The Sun.
London, England, 1837-09-16 00:00:00

IRELAND.

COLONEL VERNER'S DISMISSAL FROM THE
MAGISTRACY AND DEPUTY-LIEUTENANCY
OIL TYRONE.—SPIRITED CONDUCT OF HER
MAJESTY'S IRISH GOVERNMENT.
" Dublin Castle, Aug. 22, 1537.
"Sir,—lt appearing, in the Newry Tele.7raph of the
10th instant, that at an election dinner given by you on the
ith, one of the toasts was—" The Battle of the Diamond,"
I am directed by his Excellency, now that the elections
are all terminated, to desire that you will inform him
whether it can be possible that you were thus a party to
the commemoration of a lawless and most disgraceful con-
flict, in which much of the blood of your fellow-subjects
was spilt ; and the immediate consequence of which was, as
testified at the time, by all the leading men and magi►trates
of your county, to place that part of your country at the
mercy of an ungovernable mob.
" 1 have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient hum-
ble servant,

"T. DRUMMOND.

"To Colonel Verner, Sec."
COLONEL VERNER'S ANSWER.
Sir,—l have received a letter, dated August 22, bearing
your signature, and enquiring of me, by the direction of his
Excellency, " Whether it is possible that I was a party to
the commemoration of a lawless and most disgra( o'lll con-
flict, in which much of the blood of my fellow-subjects was
spilt, and the immediate consequences of which was, as
testified at the time, by ell the leading men and magistrates
of your county, to place that part of the country at the
mercy of an ungovernable mob."
I am disposed to think that when you put a question in
a form like this, you can hardly expect, on cool reflection,
that I should condescend to answer it—at least I would
imagine you could expect no other answer than one which
I hold superfluous—namely, that I am not capable of being
a party to the commemoration of anything lawless and dis-
graceful. I would request, if I am ever again to be favoured
by a question which you are directed to propose, that it
may be expressed in terms better calculated to invite an
answer, and more likely also to be understood. I must say
that your letter does not appear to me very intelligible.
His Excellency seems to assume that the appearance of
a statement in a public newspaper authorises a call upon
me to contradict or confirm it. Ido not feel myself at
liberty to do either. I had the honour to entertain several
of my friends at dinner on the day to which your letter re-
fers. lam bold to affirm that at that entertainment no-
thing took place which loyal and honourable men would
hesitate to avow most frankly. But I speak, I am confi-
dent, the sentiments of my friends, and of every gentleman
whose freedom is not restrained by official station; when I
say, that a question like that in your letter ought not to
be proposed to me, and that I am bound to decline reply-
ir', to it.
But, Sir, while I refuse to enter into newspaper contro-
versy respecting the conversations at my private table, I in-
vite you to institute what seems more directly the duty of
the Irish Government—an inquiry into matter which may
properly be submitted for investigation.
On the morning of the day to which you refer I addressed
the electors of Armagh from the hustings. This was a
public proceeding ; one for which I am answerable, which
lam ready to explain. Of my speech the Dub/in Eueninq
Post gives the following representation :—" Colonel Verner
got up, and for an hour spoke in such a manner as to in.
flame the minds of Catholics, none of whom were present."
I pronounce this representation false and slanderous ;
and if it be the truth that this Journal is the organ of the
Irish Government, I feel myself justified in demanding
that an inquiry shall be instituted into the practices of its
organ, and that if they are now found to be alike malicious
and untrue, it should be no longer favoured.
Upon the various misrepresentations, unintentional, I
have no doubt, which your letter contains, I have no desire
to comment. I feel it necessary only to assure you that
of all the conflicts, and they are, unhappily numerous, which
took place at the various places called by the name of
" Diamond," in the county Armagh, there is none to which
your description is, in the least degree, applicable.• But
you have only shared in the misconceptions respecting the
history of Ireland with which Irish officials, in various de-
partments, are not now ashamed to confess themselves
chargeable.
I have nothing further to observe, except that your let-
ter did not arrive at Churchill until I had left for London,
otherwise I should not have had to explain the delay of my
reply.
I have the Lonour to remain your obedient servant,
WM. VERNER.
To T. Drummond, Esq., &c., Castle, Dublin.
LORD MORPSTII'S REPLY TO COLONEL VERNER.
Dublin Castle, Sept. .5, 1837.
Sir,—l have had the honour of submittingst6 the Lord
Lieutenant your letter of the 29th ult.
His Excellency regrets that you should have had any
difficulty in understanding the letter addressed to you on
the 22d of August. But for such an assurance his Excel-
lency would not have supposed that the unsatisfactory na-
ture of your answer could, in any degree, have been as-
cribed to that cause.
As a magistrate appointed to administer justice between
her Majesty's Protestant and Roman Catholic subjects, his
Excellency desired that you should be called upon to state
whether at an election dinner, of which an account ap-
peared at length in a public paper, you had proposed, or
been a party to the proposal of, a toast commemorative
of a sanguinary feud between the Protestants and Roman
Catholics of Armagh. By whom or to whom that din-
ner was given—on what occasion or in what place —his Ex-
cellency considers a matter of comparative indifference ;
but, as head of the Executive Government in Ireland, it
concerns him to know whether you and other gentlemen
in the commission held up such an event as that known by
the name of " The Battle of the Diamond" as one deserving
of being commemorated.
You profess yourself unable to recognise the conflict al-
luded to under the above title, by reason oF the many such
conflicts which have unhappily occurred in the county of
Armagh, at places called by the name of The Diamond.
If his Excellency could have anticipated that you would
have experienced from this cause any difficulty in replying
to the question addressed to you he would have referred
you to your own evidence, published in the reprt of the
Committee on Orange Lodges in Ireland, and more espe-
cially to the following question and answer, Nc. 92 :--
" The battle of Diamond-hill took place the 21st of
September, 179.5—did it not 2—lt did."
His Excellency MIP4 scarcely observe that the number
of such conflicts does not render the commemoration of one
or more of them less objectionable, or make it less impera-
tive on him to ascertain the fact of Magistrates having
j9*4 49ph a prceeding.
T vconnt or -
lie long-continued and Litter aniuMities
Op got' nrder of secietit 14
sproging from religious' differeti4ei,' disturbed
the mosilateentable
consequences, espacir.il7 if? the FotintT of Armagh, the Le-
gislature has declared certain acts to be penal in 'lreland
which in other parts of the empire are not only not pu-
pishable, but not blameable, becaus.i perfectly harmless.
If au assemblage of persons, even less in number than
those who were present at the els etioa dinner in question,

