The Sun.
London, England, 1836-02-10 00:00:00

COUNTY MAGISTRATES.

The Marquis of SALISBURY rose to call the attention
of their Lordships to a subject which he conceived was one of
the greatest importance that could come under their conside-
ration. Their Lordships would be aware of the manner in
which Magistrates were appointed through the recommenda-
tion of the Lord Lieutenant of the county. He had taken
some pains to ascertain whether any instance could be found
of such a proceeding being adopted, as to insert the names of
those gentlemen in the Commission without reference first to
the Lord Lieutenant. He believed the Lord Chancellor, or the
Commissioners holding the Great Seal, had always made it a
rule never to appoint a magistrate without the full consent
and concurrence of the Lord Lieutenant.—(Hear, hear. )
In 1829 a case occurred in which a name that had been in a
former list was omitted, and on the restoration of that name it
was thought necessary that the Lord Chancellor should
explain why he had done so. He mentioned this case for
the purpose of showing how jealous the Lords-Lieutenant
were of any interference with what they considered their pre-
rogative. As he understood that the motion would not be
resisted by the Noble Viscount at the head of his Majesty's
Government, he would not enter into further details at
present. Every person would admit the danger of taking
away the responsibility of appointing the Magistrates from
the Lords-Lieutenant of counties, and placin,g it in the
hands of individuals who had not the means of knowing the
characters of the persons to be appointed. The Secretary
of State for the time being could not have that local
knowledge which was necessary to direct his choice pro-
perly, and he might be influenced by his love of place to
recommend improper persons. —( Hear.) He should conclude
by moving for a return of the names and residences of the gen-
tlemen who had been appointed to the Commission of the
Peace in the different counties of England and Wales, on the
recommendation of the Secretary of State, and without the ap-
plication of the Custos Rotulorum, from the Ist of January,
1835, down to the latest period.
Viscount MELBOURNE defended the conduct pur-
sued by the Secretary of State. They always first applied
for information to the Lord Lieutenant of the county, and on
some occasions, when the Lord Lieutenant refused to recom-
mend the individual, his Noble Friend (the Secretary of
State) had recommended that individual to the Commissioners
of the Great Seal, and they had acted upon his Noble Friend's
recommendation. It was a matter for their Lordships' consi-
deration, whether the persons appointed were fit or not, or
whether his Noble Friend had exercised a sound discre-
tion, but that could only be ascertained, by an inquiry
into all the facts, and all the circumstances of the case.
He believed the conduct of his Noble Friend on all these occa-
sions had been most correct. The mode of appointment of the
Magistrates entirely through the Lords-Lieutenant was subject
to very great abuse—( Hear)--and he did not know whether the
motion of the Noble Marquis was the best mode of reforming it.
The Noble Marquis had drawn an imaginary picture of a Se-
cretary of State being influenced by party or personal motives ;
but with the same poetical facility, he ( Lord Melbourne) might
imagine a Lord-Lieutenant, deeply involved in all the contests
and party feelings of a county, and just as anxious to promote his
own power and influence in the selection of persons for the
commission of the peace, as a Secretary of State would be to
forward his personal views, or minister leis love of place. He
had no objection to the production of the returns moved for by
the Noble Marquis.
The LORD CHANCELLOR would observe, lest his si-
lence would be construed into an acquiescence with the obser-
vations of the Noble Marquis, that the responsibility of the
election of Magistrates rested upon the Great Seal. If it de-
volved altogether upon the Lords-Lieutenant, acid if the selec-
tion rested with them alone, he feared the interests of the
counties would be very much neglected. The Lord Lieutenant
was always consulted, but the Great Seal exercised its own
discretion in every case.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord WH A RNC L IFFE supported the motion.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE defended the course of
proceeding adopted by the Secretary of State with respect to
the appointment of Magistrates. The Lords-Lieutenant could
not be supposed to be altogether unbiassed in every instance,
and it was quite necessary that the Crown should have the
power of exercising its own discretion in particular cases.
The Duke of CLEVELAND contended that the Lords-
Lieutenant were the proper persons in whom to rest the ap-
pointment of their Magistrates, as their local knowledge must
be much superior to that of the Secretary of State.
Lord PLUNKETT observed that the practice in Ireland
had uniformly been to apply in the first instance to the Lord-
Lieutenant of the county, but he (Lord P.) had on some occa-
sion felt it his duty to put into the commission of the peace
Gentlemen who had been objected to by the Lord-Lieutenant.
After a few words from the Marquis of SALISBURY and the
Marquis of WESTMINSTER, the motion was agreed to.