Sitting of 3 August 1840

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Court of Chancery; Imprisonment for Debt; Bills of Exchange.—Read a third time:—Militia Ballots Suspension; Militia Pay; Church Building.

CHURCH DISCIPLINE.
Dr. Nichollmoved the Order of the Day for the further consideration of the report of the Church Discipline Bill.
Mr. Warburtonexpressed a hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman would give up the bill for the present Session, for it was now too late for parties interested to make known their objections to it.
Dr. Nichollsaid, that that objection had been made on a former evening, and had been disposed of on a division by a majority of about two to one. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Member would not press it.
House in Committee.
On Clause 5 Mr. Warburton proposed that a copy of the depositions and opinion should be transmitted to the party complained of.
Dr. Nichollhad no objection when the case came to a hearing to give the party accused a copy of the depositions on the usual terms.
The Attorney Generalrecommended his learned Friend to adopt the amendment. In all proceedings, although there might be an acquittal, the party accused had a right to a copy of the depositions.
Dr. Nichollsaid, such was not the case before the grand jury.
The Attorney Generaldid not think that a parallel case. No object could be gained by refusing a copy of the depositions. The party might attend by himself or his agent, cross-examine the witnesses, and take down an account of everything sworn against him. The amendment would give an authentic instead of a garbled account. He hoped the bill would pass. It was paying a small price for a very great boon. He trusted also that before next Session the 340 courts would be consolidated, their jurisdiction curtailed, and
1216
rendered more suitable to the present temper of the times.
The Committee divided on the question that the clause as originally framed stand part of the bill:—Ayes 20; Noes 43:—Majority 23.

List of the AYES.

Acland, T. D.

Neeld, J.

Archdall, M.

Norreys, Lord

Ashley, Lord

Perceval, Colonel

Boldero, H. G.

Pusey, P.

Broadley, H.

Richards, R.

East, J. B.

Sandon, Viscount

Estcourt, T.

Somerset, Lord G.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Teignmouth, Lord

Hamilton, Lord C.

Heathcote, G. J.

TELLERS.

Herbert, hon. S.

Kemble, H.

Irton, S.

Nicholl, J.

List of the NOES.

Baines, E.

Lushington, C.

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Lushington, rt. hn. S.

Barnard, E. G.

Morpeth, Viscount

Briscoe, J. I.

Morris, D.

Brocklehurst, J.

Muntz, G. F.

Brotherton, J.

Muskett, G. A.

Bryan, G.

Paget, F.

Callaghan, D.

Palmerston, Viscount

Campbell, Sir J.

Pattison, J.

Courtenay, P.

Protheroe, E.

Divett, E.

Roche, W.

Euston, Earl of

Russell, Lord J.

Evans, Sir De L.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Smith, R. V.

Gordon, R.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Grattan, J.

Stock, Dr.

Harcourt, G. G.

Style, Sir C.

Hawes, B.

Thornley, T.

Hector, C. J.

Vigors, N. A.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Yates, J. A.

Hoskins, K.

TELLERS.

Hume, J.

Ewart, J.

Hutton, R.

Warburton, H.

Clause amended and agreed to.
House resumed. Bill to be reported.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND).
Viscount Morpeth Viscount Morpeth moved the Order of the Day for the consideration of the Lords' amendments to the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill. He had to state, that the bill now sent down from the House of Lords (owing partly to the state in which it was originally brought in, and partly to the points of agreement which had been arrived at by the two Houses of Parliament in previous years) in its present shape differed far less from the bill sent up to the House of Lords than had been the case in preceding years. At the same time he could not

1217
conceal from himself, that in the bill as it now stood, as amended by the other House, there were still some points in which that House had felt itself called on to differ from the other House in previous years; so that he could not now state on grounds of abstract principle that the reasons of that difference were removed. He alluded particularly to the permanent establishment of a rated qualification of 10 l., and to the alteration in the mode of electing sheriffs. But, taking a general view of the whole past history and of the present position of this question, of the approximation which had been gradually arrived at between the two great political parties in the State, of the reciprocal advance made towards each other on each side, of the feeling of satiety which it could not be dissembled had begun to overspread the whole subject, and, above all, of the balance of indubitable good to be obtained from passing the bill, and of the amount of actual mischief thus to be got rid of, the Government did feel, and he trusted that House would also feel, that it would be expedient to bring this much discussed and long-pending question to issue. Therefore it was with this view, and in this spirit, that he now invited the attention of the House to the consideration of the amendments agreed to by the House of Lords; and he stated fairly, that he should not call on the House to disagree from any of those amendments which involved party differences between party politicians and between the two Houses of Parliament. He should confine himself to points of mere detail connected with the machinery and practical working of the measure, and having thus explained the spirit in which he wished the House to deal with the amendments, they had, perhaps, be better put as they arose, and when they occurred his hon. Friend, the Solicitor-general for Ireland, would state the words of such simple alterations as they proposed to make in the amendments of the other House of Parliament.
Mr. J. Grattanthought, that the Lords' amendments as to the rating of 10 l. and as to the mode of electing sheriffs objectionable. Many persons would not be enabled to enjoy the franchise for twelve months. He should move the reinsertion of the words in the bill relating to the Recorder of Dublin, and also empowering the Lord-lieutenant
1218
to direct quarter sessions to be held. He strongly objected to the striking out of that clause which would prevent the Recorder of Dublin having a seat in that House. That gentleman was a violent partisan, and neglected his duties as a judge to come over there and vote for the Tories. The question was, whether that judge should be week after week discharging the unfortunate prisoners in the gaols, or sitting there (the House of Commons) night after night. He conceived that the Recorder's first duty was to perform the functions for which he was paid. Measures of this kind lost the respect of the people of Ireland to that House; and if the Recorder of Dublin were not prevented, as a judge, from having a seat in that House, the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin would be justified, that they dealt out one measure of justice to England and another to Ireland, as they were about to exclude the Member for the Tower Hamlets from a seat in that House because he was a judge.
Mr. W. Rocheon the whole was disposed to take these amendments after the five years' struggle which the measure had led to, feeling as he did that the bill in its present shape would break up that most vicious and mischievous system which had so long prevailed in Ireland, though it would fail to build up in the place of the old corporations institutions of a perfectly sound and satisfactory character. He objected to the 10 l. franchise fixed by the bill, and he also thought, that the appointment of sheriffs ought to have been left in the hands of the town-councils. He therefore gave a reluctant consent to the adoption of the bill as amended by the other House of Parliament.
Amendments read a first time and agreed to.
Mr. Pigotsaid, that by the bill, as it originally stood, the Crown was empowered to grant charters to towns upon the petition of a majority of the rated inhabitants. The other House of Parliament, in amending this particular clause, had limited the power of petitioning for a charter to those inhabitants who were rated at 10 l., or, in other words, to the constituency by which the town-council was to be elected. On this he had an amendment to propose, to the effect which would give the right of petitioning for or refusing a charter, not only to those

