The Sun.
London, England, 1838-06-26 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 1838.

have a 5/. franchise say so. —( lieate:hear.) If you mean an 81.
franchise sey so iflou Mean a tot franchise, say FO ; but let
it be really ala one. Ido not want ta raise the franchise in
Ireland, as has been said, to 12/. or 14/.; I only want to have it
the same in Ireland as in England. If you say that Ireland
is a poorer country, I can understand your argument,
though I may not agree with it; but after your legislation in
this Reform Bill I cannot admit it. The only real difficulty
that I sec consists in the d'fference that exists between the
pr.sctice of the two countries. here the occupying tenant
pays the local rates and taxes, notwithstanding any variations
in the amount of these local assessments. These variations
are considerable in some cases—thus in Ireland the tenant
onljnpays one-half of the poor-rate, in England the tenant
pays all ; but this cannot and should not make any difference
in our legislation for either party. The only practical dif-
ference is with respect to repairs and insurances, and whether
they ought to be estimated on the landlord or tenant.—(No,
no, no.) Hese they are generally undertaken by the land-
lord : in Ireland they were generally left to the tenant ta dis-
cher,ge.—(" No, no," from the Irish Members, and laughter.)
But in fact there is so much conflicting testimony on these
points that it is difficult to arrive at any satisfactory conclu-
sion. I heard the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin
himself say, when arguing another point, that in Ireland the
tenant undertook the repairs, and that therefore
Mr. O'CONNELL—That is, where he has a lease.
Sir IL PEEL—But, to avoid all possibility of mistake on
these variable point;, I will take nothing less than a bona fide
ten-pound franchise, not to be decided by the opinion of the
party himself, but by a fixed rate ; and I cannot believe that
the House of Commons will in a calmer moment and on a
clearer view of the matter refuse to listen to it. I was, from
the outset, among the most anxious to settle this question :
not to insult Ireland, as has been tinjustly imputed to me. I
was rather surprized that the accusation of insult to Ireland
and the impu ation of perjury to its population should come
from the lion. Member for Dublin—(Cheers)—who himself
had so much to do with the alteratien of the franchise of the
40s. freeholders of Ireland on account of the extensive perjury
prevailing amongst them, and which he did not hesit rte to bear
testimony to.—( Cheers.) I deal with the law which would
impel to perj try under the effect of political or other excite-
ment, aed this is what I would, if possible, prevent the oc-
currence of in future times.—( Loud cheering.) In con-
clusion, Sir, I must only repeat, that I find the total num-
ber of houses in Dublin is 17,000, and that above 14,000 of
them are over the value of 10/. This number will, lam sure,
give you a very respectable constituency. We maintain that
the franchise ought to be the Parliamentary franchise, viz., a
bona fide franchise of 10/.—( Hear.) That was the principle
to which I have on former occasions adhered, and to which I
intend to adhere on the present.—( Cheers. )
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was as
ready and as anxious as the Noble Lord or the Right lion.
Baronet, or as any of the Hon. Gentlemen opposite, to put an
end to any perjury thas might exist on this subject, and he
entreated them to give him their attention whilst he stated
the facts of the case as concerned the city of Limerick. In
that city there was evaluation of the houses in one district,
and that valuation he held in his hand. The paper contained
two columns, and showed a comparison between the rated
value in the parochial books and the bona fide rent paid by the
lessee. The first of these houses, it appeared from this paper,
was rented at 1001. a year, and rated at no more than SOL The
next at 95/. a year, and rated at 751. ; the next at 60/. a year,
and rated at 40/. ; others at 651. a year, rated at 40/ ; and
several at 55/. and 50/., and rated at 351., whilst of the houses
rented at a lower rate the equality was still greater.—( Hear. )
Let Hon. Gentlemen opposite consider this when they asked
for a 10/. bone fide value.—(Hear.) He did not tax them
with disingenuousness, but he considered them as under a
misapprehension and misinformed—( Hear, hear)--for he was
convinced that a 10/. franchise, coupled with a rating, would
disfranchise a large number of the best voters in Ireland—
( Hear, hear)—voters equal to the best that either England
or Scotland could produce. If he was not in error with
regard to what he had shown with reference to the city of
Limerick, he believed that a similar inquiry into the circum-
stances of the renting and rating of houses in Dublin, Cork,
Waterford, and other places would lead to the same results.
The Right Hon. Gentleman had given a satisfactory reason
for not having proposed other amendments to this Bill, and
he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) considered he had taken
a prudent course in not doing so, although, perhaps, there
were some of them on which the Government might have been
inclined to have acted. He (the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer) could not bring himself entirely to despair of the amica-
dable adjustment of this question.—( hear.) When he consi-
dered how many Gentlemen on both sides of the House ap-
peared anxious for such a result—( Hear, hear, hear)—and
that, taking both sides of the House together, there had been
so generous, and he might say, bold and courageous a disposi-
tion to have it settled—( Hear)—he could not think it ought
all to go for nothing, and be of no avail.
Mr. SHAW expressed his desire to see these questions so
terminated as to place Ireland in such a position that capital
might be introduced into the country, and life and property
duly secured.—(Cheers.)
Mr. W. ROCHE said a few words, which were inaudible
anywhere.
Mr. SL ANE Y (amidst loud cries of " Divide") main-
tained that the plan proposed by the Right Hon. Baronet the
Member for Tamworth would have the effect of raising the
franchise considerably above lot., as would be sufficiently ap-
parent by a reference to the report of the Committee on the
rating of tenements under 10/.
Mr. PRAED said, the real question was, whether the rat-
ing which the Government proposed carried out the full yearly
value of the tenements to be rated?—(Cries of " Hear,
hear.") What said the Noble Lord the Chief Secretary for
Ireland ? That Noble Lord had said that, considering the
loose way in which the 101. value was settled in the Revising
Barristers' Courts, the 51. franchise came nearly up to the 10/.
ycarlyaalue. Where had the Noble Lord found that out ?
(Hear.) Had lie consulted any of the Revising Barristers in
England, or looked into the evidence taken before the Rating
of Tenements Committee? If he had done either the Noble
Lord could certainly not persist in the assertion he had put
forth upon this point. In addition to this it was remarkable
that the Noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home De-
partment gave a different answer to the question which had
been put to him upon it.—( Hear.) What the Right Hon.
Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had :said with
respect to Limerick did not prove that the rating was a bad
test, but that the rating was a bad rating. When Honourable
Gentlemen imputed to them that they were raising the fran.
chise they should remember what the Government was
doing in this very Bill. A 25/. holding was required as
a qualificatien for the office of Alderman, while the rating
under this Bill would raise the value upwards of fifty percent.
—( Hear.) It was no answer to the arguments which had
been used against a 51. franchise to say that though it would
lower the franchise in Dublin yet it would raise it in Tralee.
—( Hear.) It was no 'argument in justification of the Bill to
say that it would lower the franchise in one place, and raise it
in another.
The House then divided, when the numbers were—
For the third reading 169
For Lord F. Egerton's amendment 134
Majority for the third reading —3s
On the question that the Bill do pass,
Mr. Sergeant JACK SON moved the insertion of a clause
between clauses 71 and 72, for the purpose of affording some
protection to certain property in Cork, which three-fourths of
the proprietors contended would be exposed to injury by its
being administered by persons interested under this Bill in
deteriorating it.
After a few words from Mr. S. O'BRIEN and Mr. Wouere,
the clause in question was agreed to.
" Mr. O'CONNE LI. propoied a clause by way of rider for
the purpose of enabling parties to vote on the payment of one
year's paving and lighting, and pipe-water rates, even though
arrears beyond thatennount should be due.
Mr. SIIAW thought this would be a departure from the
Irish Reform Bill, and he therefore would object to it.
Lord MORP ET H said that as the proposition of the Hon.
and Learned Member for Dublin seemed to be a reasonable
one, considering all the circumstances connected with these
rates, he should concede so much to him.
Mr. Sergeant JACKSON denied that any ground what-
ever had been shown to justify the insertion of such a clause
in this Bill.
After some further observations, the clause was ordered to
be added to the Bill.
Mr. O'CONNELL also proposed a clause for tile purpose
of preventing the Municipal franchise from depending in any
way on the payment of those rates or taxes, such as the Pav-
ing tax of Dublin, which were payable in advance.
Mr. SHAW said that this sesesta seene o eseaseen
in the lass-, and he, for one, could not consent to it.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL supported the clause,
and it was ordered to he added to the Bill.
Mr. O'CONNELL next proposed a clause for defining the
rates and taxes which, under this Act, must be paid, to entitle
the parties to the right of voting.
The clause was, however, after some conversation, with-
drawn.
The Bill was then passed.
SUGAR DUTIES.