shoultl walk in procession through the streets, bearing party
emblems or playing party tunes, they would thereby sub-
ject themselves to the punishment of the law ; and it may
be known to you that many have Suffered imprisonment, and
many are at this moment amenable to the law for no greater
offence.

The petsant thus offending is, in his Excellency's opi-
nion, less culpable thou the maul of station and education
who, on an occasion to which publicity is given through
the public Preps, celebrates a latvless action arising out of
the cis it discords of his country, in which the lives of
many of his countrymen were lost, as an event, the re-
membrance of which it is desirable to perpetuate with
honour.

The former offends against a positive enactment ; the
latter, keeping within the letter, violates the spirit of the
law, counteracts the object and intention of the Legisla-
ture, and thwai is the exertions of the Government to
carry,.tbem into effect.
If you and other gentlemen had not seemed to question
the proposition his Excellency would have considered it too
obvious and incontrovertible to require to be stated, that,
if any meeting of persons is held—no matter under what
circumstances of apparent privacy—and if such persons
take steps to permit, or do not take steps to prevent, publi-
city, being given to their opinions and proceedings, they are
as fully and justly answerable for whatever effect these may
have, or may be calculated to have, on the well-being of
society, as if such meetings had been held with open doors
or in the open air.
But that is a question which does not arise in the present
case. The meeting to which his Excellency drew your at-
tention was, in every respect, public, and not p; ivate. It
was attended by every circumstance which distinguishes
a public from a private meeting. It was a dinner given
at a public ..hotel, on the occasion of a public elec-
tion, to celebrate a public event ; public toasts were
given, and political speeches made, as usual at pub-
lic dinners ; the entire proceedings were reported in
detail,' in a public newspaper, as public intelligence.
The newspaper which first reported the proceedings
was one not likely to misrepresent what had happened to
your prejudice. Conceiving the occurrence reported to be
such that .a participation in it would disqualify you, and.
°them invested with the powers of a magistrate, from bene-
ficially exercising your authority, rad would naturally and.
deservedly cause your fellow-subj, is of the Roman Catho-
lic creed to withdraw their conr.denc3 in your administra-
tion of justice, his Excellency ;tithe exercise of his bounden
duty, called on you and the, to state whether the report
was correct.

It is the invariable practice, when any representation is
made to Government affecting the character or usefulness
of a magistrate or other public officer, for whose appoint-
ment or continuance the Executive Government is respon-
sible, to communicate such representation to him before any
proceedings are taken thereon, that he may have an oppor-
tunity of explaining or disavowing the statements made to
his prejudice. That course was followed in the present in-
stance, and his Excellency conceives that he had a right to
expect a distinct and unequivocal avowal or disavowal of
your having been a party to the proceedings in question, or
a satisfactory explanation that the nature and tendency of
the proceeding did not deserve the character imputed to it.
His Excellency deems the public considerations depend-
ent upon this transaction to be of such importance that he
is less inclined to remark upon the extraordinary tone in
which your whole letter is written, considering that it is
an answer to an official communication addressed by direc-
tion of her Majesty's representative to a gentleman holding
the commission of the peace, and requiring an explanation
of his conduct.

Upon a full consideration of the case, his Excellency,
will deem it expedient to recommend to the Lord chan-
cellor that you should not be included in the new commis-
sion of the peace about to be issued ; and will also direct
your name to be omitted from the revised list of Deputy-
Lieutenants of the county of Tyrone.—l have, &c.
To Colonel Verner.

MORPETH.