1219
who could elect the council by which a borough-rate could be made, bat to reserve the option to those who would have to pay that rate. The hon. and learned Member then moved a proviso to this effect, which was agreed to.
On the Lords' amendments which exempted the Recorder's Court of Dublin from the liability of having its periods of sitting increased by the Lord-lieutenant,
Viscount Morpethsaid, that though he did not see any ground for the exemption in favour of the recordership of Dublin, still, considering the spirit in which the amendments had been sent down from the other House, he would put it to the hon. Member for Wicklow not to press the House to a division upon this point. However, after what had already occurred with respect to judges not having seats in that House, and when the Lord-lieutenant should have had sufficient time to take cognizance of the wants of Dublin upon this, to inform himself as to the state of the gaols and the number of prisoners in them, if it were shown that it would be important to have more frequent gaol deliveries, it would then become the duty of Government to look to the matter.
Colonel Percevalwas highly gratified with the course which had been taken by the noble Lord with respect to those amendments, but must repudiate the insinuation that the Duke of Wellington had been influenced in the course which he adopted with respect to this amendment by any personal feeling towards the right hon. and learned Gentleman. That right hon. and learned Gentleman's judicial conduct was above all imputation, and he would appeal to the noble Lord opposite, and ask whether Government could possibly find fault with it. He must express his approbation of the amendments sent down from the other House.
Lord John Russelldid not object to the first part of what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but when it was insinuated that the clause as the bill was sent up to the other House was inserted for the purpose of throwing a stigma upon the judicial character of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Recorder of Dublin, he felt himself called upon to disavow that such had been the intention. He was sorry that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should entertain such an opinion, and he likewise regretted that it should be entertained in the other
1220
House of Parliament by the greatest man now living He was sorry for this, as there was no shadow of foundation for such an opinion. For his own part, he did not think that the situation of judge incapacitated the person holding it from being a Member of Parliament. Indeed, he should be sorry to lose the assistance of men of their talent and influence. This opinion he had mentioned before, and in doing so, he took occasion to name the right hon. Recorder of Dublin as one of those to whom he alluded. There, however, appeared to exist some difference of opinion upon this subject, and the objections were extended to the Recorder of London, whose official duties could scarcely be said to interfere with those which he owed to that House. It was another question how far the judicial duties of the Recorder of Dublin, were incompatible with his functions as a Member of Parliament. He did not wish that this question should be made matter of party contest. Since it had been made matter of dispute elsewhere, he was very glad that his hon. and learned Friend had agreed that it was better to omit the original clause. But he never could carry his opinion in favour of a judge sitting in that House to the extent, that in order to enable him to be a Member of that House, they should take away from his efficiency as a judge, and require in him a less attendance upon the seat of justice than they required of any other man. That was a principle which it was utterly impossible to support. There was no doubt, as stated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, that the Recorder of Dublin performed his duties as a judge in a most satisfactory manner; but that was not precisely the question. The question was, by how frequent attendances those duties ought to be performed. When that question should come forward in a separate form, they must take care to provide that those judicial duties be performed at stated times. If it should be found, that the due performance of them was incompatible with the functions of a Member of Parliament, that would be a reason for modifying his opinion in this case, and saying that such a judge should not be a Member of that House. To exclude from that House by act of Parliament, a Judge of the Admiralty Court because he was a judge, and at the same time to say respecting the Recorder of

1221
Dublin, that it was no matter how his duties were performed, or at what time he attended to perform them—to say that respecting a judge who voted and made speeches in favour of a particular party, and to contravene by the strength of that party a principle which upon other and greater grounds had been insisted upon, was certainly not a consistent course, or one which he was prepared to sanction.
Amendments agreed to, and managers were appointed to conduct a conference with the Lords on the subject of the said amendments and amendments thereto.

POLISH REFUGEES.
Viscount Sandonrose to bring under the consideration of the House the case of certain Polish Refugees who had lately come into this country, and which, he said, he was induced to do solely upon the common principles of humanity, He could not appeal to the justice of the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the nature of the case would not allow him to do so, but he would appeal to his feelings of generosity and charity. It was not now a question whether a miserable pittance should be granted by that House for the support of those individuals who were suffering exile from their country for the sake of its independence. It had long ago been decided that the hand of charity should be extended to them with kindness and consideration. With this view, a vote had been taken in 1834 for 10,000 l., at which time the number of Polish refugees on the list was 466. The following year the number was 477, and the year after, 462; thereby showing, that the assistance afforded by Parliament had not been such as to induce any influx of those unfortunate persons into this country. In the following year, took place the events of Cracow which had the effect of driving to our shores a considerable number more of Polish refugees; and in consequence of the strong recommendations which were made by men of all parties in Parliament, Parliament had been induced to increase the vote from 10,000 l. to 15,000 l. The number of refugees then upon the Government list, was upwards of 600. Whether by death or by departure from this country, that number had since been diminished by about 165. The prayer he had now to prefer was in behalf of 52 others who had recently arrived, and whom he hoped the
1222
Chancellor of the Exchequer would not allow to starve in our streets, but suffer them to become participators in the liberality of Parliament. He did not ask the right hon. Gentleman to increase the vote in the slightest degree. He merely asked him to consider the case of those fifty-two individuals who were only as one to three compared with the diminution that had taken place, and to extend to them, if he should find it possible, the benefit of the vote he was about to take. He asked for no additional vote, or for anything that might induce others to come here. He only required that where three claimants had, been got rid of one might be added. The sum allowed by this country was not superior to that of other countries, and held out no particular inducement to those unfortunate refugees. There was a general impression, that all Polish refugees were under the protection of Parliament, and receiving Parliamentary assistance. The sources of private benevolence being thus dried up, it was in vain to expect, that the means of subsistence could be obtained for those on whose behalf he pleaded, otherwise than through the Government. It was scarcely necessary for him to tell the House, that those persons had been driven from their country by political persecution, that they had not the means of returning to the places from whence they came, and that, not speaking the English language, they could not of themselves make out a livelihood in this country. He felt, that to refuse the prayer of these fifty sufferers in the cause of national independence, and to allow them to perish at our doors, merely for the sake of not infringing the rule, which prohibited persons who arrived in this country after a certain period from being put upon the list, would be a disgrace to a country which had a character for generosity to maintain.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the House would recollect that it had, in the first instance, voted 7,000 l. for this purpose, and that it had been stated by those who asked for the vote, that it was for one year only, and that no further application would be made. When that year expired, the House again gave way. Then an application was made to extend the vote for a certain number of years, and his noble Friend, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, had stipulated that it | should only include those persons who