On the motion for going into Committee on the Sugar
Duties Bill,
Mr. CL AY rose to bring forward the motion of whia he
had given notice, but owing to the noise and confusion that
prevailed in the House, and the frequent cries of " Bar, bar,"
to obtain order, the observations of the lion. Member were
imperfectly heard. lie said his object was to get rid of the
concealed bounties paid on the exportation of refined sugar
by a syste,n of drawback whitith entitled the manufacturer of
that article to a larger amount than the duty received on raw
sugar. The effect of that system was to impose a heavy tax
on the people of this country, and to enhance the price of sugar
generally, whether foreign or colonial, beyond what it ought to
Ile, at lest 12s. per cwt. The Hon. 'Member rent into a
statement to show that the principle on which the amount of
the drawback Wl3 calculated was enormous, and contended
that instead of tillbs. every 1191bs. of raw sugar would pro-
duce on the average 'Nibs, of refined sugar. The'evide,ice
before the Board of Trade gave the average at 821b5., and if
this were so it was clear that a ureater reduction than that
proposed in the amount of the 'drawback to be allowed in
future ought to be made. The lion. Member pruceele:l
Ftate that he hal received a letter, sig,Lei by sixteen ry,t of
the trerity:four sugar refiners io London, requesting him tJ
againstProte-t a continuance of those bountes, and to urge
the adoption of the system of returning the duty paid upon
all sugar exported. The Hon. Member contended that
the effect of the system which he proposed would be to
give to the consumers a good and cheap article instead of a
bad a.7-,d a dear one. He concluded by moving the following
amendment :—" That it be an instruction to the Committee
that they have power to make provision fur permitting British
plantation sugar to be taken from the bonding warehouses for
the purpose of refining, ou approved sceurit/ being given for
the payment of the duty ; and also to move in Committee on

the Bill that the bounty or allowance payable on the ev.p.ma
tion of all desrfiptieis of refined sugar, and of the treacle
produced in the process of refining, be twenty-four shillings
per cwf"
Mr. P. THOMSON said that his Hon.- rriead had failed
to convince him that the plan which he proposed would have
the effect which he anticipatwl fro n it. There was nothing
whatever new in the plan which the Hon. Member had pro-
po el. It was a plan that had been wider the consideration
of successive Governments. The plan proposed was that
twenty-four shillings duty should be returned on every bun-
Cred of sugar exported. This plan involved the necessity
of ascertainir", the pr portions of sugar and molasses con-
tained in each cat. of the raw mater;al imported. The ne-
cesary result of adopting the plan pr .pase-d would be to
raise the price of molasses to the consumers. As to Aldo-
cument signed by the sugar refiners, it was not surprising
that ti.ey should recommend the plan prop ised. He con•
tended that the plan proposed by the lion. Member was one
that would fat in its operation, and would not produce the
Le.:efits which the Hon. nbcr expec‘ed from it. He felt
bound to oppose the mot'on,
Mr. HU.IIE felt great doubt as to the propriety of the
course adopted by his Il.m. Friend. He thought that where
there was such conflicting evidence in favour of different sys-
tems, it would have been the best mode to have referred the
consideration of the matter, in the first instance, to a Commit-
tee of Inquiry.
Mr. PEASE was anxious to get rid of the present varying
and uncertain standard by which the duties acre regulated.
The trade was at present borne down by fiscal regulations, of
which the sooner they got rid the bettor.

After a few words from Mr. VILLIERS and Mr. TIIORNELY,
The SPEAKER put the question, and the amendment was
negatived without a division.

The House then went into Committee upon the Bill.
On clause 1 being :Toposed,
Mr. HUME moved an amendment to the effect that the
duty on brown and muscovado suga-s should be reduced from
245. to 20s. per cwt. The Honourable Member contended
that in every instance where a reduction of duty had taken
place en any article a great increase in the consumption of
that article was the consequence. This was instanced in the
article of coffee. Since tl.c duty on coffee had been reduced
from Is. to 6.1. per lb. the consumption of that article had
greatly increased; and so far from the revenue having suf-
fered by the reduction there had, on the contrary, been a very
considerable increase in th! revenue with respect to that arti-
cle. The same had taken place with respect to wine and spi-
rits. Ile contended that the same effect would be produced
by reducing the duty on sugar. Under any circumstances
158.0001. per annum would be the utmost that could be risked
by the experiment, and he thought that where the benefit of
the public was concerned that experiment ought to be made.
The lion. Member concluded by moving that the duty. on im-
portation of muscovado sugitt be reduced to 203. per cwt.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER contended
that the consumption of sugar increased with the increase of
duty, and he there ore trusted that the Comtaittee would not
agree in the proposition of the Hon. Gentleman, but that the
House and the country would be satisfied with the progress
they were making, and not again making a gratuitous sacrifice
of the revenue of the country.
Mr. G OULB URN said that if the duty was reduced to
the drawback formerly allowed it would be a serious reduction
of the revenue. The history of the sugar duties showed that
the tax did not affect the producer or the consumer of sugar
in a manner so serious as to prevent the extensive consump-
tion of that article, and he should therefore oppose the
amendment.

Mr. VI L LIE R S thought that foreign sugar should be ad-
mitted at the same duty as the sugar produced in our own
colonies. This, he considered, would be the best mode of
benefiting the consumer.

Mr. HIJME said that after what had fallen from the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer he should not press his amendment.
The clause was then agreed to.
The remaining clauses were agreed to, and the Bill ordered
to be reported to the House.

The Slave Vessels Captured Bill was read a third time.
. DANISH CLAIMS.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in answer
to a question from Mr. Cresswcll, said that the Government
had given directions that those claims should be investigated
by Commissioners, and that their report would be laid before
the House.

The Dean Forest Mines Bill was read a third time and
passed, several clauses were also added by way of rider.
The Dean Forest Encroachments Bill, as amended, wvs
teal a third time and passed.
The Prisons Bill was reported.
The report of the Glass Duties Bill was brought up.
The Party Processions (Ireland) Bill was read a third time
and passed.
_

Tile other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and
the House adjourned at Half-past One.

HOUSE OF LORDS, JUNE 25.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY took his scat on the Woolsack
at Five o' Clock.

The Duke of BEDFORD and the Marquis of ORNIONDE took
the oaths and their seats.

Messengers from the House of Commons brought up some
private Bills, which were laid on the table.
Mr. Bury, from the Court of Chancery (Ireland), ap-
peared at the Bar with certain returns, which were laid on the
table.

The Bishop of ELY presented a petition from the Arch-
deaconry of the diocese of Ely, praying that in any system of
national education that might be introduced, due regard
would be had to the interests of the Established Church.
The Right Rev. Relate then gave notice that to-morrow he
should present a petition from the diocese of Ely complaining
of certain clauses in the Benefices Pluralities Bill.

The Earl of HAREWOOD presented a petition from
Leeds, complaining of the improper regulation of beer-houses.
SLAVERY.

Earl MINTO said he was extremely sorry he was not in the
House when the Noble and Learned Lord( Brougham) had given
notice on the subject of slavery. If not inconvenient, he hoped
the Noble Lord would postpone Isis motion till after the
Coronation.

Lord BROUGHAM would acquiesce with the greatest
possible pleasure. Indeed, it would be inconvenient, he
feared, to bring it on on the day lie had named, and
he would, therefore, postpone it till Thursday week. The
Noble and Learned Lord then made an amendment on
the terms of his motion, for the purpose of giving it a more
extensive range.
POOR LAW. AMENDMENT BILL.

The Bishop of EXETER presented a petition from the
vicar of a parish in the diocese of Ely, complaining of the
conduct of the overseers of the Board of Guardians of Caxton
and Arnington Union, in preventing the paupers from attending
divine service on Sundays in the parish church. Also a petition
from 3,090 or 4.000 inhabitants of the town of Dudley, complain-
ing of the operation of the Poor-law Amendment Bill. particu-
larly that clause which related to the separation of husband and
wife. Ile contended that such a proceeding was illegal,
and contrary to the decisions of the Judges of the land.
He would feel it his duty to put the question into a course of
legal investigation—(llear)—either by certiorari in the Court
of Queen's Bench, or some other mode.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE was gratified to find that the
Right Rev. Prelate had taken up this most important sub-
ject, but he could not too strongly deprecate the conduct of
those who made assertions on the authority of nobody knew
who—(Hear)—which, when properly investigated, would turn
out to be utterly unfounded.—( Hear.)
Lord RADNOR believed the doctrine of the illegality of
separating man and wife had been carried too far. Sonic
persons—he did not know whether it was the Right Rev.
Prelate or not—maintained that it was illegal to separate them
for a day, or an hour ; and if so, they were all acting illegally
in not having their wives with them in the House of Lord:.
A laugh.) If the Right Rerercnd Prelate were a married
man, he also was culpable in not having his wife with him.
He contended that the assertions that had been made relative
to the dietary in the workhouses wer3 completely unfounded.
The Noble Lord here referred to certain returns that had
been laid on the table in consequence of complaints lodged
against the Hord of Guardians of a certain Poor-law Union,
which proved that they were entirely without foundation.
The Bishop of EXETER explained. lie denied that he
had ever made the assertion which the Noble Earl had imputed
to him, and complained of the hardship of alluding to ma:ters
which had occurred scme months ago. He would remind
the House of what occurred in 1834, when that gre:Aest
boast of Britons, the Act for the Emaneinati,,,, „r
Puuti unf.CIISC of twenty millions
to the country. On that occasion the strongest words were
used to afford such protection to the apprenticed negroes
as would prevent husbands and wives from being separated
--=-( Hear, from Lord Brougham )—such separation being deemed
contrary to the spirit of the British Constitution.
The Earl of HAT FIERTO believed the dietary in the
neighbourhood of Dudley was more expensive than that usually
provided, and he believed very general dissathfaction existed
with regard to the operation of tie law in that district.
Ear! STANHOI'E preened a petition from the Rev.
Mr. Bull on the subject of tin poor-laws.
The petitioner
stated that the optration of the Ittv as it at present stood was
calculated to alienate the affectim of the poorer classes from
the aristocracy.
After a few words from Lordßanewn and Lord Wriame-
CLIFFE,
The Duke of RICHMOND :aid he felt it his duty to vin-
dicate the Noble ENrl ( Stardßie), who war britiging fer_
ward those charges against the board of Guardians.—( Hear.)
The Noble Earl produced th Rer. Mr. Bull before the'
Committee, and M'. Bull bro'e down, and now he was en-
couraged to tiring fermird thesTharges.—( Laughter.)
The petition was then laid mile table.
IRISH MAGSTRACY.
The Marquis of LON DO I!JE RR Y care net:ce that it
was his iatention on Tuesday, le 3d of July. to move, first.
for a copy of the eircalar-lettenddressed by the Lord Lieu-
tenant of Ireland to the Lords,ieuienant of counties of Ire-
land, dated Dublin Castle, Malt, and signed " Drummond;"
secondly, copies or extracts oldie answers of Lords Lieu-
tenant 'of counties to such ciedate letter; and, thidly, for a
ri turn of the order from the :lanaper Office, calling upon
oath Magistrate to tal;e out %Biwa delay his dcdimus, and
specifying the Magistrates reinoy added; and, fourthly, a
return of' the -number of StiDediary Magistrates appointed
since the passing of ow 'Act, scifying the counties to which
they were appointed.
The Earl of MULGR AVEsaid that i: the Noble Lord
would
• give him a copy of the eturns he moved for he would
consider them.

