Clause 96,
Mr. Sharman Crawfordsaid, he rose

673
for the purpose of moving an amendment for the purpose of assimilating the clause to the practice established in England in towns of a similar class to those named in the clause, and in so doing he was only restoring the clause of the Bill of 1835. He regretted that his Majesty's Ministers had in the present Bill altered that clause so as to give to the Lord-Lieutenant the power of selecting from or totally rejecting the choice of the town-councils. He should propose that the nomination of sheriffs should be vested absolutely in the town-councils. Did his Majesty's Ministers doubt the propriety of intrusting the Irish people with the control and election of their own officers? Or was it done for the purpose of conciliating the party opposite? If it were done for the latter purpose, he would respectfully represent to his Majesty's Ministers that in the progress of the respective measures that had been introduced on this subject many alterations had already been made for that purpose, and with no effect. The present Bill contained as many as twenty towns less than the one first introduced. He should not have so great an objection to the power this clause would give the Lord-Lieutenant if it were always to be exercised by a Government like the present, but he objected to putting that power in the hands of a Government hostile to the Irish people. The hon. Member concluded by moving an amendment, to the effect that the councils of all corporate towns in Ireland should have the absolute power of electing their own sheriffs.
Lord John Russellsaid, he gave full credit to the motives that had induced the hon. Member to propose his amendment; but he could not think it was advisable to follow every particular enactment of the English Municipal Bill. If the hon. Gentleman were of a different opinion he could have objected to the modes of electing aldermen which was different in the two bills. He (Lord J. Russell) did not think that dissimilarity any fair ground of objection, and if he had again to bring forward the English Bill he would introduce a similar clause. On the whole he thought it necessary that the Crown should have some power, at least a negative one, in the appointment of officers so closely connected with the administration of justice.
Mr. Shawdid not think that the noble Lord had given any reason for the altera-
674
tion, and he was surprised that the noble Lord had made so great an alteration in the Bill without being able to assign a better reason for doing so. He thought that either one or other of the propositions should be adopted—either to vest the power in the Lord-Lieutenant or in the town-councils; although, if the present amendment were pressed to a division, which he doubted not it would be, he should not vote for it.
Lord John Russellhad said, that he thought the present clause better than the one in the English Bill. Although he would by no means say that the town-councils would not elect the persons best fitted for the office of sheriff, he nevertheless thought they would be more likely to do so if they knew that their choice would be submitted to the Lord-Lieutenant.
Mr. Frenchsaid, that if the clause stood alone, he would support the proposition of the hon. Member for Dundalk. He, however, thought the statement of the noble Lord satisfactory, and he hoped the hon. Member would consent to withdraw his amendment.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the great object of the clause was, to secure to the country the efficient administration of justice by officers who should not be the subjects of popular election, but appointed by the Crown. If the plan which had been adopted in England and Scotland were a good one, it would still be a question whether or not it would be advisable to extend it to Ireland—there was certainly no part of the empire in which the exercise of any of the functions of the law was more important. He thought that responsibility should be attached to the recommendation and appointment of sheriffs, and that the clause secured that principle. There was one consideration that might have some weight with the right hon. Gentleman opposite, which was, that this principle was by no means a novel one. In many towns the recorder was popularly elected, subject only to the approbation of the Lord-Lieutenant, and as only one individual was sent up that control was inoperative.
The Committee divided on the original clause:—Ayes 65; Noes 5: Majority 60.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Admiral

Baines, E.

Aglionby, H. A.

Ball, N.

Angerstein, John

Baring, F. T.

675

Bellew, R. M.

Parker, John

Bentinck, Lord W.

Pease, J.

Blunt, Sir C.

Pechell, Capt.

Brocklehurst, J.

Philips, Mark

Brotherton, J.

Price, Sir R.

Callaghan, D.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Campbell, Sir J.

Richards, J.

Chalmers, P.

Roche, W.

Clive, Edward Bolton

Rolfe, Sir R.

Colborne, N. W. R.

Russell, Lord J.

Cole, A. H.

Russell, Lord

Dalmeny, Lord

Scarlett, hon. R.

Evans, G.

Seymour, Lord

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Smith, R. V.

Folkes, Sir W.

Smith, B.

Forster, Charles S.

Stuart, V.

French, F.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Gordon, R.

Thorneley, T.

Grattan, J.

Townley, R. G.

Grey, Sir G.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Hay, Sir And. Leith

Turner, W.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Verney, Sir H., Bart.

Hutt, Wm.

Warburton, H.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Wilson, H.

Lennox, Lord George

Woulfe, Sergeant

Leveson, Lord

Wrightson, W. B.

Macnamara, Major

Wyse, T.

Milton, Viscount

Young, G. F.

Morpeth, Lord

TELLERS.

O'Connell, M. J.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

O'Connell, Morgan

Stanley, E. J.

List of the NOES.

Blake, M. J.

Ruthven, E.

Bridgman, H.

TELLERS.

Hindley, C.

Crawford, S.

O'Brien, C.

Butler, hon. P.

The remainder of the clause was agreed to, and the House resumed.