1223
were then in this country, otherwise it would hold out an inducement to other individuals to come. His noble Friend and the House again gave way. Then the Cracow affair occurred, and, the case being pressed upon Ministers and the House, they gave v. ay a third time. They had first granted the vote for a year, then made it a permanent vote, and then gave way in the Cracow case. Now, the House was asked to give way a fourth or fifth time, and unless a line were drawn, he did not see where it would end. At this moment they were, in fact, paying new claimants, the families of the original refugees. If cases of distress occurred, means would be found to relieve them. He believed that these public votes did, in fact, stop private benevolence. He could not, however, agree with the noble Lord in considering the sum which had been granted a "miserable pittance," or that this country had acted ungenerously in the matter; already 70,000 l. or 80,000 l. had been voted. However disagreeable it might be to appear obstinate, he was bound to give a denial to the noble Lord.
Sir F. Burdettfelt great interest for these unfortunate individuals, who, notwithstanding their heroic exertions, and that their character and conduct were untarnished, had nothing to subsist upon but the miserable pittance granted by the House of Commons. He thought it would be discreditable to the House if it refused a relief which would not increase the burthens of the country. He understood that there were only about fifty persons who sought relief, and a great number of old claims had been obliterated. He flattered himself that the House, considering the feeling it generally showed in these cases, and that the Administration also, would think it discreditable to the country to reject a claim for so trifling an additional relief for persons who had not disgraced themselves—persons of the most virtuous character, who had sacrificed their all in the hope of defending their country, the independence of which had been guaranteed by the other powers of Europe. He should hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, after a little reflection, feel no difficulty in conceding the relief desired towards a few persons who had such strong claims upon the liberality and the charity of the House.
Mr. R. Gordonconsidered that the
1224
giving of 78.000 l. to the Poles in a few years could hardly be considered a "miserable pittance." If additions were constantly to be made to the list, he did not know where they were to stop, and he trusted, therefore, the House would not express so strong an opinion upon the matter as had been expressed by the noble Lord.
The matter dropped.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Population; Mi-
1194
litia Ballots Suspension; Militia Pay.—Read a second time:—Marriages Act Amendment; Loan Societies; Clergy Reserves (Canada).—Read a third time:—Toll on Lime; County Constabulary.
Petitions presented. By the Bishop of Exeter, from Beverley, Stockton-on-Tees, Durham, Sedgley, Darlington, Newmarket, and Kingston (Upper Canada), and other places, against the Clergy Reserves (Canada) Bill; and from the Ononaga, and other tribes of North American Indians, for the Support and Extension of the Church or England in Upper Canada—By Lord Colborne, from Inhabitants of St. Giles's-in-the-Fields, against the Metropolis Improvement Bill.—By Lord Lyndhurst, from two Individuals, for Compensation in the event of the Irish Municipal Bill becoming Law; and from certain Inhabitants of St. George's, Hanover-square, against the Parochial Assessment Bill.—By the Marquess of Londonderry, from Members of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Ireland, and from Aberdeen, against Ecclesiastical Patronage.—By the Marquess of Lansdowne, and Lord Brougham, from Leeds, and another place, against the Encouragement of Idolatry in India.—By the Earl of Devon, from the Incorporated Law Society, to remove the Law Courts from Westminster-hall to Lincoln's-inn-fields.

COURTS OF EQUITY.
Lord Brougham Lord Brougham moved the second reading of the bill for facilitating the Administration of Justice in the Court of Chancery.
Lord Langdale: My Lords, I beg leave to express my approbation of this bill, and my hope that it may pass into a law during the present Session. If this bill had, as was intended, formed part of the bill for facilitating the administration of justice which lately passed this House—and if it had been followed by the bill for the regulation of the Chancery offices, which my noble and learned Friend on the woolsack has promised to introduce in the next Session—it might have been hoped, that the powers which this bill proposes to confer on the judges of the Court of Chancery, would have produced very extensive benefit. I am afraid, that without the increase of judicial power which was intended by the late bill, and without the power to regulate offices held by persons who have vested interests and to give compensation, the good to be effected by this bill will not be very great—but still it will enable the judges to do some useful things which they cannot now effectuate, and that alone is with me a sufficient reason for supporting the bill. But I confess, that my principal reason for wishing the bill to pass now, arises from what is to me the unintelligible withdrawal of the bill for facilitating the administration of justice from, the other House of Parliament. The urgent nature of that bill had been acknowledged by all; and the circumstances under which it passed this House, were, (considering the subject), not a little remarkable—there was an entire abandonment not

1195
only of all party feelings, but even of all personal feeling and peculiarities of opinion. Every noble Lord who attended to the subject was willing to forget himself and his own peculiar notions—to give up something which he might individually think desirable, or to agree to something which he might individually think rather more than necessary, for the sake of procuring a general concurrence in a most important measure, intended to redress grievances which required the most early attention—and that a bill so passed should have been voluntarily withdrawn, has unavoidably excited not only deep regret, but the greatest surprise. What justification or what excuse is there for a proceeding so extraordinary? No reason deserving the least attention has been assigned. There are those who will naturally suppose that this proceeding must have arisen either from ignorance of the nature and pressure of the grievance intended to be redressed—or from an insensibility to the suffering meant to be relieved—and my principal reason for desiring to pass this bill now, and with this rapidity, is, that it will afford to the country and to the suitors of the Court of Chancery some slight pledge, some earnest however small, that the Legislature is not indifferent to the evils which have been proved to exist in the Court of Chancery.
Bill read a second time.
Lord Brougham moved that the standing orders be suspended.
Bill read a third time.
On the question that it do pass,
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, he should very much like to know what the noble Viscount's intentions were with respect to this subject.
Viscount Melbournelamented as deeply as any noble Lord, that the bill which had been sent down to the Commons was not passed in the present Session. He fully admitted the urgency of the case, and that it was desirable to provide a remedy for the evils which that bill was intended to meet. The simple reason why the measure was not proceeded with this Session was, because it would undoubtedly have led to a greater extent of discussion than was convenient, or, in fact, than they would have been able to get through at this late period of the Session. Unquestionably, there did prevail great difference of opinion on the question, which would have been debated with all
1196
the ability, and would have excited all the interest, that such a subject was naturally calculated to call forth. The magnitude of the bill, the certainty that it would give rise to much discussion, and the inconvenience which at this period of the Session would arise from taking such a course, were the only reasons that prevented the bill from being proceeded with.
Lord Lyndhurstexpressed his belief, that if the noble Viscount had pressed the measure, no opposition whatever would have been offered to it. The rumour was, that the bill had been stopped by the law officers of the Crown, and some claims that had been made on Ministers. He knew from personal communication, that there was no intention on the part of any one to oppose the bill.
Lord Broughamsaid, there seemed to be a misunderstanding with respect to what had taken place on this subject. The bill which had gone down from their Lordships' House was not withdrawn. It was proposed, that it should be read a second time on the 31st of August. If, therefore, Parliament was prorogued before that day, it could not be read a second time. That being the case, their Lordships might now send down this, the second bill. If a disposition existed to agree to a measure for the better administration of justice (and where there was a will there was a way)—if both sides were anxious to take that course, what was to prevent the other House from ingrafting on the present bill the provisions of the original bill, which now stood for a second reading on the 3lst of August? Thus that which was said to be the object of all parties, might, if they were sincere, be easily effected. His noble Friend at the head of the Government said, the rumours to which his noble and learned Friend referred were utterly without foundation ["No, no," from Lord Lyndhurst]; well, then, that his noble Friend thought them without foundation. Now, it was easy to put these statements to the test, for if the Government were still desirous that the provisions of the measure should become law during the present Session, it would be easy for his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies to ingraft upon the present bill, when it reached the other House, the most important parts of the measure, the second reading of which had been postponed, and if those who sat on the Opposition side of the House were anxious,