CORONLTION.
The Marquis of LONDODERRY wshed to put a
question to tlw Noble Lord at ilk; head of licrAlaf'sty's Go-
vernment respecting the augut ceretr....ny wfcli would taLe
place in a day or two. It word be in the recat:ction of the

_
Ileuse on the oce ision of the presentation of era' pet..y:
on this subject the Noble Viscount said that there wool nc__
procession of carriages. He did not believe that that proa,e;rs.
51011 could have any possible connection with the Ambass flsar
Extraordinary sent to this country; but he WAS WO' t°
that an arrangement bad been made entirely without ,P;11-ier
dent. The actors at the ceremony were her Meie,tY cc •
subjects, and from it he thought all others ought to Pwit,
a_
eluded. On locking to the Gazette he found the progi_oj
first stated the '• advance of trumpeters"—( Laughter) e the
that next in the order of processi in came the carriage n' reee
Charge d'Affrires of Mexico, the carriage of the
d'Affaires of Portugal, the carriage of Chargedthe ff:ires
Nee,
or Sweden, and the csrriage of the Greek Minister. t
i,"
what he wished to ask was, whether this arraegententose
Tiede at the solicitation of the Government, and whethcrd
illustrious perscnabees, the Foreign Ambassadors, h`ith
quiesccd in it ? He remembered the extreme delieeeY of
which questions of this kind were treated at the Cootfe es-
Ch
Venna, and he could not reconcile it to his duty not ell
treute astonishment at an arrangement so different from
precedent. t 015
Viscount MELBOURNE believed the arrangement
mode on an intimation from the Government, and he ht'.
that the representatives of the Foreign Powers had acqnlee
in tl•e arrangementL. • t, he
The Marquis of ONDONDERR Y— Acquiesced 11
arrangement according to the programme ?
ount MELBOURNE—Yes, certainly.
eluTsilli,eel)Eoarflaonf
altZiloPnar
chtalriaocutgelrit.—th(eickearer.m)ony
Lord
After a few words from Earl FITZWILLIAM and
1311OUGHAM the subject dropped.
On the motion of Lord REDESDALE the Frecoonl
Stem:, Duty Bill was read a second time. a ecti•
The Bishopof EXETER should' to-morrow present
ct't of
tion from the Rev. Mr. Baker Stonehead, on the subie
the National Education Committee. • tition in
The Bishop of NORWICH, in presenting re the bad
favour of the national system of education, said that Pc was
lately visited all the poor houses in his diocese, and
_lgners,
ought to be ex'
happy to say, from personal communication with the I".tb re'
that t'sey had everything they could require; and that wi vO.l
spsct to the education of the children, if the Noble
td,it
( Stanhope) could see the improvement that had been effecc
would eolfar to make him a convert to the working of 0,0.
APPOINTMENT OF SHERIFF, IN HUMAN
e„,,
Lord L YND UR ST was desirous in bringing thi' qutCol/
lion under their Lordships' consideration to call their atteinn"ed
,ri,
to the. great practical alteration which had been elve
on this subject by the Noble Earl at the head of the Grbcean
meat of Ireland—a great practical alteration which had d
ad-
introduced within the three years that the Noble Earl llaci bes
ministered the Government of that country. He n."l, r-
leave in the outset to state that the Crown never, at an, vie
riod of our history, had the aointment of Sheriffs ,cti
re
and
was not his opinion alone, butpp it was the opinion c%p
upwards of a century ago by a Judge of great emineaee_d in
learning. He alluded to Chief Baron Atkins, vvho stattF hid
terms precisely the same as those lie (Lord iLyndlairE never
made use of, that the power of appointment Was by the
,
verted in the Crown, either by the ancient law
common law, or by the statute law of the Coil' tate'
(Hear, hear.) By the ancient law the Sheriffs were c_.;lejte.
by the freemen at the county Court ; but innrcieete
ences having been found to result from the mode
iniii_onee,-
ing, and for the purpose of removing those 'istee,;
niences the Legislature interfered, and two Acts reglidsops
the appointment of sheriffs were passed. Their 1-ioty, boa
would therefore see that the Crown, by the ancient lae'c'fren,
no power to appoint. The power was vested in then freieete4
who elected precisely in the same manner as they nmnible and
Coroners. But what did the statutes say ? The '„ota'n the
Learned Lord then went on at great length to eeytilon
statutes, and argue on the law of the case. In ad"' Lord;
what he had already stated, he would beg to refer their bad
ships to the opinion of Chief Baron Atkins, to wh°,,mlished tit
before referred, as expressed in his Law Tracts, P",:rl that it,
the reign of King William. The Learned Baron •e:gth tie'
neither Pa 'only
" is most evidently made out that the King
ever had, any just right or power to elect
his patent or commission to the sheriff bath .Ijsis 511
signify to the sheriff himself that is so chosen—tinsion
sheriff,.
used to
the use of the patent ; but it is the proper eleludgeis
those great officers (Lord Chancellor, 'freasuree, hoght
tat
ete ) that truly vests them in their office." isle itand
he had now made out, as far as related to Dn,"' and
least, that the law was clear, distinct, and pree,s°, star
that there was no power to deviate from the words of be laies
cute, for both the language and the construction were joie!'
and as he had already proved Dyer's case had no "'aelass'
whatever. But how did this apply to Ireland ? g with
with respect to Ireldnd was precisely the same as the
CO
respect to England. The Act of Parliament e mod,
called " Poyning's Act," the 10th of Henry the Seventh, rod,
these Statutes the law of Ireland as well as the law of En.glo had
A Noble Lord whom he did not then see in his place, sciLerd
filled the office of Secretary for Ireland, had told hiraltive rs
Lyndhurst) that there was no doubt the law was the S'
ape
the law of England. Some time ago Commissioners wertice of
pointed for the purpose of inquiring into the Courts of insearned
Ireland, one of whom was the son of a Noble and thetr re'
Lord who sat on the opposite side of the House. In d the
port they stated that '• the election of sheriffs was tin der the
9th of Edward the Second and the 14th of Edward the
and that the law was precisely the same a+that of Eng affne‘i
This, it must be remembered, was the opinion of meg *5,
acquainted with the subject. He had stated these autborr'
but he admitted there was an authority entitled to grca,
weight and to great consideration on the other side--the aho
thority of the Noble Lord opposite, the Lord President,4,t
of course was well versed in the duties of his office 'of
'a
Noble Lord on a former occasion—on the presentation 0,
petition—said that the right was vested in the Crown. f the
should have disputed neither the law nor the authority 0, but
Noble Marquis if the case had depended upon authority ;u
when the Noble Marquis gave his reason, and referread bad
Act of Parliament, which he (Lord Lyndhurst) fouti'ebt ta
nothing to do with the subject, he thought lie had a relr on
°10:1
dispute the authority of the Noble Marquis, and to di the
the authorities to which he had referred. What ~_ the
Noble Marquis say ? He (Lord Lyndhurst) quoted into the
Mirror of Parliament. lie said—" Siece I came u the
House I have referred to the Irish Act of Parliament on
subject (1 Henry VII.) by which all the then existiageherlP
lations and laws with respect to the appointment °f ring rho
were done away with, for the express purpose of vesa
oc ecera;
appointment in the Crown, and from that time it has e
of
ingly remained vested in the Crown, no Act or interfer
Parliament having deprived the Crown of the authority Noble
has been so reposed in it." This statement of th cure th°
Marquis proved with respect to law as well as to
litera
truth of the line—
" Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:t app
—( Hear, hear. That law had no reference s lend 'WO
e, toe - en
meat of Sheriffs. It merely put the treasurer in Ire tve,uh
the same footing as the treasurer in England ; hs
t 0
ask, how could such a measure make any altereti°nrngere rect.
appointment of Sheriffs? But what made the eitr,o ,(1
merkable was, that the Acts of Edward the fct- Dud
Edward the Third were then in existence, and -b
re nir;rl.3
which the Noble Marquis referred was previous t° 5'11:
Act. But this was not all. There was another sinige•h ryas -t
on the part of the Noble Marquis. This law, "Jun- prescling
law of Ireland now—which continued in force at
rs ago 1'
time--this law was expressly repealed about forts' Ye; utter
the Act of the 43d of George the Third, and it sy be t.
waste paper.—(Hear, hear.) Really, he thought ethorite
quoted sufficient to show that the Noble Marquiss sionc,,rst,
ought not to outweigh the authority of the Con'un-eed
Fifteenth Report and the authority of Poyning's Act ; t chip
thought he was entitled to say that the law with rOPec,o es
chi
appointment of sheriffs was just the same in !relent'
England. Now as to the practice. If the aye 1 '"ae" cl 11f O°-
Act were distinct and precise subsequent usage CO 0•Ith
affect it, but, in this case, he found the usage corlesPle
the Acts. He would now state to their Lordships 1t be,
deuce at different periods as to the usage. The Noble
rent
then went on at great length to explain the usage as e see.l
times with regard to the appointment of Sheriffs. I'll gainn e
Earl (the Earl of Mulgrave) ought to be well acl er, °°
with the practice, but the Noble Earl said that there fiY'ecne-
a
such rule in Ireland. He stated this with so ,neck °Xi s
that the House at the time acquiesced in it. e r
tea
The Earl of M ULG RA VE—I said there lie"
similar rule. r of the
had L YND HURST—I have only eof the rePQ-iticre r„;
Mirror qf Parliament.—( H,‘ar, hear. ) • The word, t ef
i" nereiru there is no general ineetingthe ref:
Judges, or-of persons representing the execotise for 3 ICI
turn of three names to the Government, and to
pose." And aeain "the Judge going the Asa'ee Ina--'li3t 0-
h
returned the seicction is usually confined." a oc
The Earl of MULG R AVE N I v"1.
o, no ; ne
words. A /
Lord LYNDHURST was verified be llansare'.,,,
observai'',os
bates" and by the report of the Noble Earl's
they appeared in the Mirror qf pc7.l,,,nent ; but he ,13;
now glad the Noble Lord deniedthe ' • aacaracy of the;,nieJ
also ut"
ported expressions, because he supposed that lie (
the facts to which they related.—( Hear, hear.) Chic
eately, however, for the Noble Lord, the words of thertb re'
Justice of the King's Benell in Ireland, as given therjee ifs
port of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the Courts of off
Lela, d, made in 1826, stated the practice to he erititeYaarnee
site to the Noble Lord's view of it: [The Noble and lit
Lord here read the words in question.] That rare I,lelAlia' e 51,1%
to Ireland with as much precision as it epplied to '"sber
~tlll,ly.e,tnlidt
ist-uttrsis.: aeos
rrhatdee;s::ii
t(m)tnee,d,
to
in
at
61::aro:iirli'le- glett"lll'htnelBpeteoicpc:i icijoalin:lrrtPdstdtreele.of
Sir
Robef t
tlic law had Leen violated and the artice broken in Upon' the
soointto
ththat
t likewisehe e thl
had
the usage,
ibnutetrlviael
Ni,tear.".s..the practice iu 1797, hut in itice following S°l-'f•sol'i
sf= rebellion,tt
ta(lycsaur
t(.3tr.rid socialp crier at that pa r'ijaorrsidli: t e wore et ,
d
•
welt, and that jud
ade.tiiiblait'evnocliln.trhatia atlej:cioelt:hi'itreatodtit,cfi Pfeti:urtjlaarie.:olln.Cl:::;l;l
cieet:i
'to the
I..)ut
ts,
h the individual whom lie deemed fittest for the P°, et
for
trot A
In one i lat e
without • t •
rem,rkable era recurred in Irish historf--°3"re
gNesobr
leetuLuoi
read
itlphepoilii.sttlscinofoseseln,
Lieuteeant made the aPP°th•
t!le lists. This practice c:7nei
eel as Seerftdf the
country.
Until the-ri it was the custom and the usage ° eta
But the attention of that Right lion. Baronet di,
b n called to this state ef th'nee his • " bee"
f6'
ith a view
lotc):lo(.;stuesiiidaeorftp;
oytrhed‘e;ooi
:Cghlaireti‘oivrr.
reeted towards it, he immediattery" consuvliteed"with 11 ;ars
tsciie at once w,ar
e!} the lacy ndt hdaewiurrhsicap remedy
oeciltie;)ovu,fin:t.c:si nitt iota.
aanyn(15::(1,:ti:::
former State,
and put it on t
on welch still continued •. to exist since
the s title footi,,,which it had pre°°lls' irhe
isted and • it on
up to the period when the Noble Earl exercised the of6ce °
that t f

Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) He (Lord L. )
considered that he had now established the fact of the practice
itt Ireland, and he defied the Noble Earl to re'u. e his posi-
tion. Ile should, therefore, conclude his observe:tions on that
branch of the subject by referring the House to the words of
Justice Blackstone, in further confirmation of his case. After
referring to the case, as quoted in the reign of Henry VI , that
profound lawyer end high Constitutional authority went on
to make some remarks on the memorandums of that case. The
Noble and Learned Lord read the opinion of Justice Blackstone.
That was the opinion of Mr. Justice Blackstone in respect to
sheriffs so appointed. Having shown this, he ( Lord Lynd-
hurst) had stated what he conceived to be the law of the lam!
and the practice of the Constitution on the subject. Could it
be denied that the subject was one of the grea'e,t conse-
quence. No one who looked to the nature of the duties which
the office of high sheriff involved—who considered the influence
the individual holding that office had upon the working of the
Constitution, Cie execution of the laws, and the administra
lion of justice—could deem it otherwise than of the most
vital importance. Accordingly, from the earliest periods of
the constitutional history of England it would be found that
the power of the prerogative exercised is the creation of
sheriffs had been uniformly objected to while the Constrution
was in a healthy state. One of the articles of impeachment
against Tressillian and Robert do Vere, Lord Justic,s, was
altogether founded on the illegality of their appointreer,t of
sheriffs. Again, in the time of Charles the Second, when a
deputation of the citizens of Dublin (we believe) waited on
Lord Keeper North to complain of the appointment of
Sheriffs by the Royal prerogative, that the Noble and Learned
Individual said to them—" You shall have your rights accord -
ing to your charter, but if the King disapproves of your
selection you shall then have a Commission to inquire into the
matter." A Noble Lord in the other House whose writ-
ings he (Lord Lyndhurst) admired for the soundness of
their principles, as much as he disapproved of his practise in
the matters of which he treated, in them considered " that by
that Act the Throne completed its victory over the people.".._
( Hear, hear,) In the time of James the Second also an at-
tempt was made to nominate the Sheriffs, and in that alempt
the Crown was successful in every county in Ireland save and
except Donegal. How the matter was di.feated there was
not a matter connected with the subject in hand, and, there-
fore, he should not further allude to it. But it was in
writing to this day the intrigues which then took
place to make all the High Sheriffs of the country out of
the Roman Catholic party. When the lists were made out
they were handed to a person in the confidence of the Crown ;
and on being noted by him with notes respecting the claim of
the individual on the score of religion nud politics, they were
then transmitted to the King. They underwent another
examination, and were noted again by the Kin, and his ad-
visers, and then they were returned to the Lord Lieutenant of
Ireland. From the lists so prepared the Sheriffs were ap-
pointed. There were some curious notes on them still in ex-
istence, and he ( Lord Lyndhurst) would with permission
read a few of them for their Lordships :-
4. Wicxnow.—Sir Robert Kennedy, if to be judged by his
intimates, extremely Whiggish.—( Laughter.) Answer.—
An honest gentleman, descended from loyal pasents. In the
usurper's time, sufferers for their loyalty--himself an active
Justice of the Peace.
" KING'S COUNTY.--Edward Bagot, reputed dishonest, but
loyal. Answer.—Very loyal, though once questioned for
favouring Tories—(Laughter)—but acquitted, some thinking
him to be a Roman Catholic.—(A laugh.)

" FERMANAGH.-Sir Michael' Cole,iseakand Whiggish.

(Great laughter.) Answer.--A sober, loyal gentleman, and
no bustling man—(Laughter)—but of a very good under-
standing, aad no Whig."—Laughter.)
" DunLlN.—Henry Fernby, a weak man and Whiggish.—
.