MINUTES.
Bills. Passed:—Wills.
Petitions presented. By a great number of Noble LORDS, from various places, against the Abolition of Church-rates.—By Lords STRAFFORD, HOLLAND, MONTFORD, and BROUGHAM, from various places, for the Abolition of Church-rates.—By the Earl of RADNOR, from Richmond, Yorkshire, for Vote by Ballot.

EDUCATION (IRELAND).—EXPLANATION.
The Bishop of Exeterpresented two petitions, one from the clergy of the diocese of Dromore, the other from the clergy of the diocese of Clogher, against the national system of Education in Ireland. He should take that opportunity to advert to a statement made on a former evening by a noble and learned Lord whom he then saw in his place. The

663
statement made by the noble and learned Lord was this:—
"With respect to the forgeries that had been mentioned, that had been fully contradicted. It so occurred that one of the party was a neighbour of his, of the name of Morrison, and the other, a gentleman of the name of Cockburn, whose names were said to be subscribed to a document, but without their knowledge or consent. But what was the fact? The Commissioners had ascertained that Mr. Morrison not only had given authority for his name being signed, but when the document was shown to him, he said that his name was in his own handwriting; he recollected having signed it, and also that of his son, by his authority."
The right rev. Prelate then read a sentence from a letter of Mr. Morrison, setting forth that this statement was utterly contrary to the fact, and was destitute of all justification in fact.
Lord Plunkettsaid, he had no personal knowledge of the subject, and all he had stated was the fact as he had been informed, as it appeared before the Commissioners, and which he believed to be true. He had been assured that both the names of Mr. Morrison and his son were in the same handwriting.
Petitions laid on the table.

SEE OF BANGOR.
The Bishop of Bangorrose, pursuant to notice, to present a petition from the clergy of the county of Anglesea, as to the disposal of the tithes now possessed by the Bishop, in the event of the union of the sees of Bangor and St. Asaph. In introducing the subject, it would be necessary for him to notice what had occurred in the last Session of Parliament with reference to it, as well as other topics. On the part of himself and the petitioners he disclaimed any undue influence in bringing the question forward. The petitioners rejoiced in every attempt that was made with a view to the improvement of the Established Church; they were most anxious that it should be rendered as efficient as possible in that part of the empire; and they were desirous to see the number and usefulness of the parochial clergy increased. They therefore regretted to find their hopes and wishes in these respects disappointed, as they had been informed that it was the intention of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to appropriate the revenues that might be derived from an union of the sees to other purposes. In the month of March, 1835, a
664
Report from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had been laid on the table, by command of his Majesty, in which they recommended that the dioceses of St. Asaph and Bangor should be united in one see. That proposition was received with universal dissatisfaction throughout the dioceses. The clergy could not see why two ancient dioceses, which had existed in a separate form long before Wales became a part of England, should be united. They saw no reason why those sees should be joined together. They felt that it would inflict an injury on themselves, and that it would be a great inconvenience to the inhabitants. On these accounts the recommendation of the Commissioners created much dissatisfaction. There was, however, another paragraph in that Report, which in some measure reconciled them to the proposition. The revenues with which the sees were endowed were of a peculiar nature. They arose chiefly from tithes; and the Commissioners said, that one advantage which would arise from the union of the dioceses was, that it would afford funds for the augmentation of the poorer vicarages. But for that promise the clergy would have protested as one man against the proposition; but the consequence was, that, with very few exceptions, they were silent on the occasion. But now it appeared that the Commissioners intended to take a different course. Without assigning any reason for the conduct they were pursuing, without any communication with those who were immediately interested, and without an accurate knowledge of the revenue which was about to be disposed of, they came to the determination that those tithes should be appropriated to other purposes than the augmentation of poor vicarages. They had proceeded in a somewhat extraordinary manner, and determined that the surplus of revenues, after providing for the united see, should form part of a common fund to endow the two new sees. Now, he supposed it was in the power of the Commissioners, looking at the peculiar nature of these funds, to return to their former recommendation, and he hoped that they would do so. He thought it would be most extraordinary if the Commissioners made this important change without announcing their intention to his rev. friends and himself; and, therefore, he applied to those who had more knowledge on the subject than he

665
had. By them he was informed, that the Commissioners had certainly come to this determination. He then wrote to the secretary of the commission, and inquired whether the decision of the Commissioners was final; and by him he was informed that it was final. It did, however, appear to him to be a matter that demanded reconsideration. On these grounds he begged to express his concurrence in the prayer of the petition—namely, that their Lordships would adopt such a measure as would prevent the application of the surplus tithes to any other purposes than those originally contemplated by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
The Archbishop of Canterburyobserved, that it would have been better if his right rev. Friend had communicated with the Commissioners before he brought this subject under the notice of Parliament. He thought that the Commissioners did not deserve the blame attempted to be cast upon them, for they had taken all possible pains to render their inquiries useful, to extend them as much as possible, and to verify their results.
The Bishop of Bangorsaid, in reply to the most rev. Prelate who spoke last, that he had not applied to the Commissioners, for he felt unwilling to intrude upon them further than he had already done.
Petition laid on the table.