1197
according to the representation of his noble and learned Friend, for the success of the measure, they might agree to such a course being taken, and in this way the difficulty would be got rid of.
Bill passed.

DISTURBANCES IN LIMERICK—PALLASKENRY AFFAIR.
The Earl of Charlevillesaid, that in rising to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice, he must throw himself on the lenient indulgence of their Lordships. Nothing could have induced him to bring forward the subject if he had believed the case to which he was about to refer was one merely of individual wrong, or was confined to that particular locality of Ireland to which he should presently allude. He believed, on the contrary, that the case had a general effect on the peace, security, and tranquillity of a great part of that country, if not the whole of it; and he should not have been satisfied of having discharged his duty, if he had shrunk from the performance of it, by not calling the attention of their Lordships to this subject. On more than one occasion during this Session of Parliament he had felt it to be his duty to call the attention of their Lordships to the disturbed state of the county of Limerick; and, to prevent any misunderstanding on the part of any noble Lord, he wished now to define the limits of the district which was so disturbed. It was from the Hill of Kilbreedy, which was the centre of the barony of Kenry, to an extent of about six or seven Irish miles around it. The disturbances which took place in that district had been increasing for the last eighteen months, until they had reached a most unparalleled extent. In 1838 in that particular district there were four attacks on houses for the purpose of robbery of arms. In 1839, to the month of September, there were fifteen attacks on houses for the same purpose. From September last year to the 1st of April in the present year, there were twenty-two similar attacks on houses; and from the 1st of April last up to the present time there had been twenty-five other cases of the same kind reported to him. But that was one species of crime only, independent of all others—such as shooting with intent to kill; threatening to do bodily harm; shooting at horses; cropping of horses; and the serving of Rockite notices, all of which were to be added to
1198
the catalogue of crimes in that disturbed district. Under these circumstances it became necessary to call a meeting of magistrates of the county, and they assembled to the number of twenty-six in the city of Limerick. That meeting was not of a sectarian or party character. Gentlemen of all political opinions were there—holding the commission of the peace. They had all admitted the disturbed state of the county, and had all subscribed their money to obtain secret information of the perpetrators of those crimes. The most frightful circumstance connected with those crimes was, that the greatest part of them had been perpetrated without the possibility to detecting and bringing the offenders of justice. The chair at that meeting was occupied by the hon. Mr. Massey, a gentleman of Conservative opinions. Sir D. Roche, a Member of the other House of Parliament, and holding what he might be allowed in the terms of the day to call very liberal opinions, moved one of the resolutions; and that resolution was seconded by the O'Grady, a supporter of her Majesty's present Government. Since that time a number of persons had subscribed their money, amongst whom was one of the Members for the county, Colonel Fitzgibbon, and a noble Earl connected with the Government, whom he did not then see in his place—he alluded to the noble Earl who was Master of the Horse to her Majesty. He trusted he had said enough to show that there was nothing like a party feeling in that assemblage of magistrates; that it was not the design of any one party, nor on the motion of any influential individual, that they met together to take into consideration the state of that part of the country, and the lawless insurrectionary disturbances that had taken place. Unfortunately, that state of this particular district continued, and notwithstanding the meeting to which he had referred, and the sums of money that were subscribed on that occasion, the effect was not such as those Gentlemen had been led to hope and expect. They therefore found it necessary to summon a second meeting of the local magistracy on the 15th of May at the town of Pallaskenry. Lord Clarina was in the chair, and a great number of the local gentry attended. There were also present on that occasion three officers connected with the Government—Mr. Redmond, who held the situation of a

1199
stipendiary magistrate; Mr. Blake, a sub-inspector of the county; and Mr. Jackson, the chief constable of that district. One of the magistrates who was at that meeting, Mr. Langford, made a statement as to the state of crime, insecurity of life and property, in the particular district to which he had alluded. Was that statement disproved? Were those facts contravened or attempted to be denied by any gentleman connected with the police force or the Government? No such thing. Mr. Redmond admitted the state of crime, deplored it, and entertained hopes of restoring peace and tranquillity. Those hopes had been frustrated. The Government poured in additional police. The stations were doubled or trebled, and, as he was informed, almost every house and every field in the neighbourhood were patrolled. But that Gentleman plainly admitted the existence of those outrages; he admitted, that the night before the meeting of the magistrates he had captured several men, and he gave the names of the police constables who assisted him in making that capture. His advice to the unpaid magistrates and to the gentlemen of Limerick was, that they should pay the police. "Let the police," he says, "be rewarded, and then the gentlemen of the county might urge them to do their duty—they would then have a claim upon them." Was that suitable advice to be given by a man sent down by the Government to observe and control the proceedings of the local justices? Mr. Jackson had been called to account for his conduct; which was a direct and manifest disobedience of the police regulations: he was bound to inform the nearest magistrate of any facts coming to his knowledge which might in any manner endanger the peace of the country. Instead, however, of paying attention to those rules, he was in the habit of passing over all the magistrates in his neighbourhood, and sending to Mr. Redmond, at a distance of nine miles. What reason did he assign for such conduct at the meeting at Pallaskenry? Neither more nor less than this—that when he resided in the county of Kerry, he had been received upon the footing of a gentleman, but from the time of his coming into the county of Limerick he experienced none of the hospitality to which he had previously been accustomed. None of the gentlemen in that county waited upon him or invited
1200
him to their houses, and he had, as he said, too much spirit to force himself into their society. Thus did this gentleman account for neglecting his duty, on the ground that he did not receive as many invitations to dinner as he thought he had a right to expect. Now, he would ask their Lordships, was it upon the representations or the reports of such a person that the character of a gentleman like Mr. Langford was to be assailed? He trusted it would appear that the noble Marquess had no charges to make against Mr. Langford, except such as were founded upon the reports of Mr. Jackson, and that the Government would acknowledge that such reports were not to be relied upon. It would now become necessary for him to trouble the House by calling their attention to a very short letter, bearing date the 29th of April, 1840; from Mr. W. T. Hamilton to Mr. J. E. Langford, and was in these terms:—
"It appears by a report from Sub-Inspector Jackson, that by your directions a search for arras was made under your warrant, and a gun and a shot-pouch taken from the rear of Michael Madigan's house. In reference to this search, I am instructed by the Crown counsel to inform you that the warrant now in your possession will not justify your searching for arms at so long an interval from its date."
Before he proceeded, he must say, that there were other papers connected with the subject for which he had called also, but which had not been laid upon the table of the House. The noble Marquess said, that there were no such papers as those for which he had moved; to that he should reply, that they were produced at the meeting at Pallaskenry by the stipendiary magistrate after a discussion of two hours and a half. The letter went on in these words:—
"But if you think it necessary that a new warrant should be issued, the proper course will be to transmit the usual application, according to the provisions of the Arms Act, 50 of George 3rd, c. 109, s. 2. With regard to the documents found on searching Michael Wheelan's house, I am to request that you will state whether you have taken any, and what, proceedings against him."
By the second section of the 50th of George 3rd, cap. 109, it was enacted, that two justices, on having good grounds for suspecting that arms were unlawfully in the possession of any person or persons, might report thereon to the Lord-lieutenant, and that the Government might