(Great laughter.) Answer.:-A quiet, sober, ingeniotis man.
—(Laughter.) A very good Justice of the Peace, of very
loyal principles—so far from being a Whig that he is a con-
stant Church of England man."—(Great laughter.)
These were some of the objections made in those bad
times to obtain the appointment of sheriffs by the Crown
for the undisguised purpose of controlling the course of jus-
tice, vitiating the law, and overturning the Constitution.—
(Hear.) It was a singular coincidence, and one very remark-
able in many more ways than one, that one of the gravest
charges against a Lord Chancellor of Ireland, Sir Constan-
tine Phipps—(Laughter, and cheers)—an ancestor he (Lord
Lyndhurst) also believed of the Noble Earl, was the illegal
appointment of sheriffs—( Herr, hear)—nay more, it actually
formed the subject of a resolution passed against him in the
House of Commons.—( Cheers, and laughter.) Ho (Lord
Lyndhurst) did not in anything he said on the subject mean'
to impute the least impropriety of motive to the
acts of the Noble Earl; on the contrary, he had no doubt
that in all the Noble Earl had done he had acted, in his
own opinion, fairly, properly, and consistently. It was to
the results of the Noble Earl's actions, and not with the mo-
tives, that he objected. The Noble Earl had told the House
on a former occasion that he never appointed a High Sheriff
in Ireland from political motives or with any private views,
and the House was bound to believe him. But what had the
Noble Earl done in point of fact ? He had, on the best au-
thority which could be adduced on the subject, appointed se-
veral men in a perfectly illegal manner. All he ( Lord Lynd-
hurst) wished for was to have the facts laid before the country ;
all he wished for was to know on what grounds these proceed-
ings had taken place. It was a grave subject, involving many
most important considerations. It had been said on a
former occasion that a precedent existed to justify the acts
of the Noble Earl in that respect; and a case was
quoted then which occurred in the time of the Duke of
Northumberland's Viceroyalty as parallel with them. But
what was that case, and how stood the facts? Thus. The
son of the then Chief Baron (o:Grady) had a fierce election
contest for a county for which his father had the return of the
Sheriffs in the ordinary routine of his duty as a Judge. .The
return was made in due course by him ; but in such an excited
state of party feeling it was foreseen that it would be objected
to, and that the High Sheriff, if appointed from either the
three names it contained, might he subject to the charge of
partiality. In short, it was anticipated that an undue exercise
of his authority to influence the election of his relative would
be charged against the Chief Baron The Duke of Northum-
berland, on being informed of these facts, set aside the list fur-
nished him by the Chief Baron, and, on his own authority,
appointed a gentleman not mentioned by any party instead of
those named in that document. To prove, however, that pru-
dence and partiality dictated the proceeding, and, in order
that there might not he even the shadow of cause for aspersion
of the motives of the Government, the Noble Duke appointed
an individual who was diametrically opposed in political
opinions to the party who then held 'power in the State.
That these motives were the true ones which actuated
the Noble Duke in that proceeding there could be no doubt,
and that they were dictated by the purest intentions as little
doubt could be entertained. Another case alluded to had oc-
curred under the Administration of the Marquis Wellesley, as
Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, but he (Lord Lyndhurst) was
not accurately acquainted with all the particulars, and there-
fore lie could found no argument on it. He (Lord Lynd-
hurst) rested his case for a Committee on the broad pi ineiple
contained in the undisputed fact that, in more than twenty
cases within the three years of the Noble Earl's Government
of Ireland, the Judges' List had been altogether passed over,
contrary to the express letter of the law—contrary to imme-
morial usage--and contrary to the principles of the Consti-
tution. There was another case in connection with the admi-
nistration of justice which bore upon the Noble Earl's appoint-
ment of Mr. Kenny to the office of High Sheriff of Monaghan. ,
—(llen., hear, hear.) It was a case involving the right
to a valuable watercourse, in which the panics interested
had gone to great expense. The attendance of the High
Sheriff was necessary at a particular part of the proceedings ;
but in consequence of the Noble Earl's superseding Mr. Coote
and appointing Mr. Kenny, it was impossible for that func-
tionaryto give his attendance at the proper time, and thus
the suit was stopped, and the case turned over to the next
Assizes, to the great chagrin and incalculable expense of the
parties to it. There was another case, likewise, which bore
upon it equally strong. When the County Assizes were held
at Cavan, the question was raisei as to the appointment of
Mr. Kenny, in connection with the legality of the Grand
Jury. The Noble Earl had said the other night, "As to the
question of law, the .Judges decided that the appointment of
Mr. Kenny was perfectly valid." He ( Lord Lyndhurst) had
heard it with his own ear:, and also from other organs—the
Morning Chronicle, and similar vehicles of intelligence. But
the Noble Earl, in his opinion, should be a little more cau-
tious of communicating such intelligence. The Judges had
never decided that it was legal. There was a question le-
sporting the challenge of the array; but even that was not de-
cided, for the Judges postponed their decision to give time for
a writ of error. When the Noble Lord raid that the Judges
had decided that the appointment was legal, lie stated that
which was not exactly the fact, for both were of a contrary
opinion. The late Chief Baron Joy, a Judge of the highest
integrity and greatest learning, had expressed his decided
opinion to the contrary in a correspondence with the Noble
Earl. He ( Lord Lyndhurst) had the opinion of that Learned
Judge in his hands—an opinion which could not be cxe eded
by that of any man at the Bar—and it was diametrically op-
posite to the fact as stated by the Noble Earl. Haw, indeed,
the Noble Earl could ever have stated that the Judges de-
eidCd in favour of the legality of the appointment, looking at
that document, he ( Lord I,,,indhur,t) could not conceive.
The Earl of MULG RAVE had never stated that the
Judges decided in favour of the legality of the app ,intrrient ;
he had only said that Mr. Justice Burton decided on- the le-
gality of the array.
Lord L YNDII UR ST had not so understood the Noble
Earl.

The Earl of AWL GR AVE said that, having denied
the accuracy of the statement, and informed the Noble P11(1
Learned Lord of what he had actually said, the Noble and
Learned Lord was nit in order in p.-n,isting in his assertion.
Lord LYN I) H VEST said that all he coulds say was that
the Lord Chief Baron Joy and Mr. Justice Burton mere b.lh
of opinion that the appointment of Shetilfs by the Noble Earl
was illegal. The Noble Lord concluded by moving—. That
a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the 'Twi-
ner in which Sheriffs were alm6inted in the counties of Ire-
land in 1835, 1836, 1837, and 1838, and to report thereon to
the House."
The Earl of M LILO RAVE said, in regard to • the appoint-
ment of Sheriffs in Ireland he bad Oven his very best
consideration to the subject ; he had obtained the highest
legal advice to guide him, and he had given thlt advice
quite as much examination as he was capable of. Before he
proceeded farther ho would, however, say one word on the sub-
ject of the Noble Lord's motion. It was only two months since
that the Noble Lord had put a notice on the books of the House
for a return of the number
t,f prisoners in Afonaghan gaol be-
fore and after the last Assizes. The Noble Lord had many op-
portunities of c:taminintr into the grounds of the motion up to
Very last moment when he ( Earl Mulgrave) could obtain in-
telligence from Ireland that he bad abandoned his motion, and
00 a profession of fairness, adopted the one before the House.

