The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-20 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool-
sack at five o'clock.
The Archbishop of YORK presented a petition
against the opening of the Crystal Palace on Sunday.
The Earl of EGLINTON presented petitions from
places in Ayrshire and other places against the Jew
Bill and the Canada Clergy Reserves Bill.
The Duke of ARGYLL presented petitions from
Places in Scotland to the same. effect ; also others
against the grant to Maynooth.
The Earl of WICKLOW gave notice that if the Jew
Bill were read a second time, he should, in committee,
move to substitute for the oaths proposed by it, the
oaths contained in the bill introduced by the Whig Go-
vernment, in 1849.
THE NEW FOREST DEER ACT AMENDMENT

BILL.
On the motion of Lord STANLEY of Alderley, this
bill was read a second time.

• MR. KIRWAN'S CASE.
The Earl of EGLINTON rose to move for copies of
the representation to the Earl St. Germans which in-
duced him to replace Mr. Kirwan. He disclaimed all
motives of hostility to his noble friend now at the head
of the Irish Government, or with any evil to Mr. Kir-
wan, but simply to justify the course which he had him-
self taken in displacing Mr. Kirwan. The occurrence
out of which this affair had arisen, took place at the late
Mayo election. Mr. Kirwan was a stipendiary magis-
trate. The course which he (the noble earl) had taken
in merely suspending that gentleman from his functions
for six months was most lenient in its nature. The
stipendiary magistracy in Ireland was not at all compe-
tent for the difficult duties which they had to perform,
and he thought that one-third of that body might pro-
perly be dismissed, and that the efficiency and reputation
of the whole body would then be increased. But al-
though dismissal or censure were courses perfectly open
to him, he bad only suspended Mr. Kirwan, believing
that he had thus acted mercifully • and he had conse-
quently been greatly astonished to Observe that the very
first act of his successori n the Viceroyalty was to restore
Mr. Kirwan to his functions. There was no country in
the world which stood in such need of firmness and im-
partiality in administration as Ireland ; there was no
country which it would be more desirable to impress
with the idea that it was governed equitably. (Hear,
hear.) It was, therefore, very expedient that one viceroy
should not contravene the acts of the preceding viceroy
except in
.very peculiar circumstances - and in this case
there was no apparent circumstance whatever to vindi-
cate the steps taken by Lord St. Germans. (Hear,
hear.) In conclusion the noble earl moved, pursuant to
notice, for papers, observing, however, that he, of course,
did not want the papers, and made the motion only to
afford him the opportunity of going into the case.
The Earl of ABERDEEN could hardly object to a
motion for papers which were not in existence. (Hear.)
He was not surprised that the noble earl should feel
warmly in regard to a circumstance which might appear
to cast a reflection upon his own conduct in an office
which he had filled with such distinguished success ; but
he thought that the noble earl had attached an undue
importance to the matter. He could assure the noble
earl that there had not been, in this transaction, the
slightest intention whatever to cast any slur upon the
noble earl's discretion. The decision in respect to this
stipendiary magistrate had been come to previous to
Lord St. Germans leaving England ; and it was only
accidentally. that effect was given to that decision upon
Lord St. Germans arriving in Dublin. In that decision
no reference was made to the course pursued by thenoble
earl (Eglinton), and that course could not at all be con-
sidered to have been brought in question. He (Lord
Aberdeen) would offer no opinion on this special
case ; but, speaking generally, he felt bound to express
his conviction that it was not judicious to resort to the
alternative of suspension in the punishment of an offend-
ing stipendiary magistrate. When that sort of punish•
ment was inflicted in reality nothing whatever was
accomplished ; the magistrate returned to his office just
in the position in which he had left it, nothing the worse
and certainly nothing the better for the suspension.
(Hear.) That probably was the view taken iu this in-
stance; and, therefore, it could not be supposed that Earl
St. Germans' opinion was that the sentence was too se-
vere ; and that the noble earl opposite would admit that if
suspension was the proper sentence, the limitation of the
period by two months could be of slight consequence, and
assuredly was a limitation perfectly within the discretion
of a new viceroy to effect. • (Hear, hear.) If the discre-
tion and the right of a new viceroy were questioned in
such a particular, he did not see that one Government
could be at all different in any way in its aspect from
another. (Hear, hear.) He (Lord Aberdeen) would,
however, not enter into any general argument, and had
only to repeat his assurances to the noble earl, that no
possible slight or disrespect could possibly have been in-
tended ; and having obtained that assurance the noble
earl had probably gained the object he had had in view
in introducing the subject to their lordships.
The Earl of GLENGALL thought that the assurance
of the noble earl was satisfactory ; but, nevertheless, he
considered that the effect of the act of Earl St. Germans
was to cast a slur and discredit upon the course taken by
Lord Eglinton, and, at all events, he was satisfied that
the act taken by the present Government had not been
well considered. A stipendiary magistrate in Ireland had
unbounded powers in elections, and it was desirable that
it should not be permitted to have those powers abused.