1201
then use their own discretion. He admitted that Mr. Langford had not acted under this statute; the warrant in question had been issued in the course of the preceding year. Whether the practice in Ireland might be right or might be wrong, he should not then stop to discuss, but there was no sort of uncertainty as to the existence of the practice in that part of the United Kingdom with regard to warrants of this description. When they were once granted, they were allowed to continue in force for an unlimited period, and there was certainly nothing in the Act of Parliament to define the limit, or in any manner to specify the time during which those warrants were to remain in force. The uniform practice was for the magistrates to act upon those warrants so long as the districts in which they resided continued disturbed. Unless it appeared that the conduct of a magistrate was influenced by some improper motive, he must say that it would be meeting out a severe measure of justice to address him in terms of such reprehension as those which had been used towards Mr. Langford in the letter written to him by the Irish Government. In his opinion, it was a letter which, considering the state of the country, and the circumstances under which it had been written, must be looked upon as altogether indefensible. The fact was, that Mr. Langford required no warrant whatever; the state of the country was such as fully to justify him in the course which he had taken. Looking at the disturbances which prevailed, and receiving information which appeared to afford grounds for suspicion, he was fully warranted in making the search which he had instituted. It would really appear that he had only been guilty of that which, after all, was a mere technical mistake; for by the third section of the Act, he might have acted upon his own authority without the co-operation of any other magistrate. Let the House only reflect upon the number of crimes committed in that part of the country, and he was sure they would agree with him, that instead of reprehension, Mr. Langford deserved the thanks of the Government, as he had received those of his brother magistrates. Mr. Langford thought himself justified in the use of the warrant for a certain length of time, and at the most he was guilty of that which was merely an error of judgment. He might defy any one to show
1202
that he had been influenced by any motives save those which sprung from a wish to preserve the peace and tranquillity of the country. Mr. Langford had been asked, why he had not proceeded against the elder Wheelan? Two of Wheelan's sons had been sent to prison, a third had absconded, but the father bore an excellent character, and Mr. Langford saw no grounds for proceeding against him. Some papers were found at the house of the Wheelans which appeared to justify the idea that the regulations of the Riband societies demanded from the persons admitted to them evidence of sober habits, whereupon the Temperance Society of Limerick addressed the Lord-lieutenant, disclaiming any connexion between ribandism and temperance societies imploring an investigation into the alleged document purporting to be found in the house of John Wheelan, which they were convinced was fabricated, and previously placed in concealment, by some vile incendiary. The Irish Government, then, addressed a letter to Mr. Langford, directing him to institute an investigation, but Mr. Langford declined; and he thought had exercised a sound discretion. By the 2nd and 3rd of the Queen, cap. 74, it must be proved that papers relating to Ribandism were in the possession of a man with full and guilty knowledge on his part, before he could be made the subject of a prosecution. In order that their Lordships should more clearly understand this part of the case, he should call their attention to a letter, dated the 26th of May, 1840, from Mr. Redmond to Mr. Hamilton, which was as follows:—
"In reference to your letter of the 20th inst., informing me that it was his Excellency's desire that I should attend the inquiry directed to take place at Pallaskenry, relative to the documents found in the house of John Wheelan, of Kildimo, I think it my duty to acquaint you, for his Excellency's information, that considerable excitement and expectation prevail in consequence of the approaching inquiry, and the charges and assertions of Mr. Langford, at the meeting of some magistrates, &c, at Pallaskenry, on the 14th inst.; and to suggest to his Excellency's consideration whether it would not be advisable to extend the inquiry to the finding of the blunderbuss, &c, by Mr. Langford on the night previous to the meeting above referred to. I have been informed that the Temperance Society intend having the aid of the legal profession at the inquiry, and I would apprehend the introduction of irrelevant discussion and examination to probe Mr.