How far that profeesien k'sai consistent with the Noble Lord's
practice '3.51W, (the Earl of Mulgrave) went on, he would
have to point out to the House. He (the Earl of Mulgrave)
beggcd.of their Lordships to consider the nature of the mo-
tion of the Noble Lord, It was to the effect that the Govern-
ment of Ireland had done something to impede the course of
justice in Ireland, to thwart the Inn., and to overturn the Con-
stitution—to let the guilty go free, to condemn the innocent,
to oppress the liberties of the country. Such was the nature
of the Noble and Learned Lord's motion, and yet the Noble
and Learned Lord---sone of the first lawyers in the kiegdom,
one of the best criminal Judges on the bench—founded it on
a mere newspaper report that Monaghan gaol was not de-
livered. And, then, when he found the futility of his informa-
tion, he made the motion before the House. It might be with
a view of fairness that the Noble Lord withdrew the one mo-
tion and substituted the other; but to him (the Earl of Mu._
grave) it looked marvellously like a desire on the part of the
Noble Lord to get himself out of a difficulty, because he fore-
saw the return would not answer the object he had in contem-
plation. And here he (the Esrl of Mulgrave) felt bound to
say that the Noble Lord was not only unfair in his argument,
but irregular in the course he had taken, in referring, first, to
a former debate; secondly, in reading a newspaper report ;
and thirdly, in net taking the statement of the exact words
used by him (the Earl of Mulgrave) in preference to those
on which he founded his argument. Now, what was the case ?
The Noble Marquis opposite had raised the question as to the
illegality of the grand jury on the Irish Poor-law Bill. That
body Mr. Justice Burton had decided 'was perfectly legal.
He (the Earl of Mulgrave) did not say that Chief Baron
Joy had given any opinion on the subject ; indeed, he could
not, for that Learned Baron had left the town. He had
made no allusion whatever to him. The Noble Lord
had stated how the sheriffs in Ireland should be appointed,
but he (the Earl of Mulgravd) apprehended that by the sth
and 6th of William IV., cap. 50, the Act referred to by the
Noble Lord was superseded. He (the Earl of Mulgrave) was
quite sure that Mr. Coote had not served on this Grand Jury;
but the Noble Marquis had so positively assured him of it that
he was quite staggered in his belief until he had made farther
inquiry, and found that he was right. But, whatever might
be said of that, the act of suspendinss a High Sheriff was a
strong one, and required a special justification. No grounds
except the public service and the peace of the country would
be sufficient to warrant it. In his allusion to this case he
should include the circumstance of the appointment of the
Sub-Sheriff. The Sub-Sheriff of a county was charged with
a most important and onerous duty in the present state
and condition of Ireland. It was found in one case
that the Sub-Sheriff was the apprentice to an attorney, and
therefore could not be a free agent. Under these circum.
stances he was objected to, and was not appointed. Mr.
Howley, who made the appointment, repudiated the obsi r.
vations of Colonel Perceval in another place on the subject.
The next case was that of James Gray. It was intimated to
the Executive that this person was only nineteen years of age,
and a letter was addressed to the High Sheriff on the subject.
The answer to it was that his father, Mr. Samuel Gray, of
Ballibay, a most notorious person in that part of the country,
was appointed to the office of sub-sheriff in his stead. Now,
independent of the impropriety of appointing a person, known
as a partisan, and so notorious throughout the country, there
was another objection, which should be in itself sufficient to
prevent his appointment, namely, that he was a publican, and
in that capacity could not be supposed to know any thing of
law—an essential qualification in a sub-sheriff. That circum-
stance in itself would be sufficient to supersede him in the office.
He would now come to the graver and more important
question—the custom of Ireland, in respect to the ex.
tent of jurisdiction which the Lord Lieutenant possessed
over the selection and appointment of sheriffs. The Noble
and Learned Lord had quoted the Statutes 7th of Edward
the Second and 14th of Edward the Third, which regulated
finally that office in England, and he had applied them as if
they had also been always observant in Ireland. Now, what
was the fact ? That, so far from the case being in point, he
could assure their Lordships, upon the authority of the first
lawyers in Ireland, that those Statutes had not been in force
in that country, and that, from the fact of the position in which
Ireland was placed at the period of the passing of those Acts,
and for along time subsequently, it was absolutely impossible
that they could have been in operation. The terms of those
Statutes were inapplicable to the then existing state of Ireland.
Officers were named and regulations alluded to which could
not then have application to that country. The Noble Lord
then proceeded to refer to some old legal authority respect-
ing the appointment of sheriffs, and to answer Lord
Lyndhurst's arguments on this branch of the question.
The Noble and Learned Lord had alluded to an Act passed
for the purpose of assimilating the law and usages of England
and Wales at a very distant period. Such an Act, certainly,
held good in the case of England and Wales, but no such Act
had been passed with respect to England and Ireland, and
therefore the Act alluded to could not be held as any authority
upon the subject. He (Lord Mulgrave) should not repeat
what he stated two years ago with reference t 3 the contrast
between the customs in both countries. He had been at that
time misunderstood in the expressions he used. What he had
said was that there was no meeting ofthe Judges or the persons
connected with the Executive upon the subject of the appoint-
ment and selection of the sheriffs after the selection. What he
had said was, that in Ireland there was no meeting of the Judges
analogous to the meeting of the English Judges in the Exche-
quer Chamber. There was no such meeting in Ireland, and he
was fully borne out in again saying that the proceedings in
Ireland were in no way nor in any time analogous. Nothing
could be more distinct than all the customs connected with the
subject. The Noble and Learned Lord had quoted a letter
of Lord Clarendon's with reference to the question to which
he was referring. He ( Lord Mulgrave) was sorry that the
Noble and Learned Lord bad not referred to another letter of
Lord Clarendon's, which went directly to show that a simi-
larity of customs was, at the time that letter was written, by no
means established.--[Here the Noble Lord read an extract
from one of Lord Clarendon's letters, showing that the
course interfering with the selection of the Sheriffs had then
been adopted to a certain extent, and saying that persons
of all parties and of different religions, who were best able
to give information upon the subject, had been indiscrimi.
nately referred to, in order to make out the lists.] Here was
the practice, as described by Lord Clarendon, exactly similar
to what had been since so loudly complained of ; it furnished
irrefragable testimony that the Lord Lieutenant had inter-
fered in the fullest extent, where be thought the., lists were
not sufficient either from the fact of the necessary inquiries
not having been made from the Sheriffs or from any other
cause, such as naming persons unfitted by their station or their
avocations from fulfilling the most important office of High
Sheriff. In such cases interference had taken place merely
to remedy the evils that should necessarily result from acting
upon lists so made out. The Noble and Learned Lord would
not dispute that for so long a period as forty years there had
been in Ireland, a complete departure from the custom of
England—a departure to such an extent as called fur the in-
terference of the Secretary ( Mr. Peel) —an interference which
had been productive of the best effects, and which highly me-
rited the ponegyric passed upon it by the Noble and Learned
Lord. He would now refer to some of the corres-
pondence which took place in Ireland with reference to
the change effected at the suggestion of Mr. Peel,
and that correspondence would be found to 1 car him
out fully in his statement, that great difference of custom
ha 1 existed.—[ lere the Noble Lord read two letters from
Mr. Gregory, dated Dublin Castle. They were merely de-
claratory of the intention, which was immediately after car-
rie l into effect, to resume the old mode of proceeding with re-
gard to the influence of the Judges upon the nomination of
the Sheriffs, which had necessarily been put aside during the
rebellion, and for a considerable re iod afterwards.] Now he
would proceed to the main question, which, however import-
ant it might be in its effects, was very narrow and single. The
question was-whether or not he had done anything with re-
spect to his interference with the appointment of sheriffs
which had not been done on the same grounds by almost every
Viceroy who had preceded him, atriceast for a considerable
number of years. This was .the real question, and to this he
would now apply himself. He had before him a list of the cases
in which Viceroys immediately preceding him had intefered ;
and he was enabled from that retorts to assure their Lordships
that every Lord Lieutenant in Ireland had without reserve in-
terfered with the appointment of the Sheriffs, when he fund
it tending to be conducive to the public advantage, and fleet
this was not at all confined to him (Lord Mulgrave), notwith-
standing the motion of the Noble and Learned Lord. In
1822, during the viceroyalty of the Marquis of Wellesley,
Mr. Thomas Jones had been appointed Sheriff, although his
name had not been upon the Judges' lists. In 1825 the list
for Clare county had been rejected ; in the Queen's County a
similar rejection had taken place, Mr. Walsh having been ap-
pointA, although- his name was not upon the list ; in 182:5,
doling the government of Lords Justices, in the absence of a
Viceroy, another gentleman, whose name was not upoe the
list, had been appointed ; then, again, there was the cese of
Limerick county. He (Lord Mulgrave) was unable to obtain
a more complete list, in consequence of the shortness of the
notice which he had received, but the cases he hal cited
would, he was confident, be found quite sufficient to convince
their Lordships that the same course which he had pursued
had always been adopted, when, in order to the !midic ad-
vantage, it was found necessary to effect any changes in
the list. The reason whirls had alive) s influenced these
ebareses was that which in'his ( Lord Mulgrave's) opinion
was a most necessary one, namely, the expediency of the case,
for it, was quite palpable that the list required to be perfect, in
order to effect the advantages which the law had calculated.
It was expediency which influenced the conduct of the
Duke of Northumberland ; and he trusted their Lordships
would see that he had, in his interference with the Shrievaltv,
retest upon the same grounds. During the first year of his
Vieeroyalty an order had been issued its consequence of some
proceedings which had taken place in the House of Commor.,
that no member of a secret Society should be selcc'ed to fil:
any office of trust. A gentleman to whom this objection ap-
plied, according to the information he ( Lord Mulgrave) bad
received, was named upon the Judgea' List for the ensuing
rear, and he was accordingly eeruck off. He meant fir.
Franck Leigh, of Resegarland, in the county of Wexford.
He had afterwards ascertained that he had been misinformed
with respect to Mr. Leigh, and the consequence of his ascer-
taining that was the appointment of Mr. Leigh to the office
of Shesiff. In some cases where the Judges refused to con-
sult the Sheriffs with respect to the appointment of their sec-.
eessors the greatest inconvenience arose from the want of
sufficient information, and this Ives one of thks reasons why it
had beers deemed expedient to muter fore with the lists they
furnished in those cases where the Judges departed from the
rule laid Clown in consequence of the application maile by
Mr. Peel when Chief Secretary for Ireland. Without con-
sul•ines the Sheriffs it was very difficulty to obt.tin the names
of this three wrest fitting persons, fer it was quite impossible
that the Jades could possess the variety and extent of local
knowledge which would be respired in order to the construc-
tion of a perfect lint; and in every case where he (Lord Mal-
grace) had interfered with the list he had done so upon the

