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

the part of the Government to withhold any informa-
tion, and he had a very ingenious deducement when he
said, th•it as the Lord-Lieutenant was in London when he
replaced Mr. Kirwan, he must have had some written
communi .Ition on the subject, and that it had been with-
held. The facts were, that the Chief Secretary for Ireland
being in Dublin, a number of gentlemen, both Roman
Catholics and Protestants, called on him, and urged on
him to recommend to the Lord-Lieutenant the restora-
tion of Mr. Kirwan to the commission of the peace. His
right hon. friend accordingly investigated the case, and,
having done so, he recommended the Lord-Lieutenant
to restore Mr. Kirwan. That explanation he hoped
wonld be sufficient to prove that there had been no sup-
pression of any document. The communication was
made personally to the Secretary of Ireland, and by him
communicated to the Lord-Lieutenant. The noble earl
had been somewhat severe on the opinion expressed by
his noble friend at the head of the Government that the
late Lord-Lieutenant had not acted judiciously in the
suspension of Mr. Kirwan, but that he should have been
either censured or dismissed. The noble earl said that
Li,

there were precedents for that course in other services,
aad spoke of such sentences being inflicted by courts-
martial. But was there any similarity between the
position of any officer in the army and a magistrate
acting in the discharge of his duty in Ireland ? But the
noble earl had gone further, and cited the precedent of
the clergy ; and he was correct in stating that such a
practice prevailed ; but it was to be regretted that no
right rev. prelate was present who might have confirmed
hun (the Duke of Newcastle) when he stated that such
a practice was not considered satisfactory in the church,
nor did it conduce to the efficiency of the church ; and
if the noble earl had no better example of the advantages
of the practice than that, the obvious conclusion was that
the sooner the practice was put an end to the better.
He was aware that the practice prevailed with regard
to magistrates in Ireland, and he was glad that his noble
friend had made the remarks which he had, as he hoped
the practice would continue to be followed. Having
met the objections which had been made, and reminded
the house that this proceeding could not fairly be charac-
terised as casting a slur upon the late Lord-Lieutenant,
he would say that the fact was that the punishment
having been infficted on Mr. Kirwan for having been
guilty, of want of energy and judgment, which was all
that was attributed to him by the reports of Mr. Mart-
ley and Captain Floyd, it was thought that he bad suf-
fered sufficiently by a suspension of four months ; and
considering the indigent circumstances of his family, it
was also thought that justice would not suffer by such
an act of clemency and grace as his restoration by the
Lord-Lieutenant. _ _ _

The Earl of RODEN was glad that his noble friend
had at once taken an opportunity of explaining what he
was sure was a misapprehension of his, but he could
not help saying that the opinion of every one in Ireland
with regard to the circumstances connected with Mr.
Kirwan and himself, was that which he had just now
expressed. He felt it the more, for the communication
he had received from the Lord-Lieutenant was of such a
nature that he had no doubt that nothing but kindness
actuated him in the course he took.
Lord ST. LEONARDS said he was not desirous of
taking any part in this discussion, but for the question
that had been raised with regard to the punishment
which had been adopted by his noble friend the late
Lord Lieutenant. In the first place, he thought no one
could find fault with the extent of the punishment : as
compared with the offence, he thought Mr. Kirwan de-
served a more severe sentence. But the noble earl at

the head of the Government had for the first time found
fault with the suspension of magistrates as a secondary
punishment, and said that it would be better either to
censure or dismiss them ; and what he said to-night,
would of course have its weight in Ireland. He (Lord
St. Leonards) had had occasion in Ireland to exercise
the function of punishing magistrates to a greater ex-
tent than the Lords Lieutenant, as it rested with the
Chancellor to deal with the magistrates generally, while
only the resident magistrates were under the control of
the Lord Lieutenant. On several occasions he had sus-
pended ordinary magistrates, and after he had exercised
the power once or twice it occurred to him to consider
whether it was constitutional to do so—as to its expe-
diency, he never had any doubt—or whether he ought
not at once to have dismissed them if their conduct re-
quired more than censure ; for he had some doubt whe-
ther a gentleman who was suspended should still hold
the commission of the peace. He had made inquiry,
and had'come to the conclusion that such a course was
not unconstitutional. If then such a course could be
taken without impropriety, surely it was a good secon-
dary punishment. There were precedents for it
in the army, the navy, and the church ; but the
noble earl and the noble duke said that that was all
wrong. He would venture to say that it would be at
least inconvenient that it should go forth to Ireland that
the noble earl was of that opinion. He (Lord St.
Leonards) had heard with pleasure what had been said,
so far as it acquitted the Lord-Lieutenant from any in-
tention of casting any reflection on his predecessor. If
anything was still to be regretted, it was this—the Lord-
Lieutenant may have had good reasons for doing what
he had done, and it was possible that one man might in-
flict a punishment and another cause it to be abated,
without casting any censure on the first. But the fault
in this transaction was that it appeared, that the Lord-
Lieutenant having made up his mind as to what he
should do before be went to Ireland on a representation
from the Chief Secretary, which might have been quite
proper, yet did not in the document containing the re-
storation of Mr. Kirwan state more than the intention
of the Lord Lieutenant to restore him to the commission
of the peace. If he (Lord St. Leonards) reinstated a
magistrate, or remitted a portion of a sentence, he stated
clearly and fully the grounds on which lie did so. If
that had been done in the present instance, there would
have been nu occasion for what had now taken place.
He would press on the Government the inipolicy of
sending forth to Ireland any opinion against the sus-
pension of magistrates.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he had no inten-