1203
Langford's motives, &c, and I would, therefore, wish to have the Attorney-general's directions as to the extent of the direct and cross examinations which should be permitted, if the bench should hear evidence on the part of Wheelan, or merely take the informations, suffering the witnesses for the prosecution to be cross-examined; if his Excellency should wish the evidence to be taken down, and should he approve of having it extended as I have suggested, is Mr. Langford to be examined on oath, and required to state his informant's name privately under the sanction of his oath, and if he may be cross-examined? Considering the circumstances I have stated, and the political character endeavoured to be fixed upon the late outrages, it might be worthy of the consideration of his Excellency whether it would not be advisable to send down counsel to preside over the inquiry."
What that gentleman meant by the "political character endeavoured to be fixed on the late outrages," he knew not; but he hoped he had proved to their Lordships' satisfaction that there was nothing political in the first transaction, nor in the second meeting, nor in the subsequent investigation. It was not enough, however, to have it insinuated that the papers and the blunderbuss had been improperly seized: Mr. Redmond wrote to the Lord-lieutenant asking if his Excellency wished the evidence to be taken down, and whether he desired to have the inquiry extended, so as to call upon Mr. Langford to state who his informant was, and further whether Mr. Langford was to be cross-examined. Why, what was the object of that? To make Mr. Langford give up the name of his secret informant. What was the consequence? That Mr. Langford would be unable to do his duty as a magistrate in the detection and punishment of offenders against the laws and the peace of the country, because, as a necessary consequence, the source whence he derived his information must be destroyed. The attempt of the Temperance Society to free itself from identification with the papers found in Wheelan's house was a most miserable failure. Wheelan himself did not deny, that they were found in his House; nor was any witness worthy of credit brought forward to prove that they were fabricated. There was no evidence to prove that the papers found at Wheelan's house were placed there without his authority, and at a meeting of magistrates a resolution to that effect was adopted. Mr. Redmond had stated that the decision of the magistrates was a
1204
matter of great indifference to him, and he had made use of an observation which was exceedingly unpleasant to all the local justices—namely, "that he was intrusted with the preservation of the peace of the county." Intrusted by whom? Had these magistrates been superseded in their commission? Were they considered by the Government to be unworthy to hold office as magistrates any longer? Mr. Redmond afterwards wrote to the Government, stating that he felt convinced that there was no Riband combination in the county, and that the evidence which had been gathered went clearly to show that the disturbances were agrarian, and not political. But he remembered that in 1838 the noble Marquess himself said there was no political conspiracy going on in Ireland. He was much mistaken however, if the noble Marquess would persist in that declaration now, especially after hearing the facts which he had stated to the House. The proceedings already taken seemed to have produced some effect, for he found that on the 20th of June last a letter was written by Mr. Macdonald, the Under Secretary for Ireland, which commenced in the following manner:—
"Upon an attentive consideration of the evidence taken on the late inquiry at Pallaskenry, and of the several documents connected with it, and with other recent transactions in that district, the Lord-lieutenant regrets to observe that a magistrate, to whom the thanks of a public meeting were voted on the 15th of May, appears to have exercised arbitrary powers not warranted by law, and subversive of the just rights of the subject. First, by making a search for arms in April, 1840 under the authority of a warrant granted in March, 1839, contrary to the intention of the statute under which those warrants are granted, and to the whole spirit of British legislation respecting general warrants. If in your opinion such powers were called for on the late occasion, you ought to have asked for them afresh in the usual manner, stating your reasons for considering them necessary.
That was contrary to the spirit of the first letter, dated the 29th of April, for by that letter it was held out to him, that if he had applied for a fresh warrant, it would have been granted to him. What was the object of that proceeding? It was to lead him on to make another application, in order to enable the Government to heap fresh insult upon this Gentleman, and to visit him with increased marks of its displeasure. He did apply for the warrant, and he stated the necessity for such a

1205
warrant being issued. What was the reply he received from the Irish Government? A reply more hurtful to his feelings because sent through a third party—another magistrate. In that reply the Government admitted the disturbed state of the county, but would consent that the warrant should be given to any magistrate of the whole county except Mr. Langford. Any other single magistrate might execute the warrant, but he, on account of his conduct in bringing Madigan and Wheelan to justice, in detecting them in a crime for which they were sentenced to death—a sentence which was afterwards commuted to transportation for life. But that gentleman enjoyed the full confidence of all the loyal and well-disposed inhabitants of the county for his vigilance in detecting offenders, for his courage and determination in prosecuting and punishing the disaffected, and for his zeal in endeavouring, by all means in his power, to restore peace to that distracted district. But when it was known that the name of Mr. Langford was to be excluded from that warrant, Mr. Maunsell, of Torpo, wrote back to the Government, saying that the person who was in possession of the secret information which had led to the discovery of the arms, and the individuals who had secret possession of them, was Mr. Langford, and he therefore could not undertake the responsibility of executing the warrant, because he had only allowed his name to be appended to it on account of his great confidence in Mr. Langford, as the person who was really competent to bring the offenders to justice. Mr. Maunsell, therefore, begged to withdraw, as he had no power to be of service. The Government then stood still a whole fortnight, and had Mr. Langford done the same, the offenders never would have been brought to justice. That very day week a gun was found, and taken from the very spot where Mr. Langford, from information he had received, expected to find it. The noble Marquess had on a former occasion alluded to the murder of Mr. Dawson, and had said that no person was now threatened with the fate of that unfortunate gentleman. But still the noble Marquess would not assist those who, by their precautionary measures, would prevent such crimes, or by vigilant inquiry would detect and bring to punishment those who were guilty of them. The Government determined upon confining the
1206
proceedings of the magistrates strictly within the letter of the law. What was the consequence? Although a magistrate (Mr. Wallace, of Tullamore) had acted in strict accordance with the Act of Parliament, and the usual practice in sending an information respecting the unlawful possession of fire-arms by certain parties in the King's County, and had made known to the Government authorities the desperate character of the people, the reply which was sent back was dated as follows:—
"Dublin Castle, Jan. 20, 1840.
"Sir, I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 13th inst. enclosing an information with regard to concealed arms, which I have laid before the Crown counsel, who inquires if the persons named in the Information have registered the arms alluded to? If not, that fact should be stated in the Information. The Information should also state some ground for his belief as to the arms being in possession of the parties named; and the Crown council would not advise that an Information, not containing such statements should be acted on. I have the honor, &c.
"T. DRUMMOND."
Considering the great difficulty, and almost entire impossibility, of obtaining evidence to convict persons upon their trial for offences of which there was no moral doubt that they were guilty, it was too much to expect, that crime would be diminished if the means of detecting it were thus to be circumscribed. It was sworn before the Committee of Inquiry into the state of Ireland last year, by a nobleman who filled the office of a local magistrate,
"That he never took an Information without fearing that the man who gave the information was likely to suffer before the person against whom the information was given."
If the magistrates in question had acted imprudently, or had fallen into an error of judgment, that was all that could be alleged against him. But he had not been guilty of any partial or oppressive conduct. Look at the conduct of Mr. Barnes at Longford. He was not going to attack the character of that magistrate. Mr. Barnes, whose case was well known to the noble Marquess, took every means to conceal the source whence he got his information. That Gentleman took a fearful responsibility upon himself, and he did not, neither did the Government, blame him. On the contrary, the