In this instance great powers had been abused, and it
was to be feared that the lesson his noble friend had
received had been deprived of its full effect, in conse-
quence of the change of Government. Much had been
said recently of the bribery that was prevalent in Eng-
land ; but great as that evil was, agreater evil lay in the,
system of intimidation that was almost universal in Ire-
land ; and hence be regretted that an occasion had been
lost to give a salutary warniii,c!, to those priests who were
too commonly associated with brickbats and bludgeons.
(Hear, hear.)
The Earl of DERBY thought that his noble friend
had amply gained his object in the assurance which lie
had received from the noble earl opposite. But he (the
Earl of Derby) must nevertheless express his opinion
that the course taken by the present Government in re-
versing this act of their immediate predecessors was, to
say the least, suspicious in its aspect, and might shake
the belief of the people of Ireland in the impartiality of
the imperial Government. (Hear, hear.) If the prin-
ciple laid down by the noble lord was carried out, it
would amount to saying that there ought to be no in-
termediate punishment between censure and dismissal ;
but if .the noble earl meant to say that censure on a
magistrate was not calculated to lower him in public
opinion, on what principle could it be said that an inter-
mediate punishment was insufficient ? He (Lord Derby)
thought that the loss of a place and its emoluments for
six months would be more effectual than any censure that
could be passed. In the course of his statement the
noble earl had let in light on the course of proceeding
which had taken place which had induced him (Lord
Derby) now to ask a question as to the non-production
of certain papers. His noble friend (Lord Eglinton)
assumed that the first act of the Lord-Lieutenant on
his assuming office was the liberation of Mr. Kirwan
.•
from the remainder of his suspension, and he (Lord
Derby) must remark in passing on that being done
with out one word of reason being stated for such a
course. Only two months of the suspension remained,
and two days after the arrival of the Lord-Lieutenant
the Under-Secretary for Ireland was directed to write to
Mr. Kirwan, merely stating that it was the pleasure of
the Lord-Lieutenant that the remainder of the sentence
should be remitted. The only inference that could be
drawn from that was that Mr. Kirwan had been unjustly
dealt with, and that the earliest opportunity had been
taken to remedy the injustice. If the grounds for re-
mitting the sentence had been stated, and a caution
added with respect to prudence and discretion in future,
he could have understood the case, although he
should have regretted that any reversal of an act of the
late Government had been made. But it appeared to
him. that the course taken was most unfortunate, and
that, too, immediately after the departure of a Lord-
Lieutenant like his noble friend, who, it was admitted,
had left behind a character for firmness and impartiality
in Ireland never surpassed by any of his predecessors.
His noble friend had supposed that this was the first act
of the Lord-Lieutenant ; but the noble earl (Aberdeen)
now stated that it was done before the Lord-Lieutenant
left London. If, as was stated by the noble earl, that
course was decided on previous to the departure of
Lord St. Germans for Ireland—at a time when he had
no opportunity of conferring with his predecessor, or
with the Lord Chancellor or his predecessor, or with the
Attorney-General, who were all conversant with the
fitcts of the case —if he decided without consulting
them, it was clear that he must have acted on some ap-
plication not by word of mouth, but on some repre-
sentation contained in some memorial or letter from
Dublin. When, therefore, his noble friend had moved
for all the papers relating to the case of Mr. Kirwan,
he (Lord Derby) wished to ask the reason why this
document—whatever it was—on which the Lord-Lieu-
tenant must have acted, did not appear on the face of
the proceedings, containing, as it must, the ground of
those proceedings ? If the memorial or letter was before
the house they would know the ground on which the
Lord• Lieutenant acted, and be able to judge whether
the reasons which influenced him in the exercise of his
functions were sufficient to justify what he had done ;
and he (Lord Derby) could not but think that in a case
where the reversal of an act of his predecessor was the
first act of the Lord-Lieutenant, there ought to be the
clearest 'explanation of the groUnds on which he had
acted. He wished, therefore, to know whether there
had been any representation or memorial to the Lord-
Lieutenant, and if so why it had not been laid on the
table with the other papers ?
The Dulee of NEWCASTLE expressed his gratifica-
tion that the noble earl who had just sat down was sa-
tisfied, and lie hoped the noble earl who had brought
forward the motion and the house were also satisfied
that there was no intention on the part of the Lord-
LiJutenant to cast a slur on the noble earl his predeces-
sor. but lie (the Duke of Newcastle) protested against
the fairness of the statement of the noble earl (Derby)
when he said that this proceeding would impress on the
people of Ireland that the present Government were not
actuated by a spirit of impartiality. The noble earl had
made a great deal of a small matter ; and how he was to
show that there had been partiality in this case lie (the
Duke of Newcastle) was at a less to understand. Wos
it because the magistrate in question was a Roman Ca-
tholic? [Lord Derby—l did not know it]. He was
glad that that was the case ; but; could it be said that
there was any partiality evinced, when at the same time
a similar offer was made to a noble friend of his whom
he saw opposite (the Earl of Roden). It was impossible
to say that'any slur on the late Lord-Lieutenant was
intended, or any partiality shown. With reference to
the question which had been put by the noble earl
(Derby), he would say that them was no intention on