advice of those well aequa nted with the law and the practic
in Ireland, and never upon any other than what he deemed the
most legal and sufficient grounds. It had alwa: s been under-
stood thee. the Crown had this tight, and he should again sae
that froth the rature of Many taate It si a power caleulate:,
to produce advantage. In any case where he had interfere,
he was able to furnish their Lordships with a reason for
his having dens so.' In some cases he bad been
blamed for the opposite conduct to that which the motiot.
of the Noble and Learned Lord referred; but he h d alwar
acted upon the tame principle. In the case of Mr Feather
stone it had been objected that it would be injurious to the
a iministration of justice if he were appointed to the county of
Lengford ; but he did not think the cause sufficient. In ano-
ther case,—the King's county—he had the greatest diffieulty
in getting the son of Sir Charles Coote to consent to becom:
Sheriff. That gentleman was abroad at the time his name
was selected, and it was after much exertion, an-I writing the
most pressing letters to him, that he (the Earl of slulgray. )
was enabled to prevail upon him to consent to the appoint-
ment. Yet in this case the people were anxious far the ap-
pointment of Mr. Gale instead of Mr. Coote. He bad al-
ways acted under the best legal advice he could obtain, and,
as regarded inquiry, if their Lordships thought it was neces-
sary, he had not the least objection to it. If it was intended
by such inquiry to assimilate the custom to that of England,
he thought it would be calculated to produce much good.
If their Lordships did decide upon an inquiry, he trusted they
would also inquire into the great power and discretion at pre-
sent vested in the sub- Sheriff in Ireland. to whom was com-
mitted nearly all the power of the High Sheriff. In his opi-
nion it would tend materially to the advantage of Ireland
if that discretionary power were lessened in a considerable
degree.
L(rd BROUGHAM wished that the defence of the con-
duct of the Government had not been left to the Noble Lord
who had last addressed them, and that his Noble and Learned
Friend on the Woolsack had delivered his opinion upon the
subject. The subject was one peculiarly calling for the ex-
pression of a legal opinion. The Noble Earl, in defending
himself from the charge implied by the motion to him rer-
sonally, did not, as far as he (Lord Brougham) understood.
touch upon the law points involved in the question, which, he
might naturally think better suited to another quarter. He
had not, therefore, grappled with the charges of legal and con-
stitutional d6partures from the law so ably brought against him
by his Noble and Learned Friend opposite ( Lord Lyndhurst).
He (Li rd Brougham), when he w it.nessed the course of de-
fence adopted by the Noble Earl, had expected that he would
be followed with a reference, in a legal point of view, from
some authority better calculated for the task.--( Hear, bear,
hear.) Taking his premises and the context, he could not
imagine that any other line would be followed, and he was,
therefore, pretty confident that he would be followed
by one of those great luminaries of the law, either his Noble
and Learned Friend upon the woolsack or the Noble and
Learned Lord behind him, who was not only a luminary of the
law in Ireland, but its efficient expounder; and his expectation
was the rather that his Noble Friend had, with a manly frank-
ness, at once addressed himself to as much of the motion as he
thought applied to him personally, and left undefended those
constitutional departures which he had been charged with by
the Noble and Learned Lord who introduced the motion. He
was not, howeever, the only person responsible for the con-
duct of the Irish Government. He had acted advisedly,
and these who gave him the advice upon which he acted
being clearly as responsible, it was but just to expect they
would t ike a part in the defence of the conduct which the
Noble Earl had pursued, and that those dark passages in the
Irish Government would not be left for explanation entirely
to the Noble Earl, but that his Noble Friend behind him
(Lord Flunket) would also come forward, to join in the de-
fence of conduct with which he was so intimately connected
that even yet he (Lord Brougham) should not be astonished
at seeing him move forward, and in the language of their pro-
fession he would only say, God send him a good deliverance.
_( Laughter.) He should regard him as much upon his
defence as the Noble Earl who had just sat down, who was
his co-defendant, and who would naturally leave the legal de-
fence to his Noble Friend behind him, of whom lie could at
present say " Nil dicit."
Lord PLUNKETT—Have no apprehension upon that
subject.
Lord BROUGHAM continued: What he meant was
the (licit at a proper time, and though his Noble Friend
looked es cunning as he looked merry, yet he trusted
at the conclusion he would be as merry as he was
now.—( Laughter.) He would tell him why he looked
so cunning—he intended to indulge in grumbling, and con.
elude with agreeing to the appointment of a Committee.
But he (Lord Brougham) could tell him that an irrcfragable
case had been made out against him by his Noble and Learned
Friend, and how far that had been shaken by the defence of
the Noble Earl he would not say. Previously to this evening
he thought it was a case affecting
merely a Sheriff in Mona-
ghae_he had no idea that the privileges and rights of
the Irish people were so intimately concerned as he now
saw they were. He most cordially acquitted the Noble
Earl of such an intention, but be should say that such was the
fact, and as such he felt deeply interested in it, for he always
felt that, it was the duty of Government to hold the balance
equally between the parties, and give to the Irish peo-
ple the same privileges as the English, for they were not
aliens; and he saidthis in allusion to his Noble Friend 'Oppo-
site, who it had been said had used some expressions of a
similar nature, but he was not a person to imagine that
the nominal weight of anything said in debate was to be
taken as if it were of the true standard—that the Irish
people deserved to be treated as British subjects. If the
law with regard to the appointment of Under-Sheriffs was in
reality different with respect to tine two countries, another
session ought not to be allowed to pass without the introduc-
tion of a Bill to assimilate the law in the two countries. For
his own part he was not in a position to speak as to that part
of the subject, having heard only a one sided statemest—
( Hear, hear)—and he had yet to derive the advantage of the
light which would assuredly be thrown upon the subject b
t
the
enwps
was
the
st:gbeef contrary,rom foundßitkoviis wasut
after
fnicitoo,:ysnrat iwthjrhaul nalis.cueit
having
h), bir)ayaiedt by
his Noble and Learned Friend behind him (Lord Plunket?
The view which he ( Lord Brougham) took of the question.
had for its support the authority of Coke of Piinden, -and was;
minspsimona r:otyne. db
not, as far as he was aware, disputed by any of the nuthorities.
een
read to their Lordships. If further assurance were wanted,
hwe
s maded st referat u tta.'r. ye n It
law
for a long period previously. It was common. law as far back
as the time of the Plantagenets. The Noble and Learned
Lord then alluded to several old legal authorities on the subject.
The authorities were abundant to show that the appoi. tinent
of Sheriffs ought not to be either in the Lord Chenceller or in
in the most
the Crown; but that the recommendation should conic from
the common law Judges, who were neeesssrily best acquainted
with the persons most likely to perform the diratea
efficient manner. Inn fact they wire the proper servants and
chic, rs of the Courts, and it was their pecul:ar duty to comply
with and fulfil the mandates given to them: by the Judges.
been
tel,Si thatestifhag esenaeesclvtici toe: Hawkins.
It was not to the Lord Chancellor c r the Master of the Rolls
that application should be made with respect to the appoint-
meet of Sheriff', but to the Judges of the common law Courts,
and mote especially to the Loa' Chief Justice of the
not Court
w
'sßetnirse+,
Sheriff's, and
nadu iiente latter did
f M all eases to give
t
iostsff and underling,
directions
e"
to l
com-
ply in any psrticu!ar with these directions they rre
empowered to attach them. Indeed they were as much under
the control of the Judges as the me s
of the Court. If such were not the law of Ireland he had no
hesitation in saying that it ought to be.—(hear, hear.) Such,
however, was the practice, and had been so from the time of
the Tudors It most probably was also the law and practice
of Ireland, and if otherwise, the law in the two countries
ought to be identified at once. As to any argument to be de-
rived from the commonness of the practice, if the law and the
vrat in
tice were at variance he would only any comunis error nil
jocit jus. This,- however, was not the case, for Sir R. Peel
extinguished the. error, and restored the old and the legal
practice. To say that the practice had been pursued by va-
rious Lords Lieutenant made no argument. The question
before their Lordships was one of great importance, and they
were bound to aCc that the Government should most
strictly abstain from any interference with the admi-
nistr:tien of justice. It was purely their Lordships' pro-
vince,.- as the highest Court of Appeal, to attend to
any complaint mating to the mal-administration of justice.
It eat peculisrly ther province to see that the stream of jus-
tice fl twed purely, and should not be tainted by any pollut-
ing influence, nor crossed by anything which would corrupt
or contaminate it. —( Hear, hear.) It was their moat sacred
and highest duty to see that its sacred fountain should flow
in a de tr and transparent stream, without any admixture,
hrough impute and secret sluices, which would sully or Odic"
it with the contaminating influence of personal, political, sec-
tarian, or factious feeling. It was enough for him that there
was a possibility--a bare possibility—of those frightful con-
sequences. They were to legislate fur times when other men
might sway •the sceptre, and other hands hold the scales.
They we-c to legislate prospectively. Not that those who
had d ine such things through mistake were likely to repeat
them intentionally ; they were incapable of acting from a bad
motive---but legislation, at least investigation, was called for,
to present what was now done innocently, being repeated
in a worse time, and by other men guiltily and op-
Pre,;sively.—( Hoar," hear, hem., and loud cheers- ) It was
the feet of the administration of justice being above all taint
that entitled a Gov:run-tent to the people's respect.—(
Hear,
beer.) Hi ;yould farther than this—he would affirm that if
in one scale they put all the benefits that the people could de-
rive from the best Government, and another the simple word
" justice"—justice pure and undefiled not accidentally pure,
but constantly kept so by example and inquiry, and by every
safeguard placed aroutul those for whom it was administered ;
his would say, that if all the bent fits they could confer on a
people were put in one scale, and such justice as he had
described in the other, the heeded scale would inevitably
fly up and kick the beam.—(Cheers.) Such justice kept
society together, it softened the fury of all factions, it pre-
sented rebellion, it pacified diecontent, and made impossible
and futile any, attempt to produce any effectual resistance to
Government. They might be assured that it was not more
true that the sun shone at noon day than tt at while Govern-
meet kt pt she administration of justice pure and uncontami_
tested they need never dread the feelings of their subjects
could ever lye estrang-A from them —( Hear, hear.) But then
pure it should he kept, and if inquiry were refused through
any false delicacy towards individuals, or under the protection
of any legal quibbles, then might they give up all pretensions
to dispensing justice to the Irish people.—( Hear.) All their
Municipal-Bills—all their 'Tithe -Acts—emasculated as they
were by tine omission of the appropriation elause—( Cheers)would be completely nugatory.—( Hear, hear.) If they re-
fused this inquiry they would be guilty of a dereliction of their
duty to themselves, and would completely alienate the affec-
tions of their Irish fellow-cop trymen.—( Cheers.)
Lord PL UNKE T felt that none would think he had acted