1207
noble Marquess felt himself obliged to support him in the discharge of his duty. Well, then, was he (the Earl of Charleville) asking too much when he said, do not condemn the conduct of Mr. Langford, or treat him with unnecessary violence, or deprive him of the power of protecting the unfortunate people of that disturbed county, his crime being only that of searching the House of a criminal person for arms, and finding arms concealed there? Mr. Barnes kept a suspected person in gaol eight months for re-examination; but in this case, the persons suspected were immediately proved to be guilty, were tried and convicted before a proper tribunal, and sentenced to death, a sentence which was afterwards reduced to transportation for life. He did not intend to censure the conduct of Mr. Barnes; but when it was admitted and allowed that such conduct should be pursued, although it was contrary to the spirit and letter of the law, was it, he repeated, too much to say that the conduct of Mr. Langford was entitled to still greater licence and protection? Not only had Mr. Langford succeeded in searching out offenders, but in bringing them to trial and conviction; and he thought the objection as to the expiration of the first warrant scarcely tenable, for in point of fact it could have had no legal expiration while it remained unexecuted. He thought he did not ask too much in asking that some reparation should be made to that gentleman, but for the sake of the peace and safety of all the inhabitants of that disturbed and distracted country. Among other papers for which he had to move was the correspondence which took place between the Irish government and Sir Aubrey de Vere, the chairman of the justices who conducted the investigation at Pallaskenry. He could not admit that a magistrate sitting as chairman of n bench of justices was at liberty to make any report on the conduct of one of the gentlemen over whom he presided, without acquainting him with it, and if any charges were made against Mr. Langford by his brother magistrates—most worthy gentlemen, he admitted—it was but fair and just that Mr. Langford should see them. Mr. Langford had written to him (the Earl of Charleville), and stated to him that he had good reason to believe, from a conversation which he had held with Sir Aubrey de Vere, that such a report had been transmitted to the
1208
Lord-lieutenant, but that Sir Aubrey de Vere had refused to state the contents of his communication, urging that the letter was private, and that Mr. Langford had no right to ask the question. He must repeat, therefore, that Mr. Langford had a right to know what was the report which had been made by the chairman of the magistrates, and he should conclude by moving their Lordships for the returns to which he had already referred, and which he hoped their Lordships would enable him to obtain. The noble Lord concluded by a variety of papers connected with the investigation at Pallaskenry.
The Marquess of Normanbyhad listened with the greatest attention to the noble Earl's speech for the last hour and three quarters, but he sincerely assured their Lordships that he could not, with all the attention which he could command, find that the speech of the noble Earl pointed to any one single object. He had expected that some grave charge would have been brought against his noble Friend at the head of the government of Ireland, or that the noble Earl would have shown that some imperious necessity existed under the circumstances of the time for the prompt interposition of Parliament, and he certainly did not look for the noble Earl's taking up the time of their Lordships with trivial business, and with details of squabbles between Mr. Jackson, a sub-inspector of constabulary, and other persons, as to whether he was or was not invited to dinner. He must say that these were not things which they ever heard of in England, nor was the time of their Lordships ever engaged in listening to accounts of petty squabbles in petty sessions. Six weeks ago, the noble Earl might have called the attention of their Lordships to the disturbed state of that part of the country, supposing him to have satisfied himself that the Government was not inclined to take proper steps to vindicate the law. But the assizes had since been held; the Government had taken proper steps to assert the supremacy of the law, and out of this district no fewer than eleven persons had been brought to justice by the activity of the police, and the energy of the Government, and had been sentenced to transportation. [The Earl of Charleville: Owing to Mr. Langford.] He did not deny that Mr. Langford had shown activity, but Mr. Langford was not the only person who was

1209
qualified to execute the law, and in point of fact many of those who were brought to justice were apprehended and condemned without the interposition of Mr. Langford. Mr. Jackson had been spoken of by the noble Earl in very harsh terms, and he must say, that he regretted, knowing as he did the effect which it would have in Ireland, that the noble Earl should have thought himself warranted in applying the language which he had used when speaking of an officer acting in the discharge of his duty. The noble Earl, on a former occasion, stated that the constabulary did not do their duty, because, he said, their best chance of promotion lay rather in abstaining from doing their duty. Now, he would ask their Lordships, what good which could result from bringing this subject forward could countervail the mischief of such declarations as these? Was it fair, was it just, in the noble Earl, to cast aspersions of this character upon gentlemen who had served their country as military officers, and who had since faithfully and efficiently discharged their duty in the constabulary under the command of his excellent friend, Colonel M'Gregor? The noble Earl called Mr. Jackson a spy. Was that proper language to be applied to a gentleman whom Lord Clarina described as an excellent and efficient officer? He was very sorry that the noble Earl had not upon this second occasion abstained from language like this. As to Mr. Langford: the first part of the charge against him was his searching for arms without a warrant. The noble Earl admitted that this act was illegal. [The Earl of Charleville: No.] If such were the noble Earl's opinion, he hoped that his noble friend the Lord-lieutenant would keep an eye upon him, and not permit him to search for arms without a warrant. As far as Mr. Langford was concerned, the case was this:—The warrant was given to him under a different state of things by the lords justices, in March, 1839, before his noble friend assumed the government of Ireland. The lords justices told Mr. Langford that he must have a new warrant, but Mr. Langford neglected to apply for one, and acted without it. On this conduct his noble Friend observed—
"The Lord-lieutenant considers that the exercise of magisterial authority without due regard for the letter of the law and the spirit of the constitution is not calculated to pro-
1210
mote the ends of justice or the permanent preservation of order and peace."
And it was because he desired the permanent preservation of order and peace, and the establishment among the people of the country of a feeling of security in the equal administration of justice, that he agreed with his noble friend the Lord-lieutenant in considering that Mr. Langford had acted most improperly. The case was not altered by the character of the parties whose houses were searched; for, supposing them to be as bad as they could be, Mr. Langford's conduct was equally improper. Then again there was the case of Michael Wheelan and the Riband Society. He was sure that the noble Earl must have felt it his duty to bring this subject forward, because Mr. Langford appeared to have acknowledged that he sent a copy of the document found at Michael Wheelan's house to the Limerick Standard, and, although the noble Earl was pleased to say, that the Temperance Society had completely broken down in their case, he had read the papers on the subject, and must say, that any charge of a connexion between them and the Riband Society was completely disproved. As to the resolution agreed to by a majority of the magistrates, who were nearly equally divided, the casting vote was given by Mr. Langford himself. The original motion was—
"That no evidence has appeared before us to induce us to form an opinion that the warrant found in Wheelan's house was a fabrication."
While the amendment was—
"That no evidence has appeared upon this investigation to inculpate Michael Wheelan, the person summoned, or to satisfy our minds that the document found in his house was fabricated or not; and that no evidence has been adduced to prove that any connexion whatever exists between the Riband and Temperance Societies."
It appeared to him that there was very little difference between the original motion and the amendment. As to the document, when Mr. Langford was asked whether he considered it of any consequence or not, he stated distinctly that he considered it of no consequence, evidently showing that he thought there was no deep design it. The noble Earl stated that some papers had been withheld. He could only say, that although he did not attach much importance to them, he had.