tion of taking part in this debate, and was only desirous
of saying a few words in consequence of what had fallen
from his noble and learned friend, which, considering- the
great weight to which his opinions were entitled, might
lead to misconception. He understood his noble and
learned friend to say that it was his practice, not with
regard to stipendiary magistrates, but ordinary magis-
trates, to punish them by suspension—(hear)—and that
a doubt passed through his mind as to whether it was
constitutional to do so, however expedient it might be.
He (the Lord Chancellor) must say that he heard that
statement of his noble and learned friend with astonish-
ment, for he knew of no process by which the Chancellor
could suspend a magistrate. All that he could do was
to strike him out of the commission of the peace. He
thought it was neither a wholesome nor constitutional
course for a Chancellor to take a step which he had no
power to enforce. If a person was a magistrate, he was
invested with all the power of the office, and if he was

found unfitted for it, the only course was to strike him
out of the commission of the peace. That was the view
Ile (the Lord Chancellor) took of the case as at present
advised; and if it was erroneous, he should be glad to
be corrected. With regard to the subject before the
house, he would only say that he thought it a dangerous
principle to lay down, that a viceroy, on going to any
part of her Majesty's dominions, should feel himself
restrained in the exercise of his prerogative of mercy.
The Earl of CLANCARTY expressed his satisfaction
at the explanations which had been given.
The Earl of DERBY said his noble friend who intro-
duced this subject had been compelled to leave the house
from fatigue, but he had requested him to state that it
was not his intention to persevere with the motion.

The motion was accordingly withdrawn.
CHARITABLE TRUSTS.

The LORD CHANCELLOR laid upon the table a
bill for the better regulation and management of charit
able trusts, which was read a first time.
Their lordships then adjourned at 20 minutes past
seven o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-(YESTERDAY.)

The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The following bills were read a second time and
passed :—Ambergate, Nottingham, and Boston and
Eastern Junction Railway (No. 1) ; Brecon Collegiate
Church ; York, Newcastle, and Berwick, York, and
North Midland and Leeds Northern Railway Com-
panies (Amalgamation, &c.)

PETITIONS.
Mr. WYSE presented several petitions from various
parts of the kingdom in favour of protection to labour.
Sir J. SHELLEY presented a petition from the

committee of the Ragged Schools in Westminster against
the opening of the Crystal Palace on Sundays.
Mr. MUNTZ said he had to present a petition of a
remarkable character. It was from the rector and church-
wardens of the Birmingham Old Church, against church
rates. They stated that for many years no church rates
had been levied in Birmingham, and that no church-
wardens would be elected unless they gave a pledge that
they would not impose them on the inhabitants.
COCKERMOUTH ELECTION.
Mr. HAMILTON reported that the committee had
determined that Mr. Aglionby and General Wyndham,
the sitting members, were duly returned at the last
election for Cockermouth. The committee had also
come to a resolution setting out certain instances in
which bribery and corruption had been practised, but
exculpating the sitting members from being cognisant of
the transactions.

PETITIONS.
petition from New 1
Windsor, corn
Pißini?tieeofetn the election petition for that
report of con-11T
Sir F. THESIGtR
that the inquiry of the committee
presentedh qllegataio2s contained in the
mightSTUART presented a petition from 839
Lord D. S
b o n g
noth,
nonMsauriclielrlyone against the opening of the
abnedrper-oarnged.
Several petitions to the same effect were presented by
several other lion. members.,
CwroyrsktainlgPnalleancei
Sir G. TYLER presented a petition from the magis-
trates of Glamorganshire against the County Expendi-
ture Bill.
Mr. D. SEYMOUR presented a petition from Sun-
derland against legislation on Indian affairs until a full
inquiry had been instituted.
Mr. THORNILY presented a petition from Lanca-
shire in favour of a reduction of the army.
Sir R. H. INGLTS presented a petition from the
Presbyteries of Haddington, Wigtown, &c., against the
abolition of university tests in Scotland.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from St.
Luke's, Finsbury, for the abolition of church rates ;
also, petitions from Nottingham and other places, against
the occupation of Rome by the French troops.
Mr. E. BALL presented a petition from Cambridge-
shire, .praying for a general reduction of the army and
navy.

COWAN -presented a petition from Edinburgh