1211
he believed, put all the papers on the subject into the noble Earl's hands. He should object, however, to give the noble Earl the opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown, as that was contrary to custom. As to any other documents, although he was perfectly unconscious of the existence of any other, if the noble Earl chose to move for them, he might have them if they could be produced. As to Mr. Langford, he had exceeded his authority as a magistrate by giving a written order, not a regular warrant, to arrest a person. He had also acted upon an old warrant in searching a house for arms without applying for a renewal of authority. One word as to the existing state of the Pallaskenry district. If the noble Earl would enquire, he would find from all persons, that the Pallaskenry district was not worse this year than it was in 1837, or in years of scarcity. Between the time of the old and the new crop there was unfortunately a want of employment, and, with starvation before the inhabitants, the district was often in a disturbed state. Let him not be understood as palliating the conduct of those who disturbed the public peace, but only as stating the ground of it, and he must say, that the Government had done all in their power to vindicate the law, and to bring offenders to justice. The amount of serious offences, such as homicides, attacking houses, posting threatening notices, &c., was in 1839 just thirty-two, while in this year, up to May 29, the amount was only thirty-one, so that, in fact, there was a diminution of one serious outrage. With regard to the county of Limerick, the number of serious offences committed in the first six months of the year 1840 was 110, while in the first six months of 1839 it was 118. The number of homicides in 1837 was eighty-six; in 1838, seventy-one; in 1839, seventy-one; and in 1840, thirty-eight; showing a very considerable reduction. He was happy to state also that the southwestern part of Ireland was marked with a very considerable improvement in the state of the country. The noble Earl had introduced in his speech an attack on the Temperance Societies; but he must, with his noble Friend, the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, bear his testimony to the service which those societies had rendered, to the great change which they had wrought in the moral habits of the people, and to the great improvement in the social condition
1212
of the country which had been effected through their instrumentality. He trusted this moral reformation would yet prove one of the greatest bars to Irish crime. With respect to one branch of the noble Earl's motion, there were no documents which came under the head of correspondence between the Irish Government and Sir Aubrey de Vere, chairman of the quarter sessions assembling at Pallaskenry. He would state to the noble Earl, that the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland was a private friend of Sir A. de Vere, and might have written a private letter to him, but in the offices at Dublin there were no communications between the Irish Government and Sir A. de Vere which could be given. If the noble Earl persisted in this part of the motion, he should certainly not oppose it, but the return would be nil.
The Earl of Glengallcould not quite agree with the noble Marquess in considering, that he had any great reason to congratulate himself or the House on the result of the assizes lately held in the county of Limerick, because eleven persons had been brought to justice for Whiteboy offences. Pallaskenry and two other districts had been extremely disturbed, and a vast variety of outrages had been committed within them. He himself had, at a former period of the Session, read a frightful list of them to their Lordships, and the noble Earl who opened this debate had also read a tremendous list of them. Among them were twenty-five cases of attacks on houses, made to procure arms. With respect to a point urged by the noble Marquess in palliation of those offences—namely, that the people were starving—he admitted that great distress and scarcity of provisions existed, but what that had to do with breaking open houses for arms he was utterly at a loss to know. Breaking open the houses for that purpose had nothing whatever to do with starvation; it was for the purpose of plunder and intimidation, and to become possessed of arms which could be used for unlawful ends. He was very glad indeed that the noble Earl had brought forward this motion, and he thought the magistracy of Ireland would be extremely obliged to him for taking up the case of a gentleman who, to say the least of it, had been most harshly, he might say, most unjustly and cruelly, treated. What was the conduct for which Mr. Langford, the gentleman to whom he alluded, had been

1213
censured? Because he had searched the house of a person for arms, on the authority of a warrant a year old. He was very glad this question of the use of warrants had been brought forward, because all the magistrates of Tipperary and the counties equally disturbed had acted for a great number of years on those very warrants. He could say, that for a great many years, he might safely say, eight years, he had acted on the same warrant. All other magistrates did the same; they acted on a warrant until it was recalled by the Government. Could the noble Marquess point out a clause in the Act of Parliament laying down clear directions whether the magistrate was to continue to use the warrant or not? There was not a single word about the matter. Several years ago a vast bundle of those warrants was brought down to that part of the country where he lived. Heaps of them were brought to him, and he had distributed them among the magistrates who wished to search for arms. Not one magistrate, in the present state of the law, would suspect a warrant to be out of date till it was recalled. If, therefore, Mr. Langford had been in error in this instance, other magistrates had fallen into far more serious errors in doing what they conceived to be their duty. What bounds, he would ask, were set to the duration of the warrant? Was it to hold good for six months, or a year, or a longer period? Why had not the Attorney-general told the magistrates that they were in the wrong? If an action were brought against a magistrate for acting under such a warrant, he believed that, as the act did not define the course to be taken, the law would stand by him. He must say, that he thought the last letter written to Mr. Langford, in reply to a very honest, straightforward, gentlemanlike, statement, was the most outrageous ever written from one gentleman to another. If searching a house by night were to be made a crime, not a criminal in Ireland would be apprehended. How was a man to be taken in Ireland during the day? As soon as a policeman was seen, the cry of "Mad dog" was raised, and every villain and criminal in the country immediately took to his heels and hid himself. He hoped that the functionaries connected with the Government of Ireland would in future convey their sentiments in less strong language on occasions which so little required it as the conduct of Mr.
1214
Langford. The noble Marquess had referred to the great diminution of crime which had lately taken place in Ireland, and he hoped most sincerely that there was good ground for the noble Lord's congratulations on this head; but he would ask their Lordships' attention to certain papers on the table, which gave information on a far more important subject—he meant the punishment of crime in Ireland. From one of the returns it appeared that the number of rewards offered by the Lord-lieutenant for the discovery of offenders from the 1st of Jan. 1836, to the 1st of April, 1840, had been 814, of which only 37 had been claimed and paid. How such a state of things could prevail in a country having any pretensions to be called civilized he could not understand. The intimidation exercised over the minds of the humbler classes, who were almost invariably witnesses in cases of crime, was such that it was morally impracticable to bring criminals to justice. He wished sincerely that the noble Viscount at the head of the Government would take this subject into his consideration. If the noble Viscount would make inquiry of the learned judge who presided at the last Tipperary assizes respecting the cases brought before him for trial, he would find that the charge of the judge and the testimony of the witnesses were alike disregarded by the juries. Men placed on the juries were positively afraid to convict lest their houses might be burnt, or their cattle killed. He attributed a great part of this evil to a custom which had lately become general, of summoning juries from the immediate neighbourhood of the assize towns, so that criminals were tried by persons who were their neighbours.
The motion agreed to.

ECCLESIASTICAL DUTIES AND REVENUES.
The Archbishop of Canterbury The Archbishop of Canterbury moved that the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
The Bishop of Winchesterconcurred with the most rev. Prelate that this would be the most convenient course to adopt for the better consideration of the details of the bill. It was certainly not the intention of himself, or his right rev. Friends, to interpose any unnecessary delay in the passing of the bill, but he wished it to be distinctly understood that he should not

1215
consider himself precluded from proposing any amendments that might occur to him on the bringing up of the report, or on the third reading.
Motion agreed to.