unwisely in reserving himself until after the Speech ilfthe No
ide and Learned Lord who had just sat down, as it was more
than could be expected from a man of ordinary nerves to ex-
poe himself to such a reply.--( Hear, hear.) But even his
silence fled net protected him from animadversion. When he
looked ttt' ititis he *at stigrbetieed as canning ; and when
he, yielding io did Ptlit ere of fidiettle possessed by his No-
ble Friend, ventured to smile, hkr wels et cased of being
unseemingly merry. In fact he did not kniew concitu t
himself to escape his Noble and Learned Friend, who,
to do him justice, seldom stopped to diser;minate be-
tween friend end foe.--( A laugh.) He felt with his
Noble and Learned Friend that the proper administra-
tion of justice was a matter of vital importance to all,
and to none more than those who acne considered its
proper guardians, and therefore he thought that his Noble ar.d
Learned Friend's apology fur coming forward as its advocate
was totally unnecessary. The Noble and Learned Lord op-
posite had in the present instance departed completely from
his original motion. His original motion was for a retort of
the number of persons confined in the gaol of Monaglein be-
fore and after the Asizes. The Noble and Learned Lord,
when making the motion, was under the impression that the
improper interference of the Lord Lieutenant had been inju-
rious to the persons to be tried at that Assize ; but he after-
wards found that none of the apprehended bad consequences
had ensued, as the Judges kaving overruled the challenge
of the array, not a single cause was left undisposed of.—
( Hear, hear.) Under these circumstances, he thought it
would have been more manly of the Noble and Learned
Lord to have withdrawn his original motion, and to have
entered a new due for a general inquiry, as it certainly took
from the value of his motion to find him now substituting
a second subject when he found that he could not maintain
the first. The fact was, that his Noble Friend at the head of
the Irish Goverement had never neglected the recemnienda-
thin of the Judges ; he had only refused to make it the rule of
appointment. He (Lord Plunket) should not rest this on his
mere assertion, but should quote a letter which had been sent
by the Lord Lieutenant's Secretary in answer to one received
from Chief Baron Joy. The question between the Lord Lieu-
tenant and the Chief Baron was, whether the Lord Lieutenant
was bound to attend to the recommendation of the outgoing
• Sheriff. The ordinary practice in Ireland was that the out-
going Sheriff should return their names, which names shouid
be considered by the Judges in the Exchequer Chamber. The
Chief Baron said ." He thought not only that the Sheriff
ought not to be consulted, but that he was the person above
all others that should be aroided." What was the answer
of the Lord Lieutenant? " His Excellency wished not to
be misunderetoed, or thought to question the right of
the Judges to submit a list. Whenever such list should
be presented he would peruse and consult it with an anxious
desire to make it his final guide." This, in his opinion, was
a perfectly feir course.—( Hear, hear.) By such conduct he
did not thiek that the Noble Earl had rendered himself liable
to the animadversions of his Noble and Learned Friend. His
conduct was justified by the first legal authority. The argu-
ment of the Noble and Learned Lord who introduced the mo-
tion rested entirely on the. English statutes of Edward the Se-
cond and Third. He (Lord Plunket) was not disposed to go
into the working of those statutes in England—tint bed no-
thing to do with the argument. By them the right of ap-
pointment was vested in the people, but popular election
was found inconvenient, and the Legislature found it neces-
sary to correct it. But in Ireland the right of the Crown to
interfere had never been called into question ; even the Lord
Chief Baron, who had been quoted, admitted the right of
the Lord Lieutenant, and on going into Louth, and findin
that his list had been rejected, he never made any objection,
and it was not until two months after that he raised the ques-
tion about the statutes of Edward. He (Lord Plunket) did
not therefore think the facts of questioning the influence in
Ireland of these statutes of Edward should expose his Noble
Friend to an accusation of levity.—( Hear, hear.) Ile took
it upon himself to say that ever since the 10th of Henry the
Seventh the Crown had taken upon itself the appointment of
Sheriffs in Ireland. It was his firm opinion that Poyning's
law had no influence on the appointment of Sheriffs. It would
be monstrous to say that every English Act of Parliament
should be transferred to Ireland—Acts, many of which, from
the local circumstances of the country, could never have been
carried into operation. At what period the right of appointing
Sheriffs was first claimed by the Judges it would not be easy to
ascertain ; the right in fact had been claimed by many persons
and had become liable to much abuse—so much so that in
1816 Sir John Newport declared his intention of bringing the
matter before Parliament ; and the present Sir Robert Peel,
as a remedy, signified his intention of resorting to the ancient
practice to remedy the abuse. But what abuse? Were there
any on the part of the Crown ? No such thing.--( Hear )
He ( Lord Plunket) had had the honour to be in the House at
the time Sir Robert Peel introduced the subject, and he heard
that Gentleman state that it was the grievance of jobbers, of
intriguing county Members, that had caused him to propose
the change.—[The Noble and Learned Lord here read ex-
tracts from !deers from Mr. Gregory to Lord Manners, from
Mr. Peel to the Chief Justice, and from Lord Whitworth to
the Judges, directing them to require the Sheriffs, according
to the ancient practice, to send in lists of the persons qualified
to be their successors.] None of these letters disputed the
right of the Lord Lieutenant to depart from such list if he
thought fit, or if he saw that persons qualified to serve had been
omitted. He must now advert to a topic alluded to by his
Noble and Learned Friend ( Lord Brougham). That Noble
Lord had referred to the opinion of theChiefJustice of Ireland.
Now, it was not necessary to enter into a lengthened argument
to prove that the opinion of that learned individual was of
importance—no person was more competent to give a sa-
tisfactory opinion ; but in this matter his experience had
been but short, and that experience was all the Chief Jus
rice seated. Another argument of his Noble and Learned
Friend was the fact of the Irish Judges making their selection
of sheriff, in the Exchequer Chamber. He ( Lord Plunket)
would venture to suggest an argument. It might not at first
sight appear that the difference between the English and
Inipractice was important, but on investigation it would be
fo,ulni:rdt, so.whtobeerens in
Inlrlm
England
wastlle selection wasmvaatde(foa
e._ini publicr
Court ,
hear.) This showe I that it never could have been intended to
assimilate the practice in England and Ireland. Another
mint to be remembered that the Chancellor alludes to in
Povning's case teas, not the Lord Chancellor, but the Chan-,
cellor of the Exchequer ; so that if the doctrine of the Noble
and Learned Lord held, not a single appointment that had
been made since the 10th of Henry the Seventh was legal.
After some further legal argument the Noble and Learned
Ler I concluded by saying that he (Lord Plunket) was quite
ready, whatever came of it, to share the responsibility of these
appointments and removals with his Noble Friend the Lord
Lieutenant of Ireland.

Lords Brougham, Lyndhurst, and Plunket, and the Earl
of Alulgrave severally explained.
Lord ABINGER said that the question divided itself into
two branches—first, whether the Noble Earl had a right to
appoint to the office of High Sheriff; and, s.econdly, whether
he had acted with prudence supposing he had such
• right. He (Lord •Abinger) denied that he had the right
of appointment. But at all events even if he had, the pru-
dence of passing over the I-et:online idatioes of the judges up-
wards of twenty times in three years was. to say the least of
it, so very que:.tionable as to afford • sufficient grounds for a
Commit cc of Inquiry. Under all the circumstances he (Lord
Abinger) felt that if ever there was a case which called for
inquiry it WAS the present ; and, therefore, he should suopott
the notion of his Noble and Learned Ffend.
The LORD ,CHANCELLOR said, as the motion of the
Noble Baron went'on the gr,und of illegality, lie (the Lord
Chancellor) should address himself entirely to it. From the
earliest period r.f the constitutional history of Irelaed the in-
staires we re most numerous in which S:ieritis appointed
either by the Executive or a person appointed by it. A prac-
tice, however. grew up cf consulting the judges as to
the fitness of the iAividna!s, which ended in taking their lists
of those competent to the c ffico. A great difference existed
bet‘a een the practice and a positive right of the Crown to no-
minate Sheriffs. From 1779 to 1816 that practice was discon-
tinued, and it was only restored by Sir Robert Peel as a prac-
tice, and not as a right, if the tcnour of his letter to the Judges
were to be deemed a sufficient evident e of his intentions. That
was the history of the law and the practice iu Ireland from
the earliest periods, and it would be seen by that that it
was quite inconsistent with the possibility of a right. On
glancing at the old statutes on the sal jeet, some light might
be thrown on it. There were two statutes quoted as bring
the origin and foundation of the law of Sheriffs—the one was
the Act of the 9th of Edward II , the other the 14th of Ed-
owfiarsdhLlilir. the-fiee rtinriiyt
Itlhot
iptiotleerio)uf
jaspnicio
jhui tdmgeczt
‘tvoh
il office
he
second it was expressly given to the great officers of the Ex-
heluer Court.
eA statute of Richard 11. made it imperative
on those apeointing
cer-
tain oath Sheriffs in the Exchequer to ti,ke a ;
that oath was taken to this day by the great offier.rs
of the Exchequer. The owl] was not to be admini,tered to
the Puisne Judges, but by them. Now, the great officers of
the Exchequer: inclusive of the Chiefs of the-Court, arc
Privy Councillors, and in that capacity alone they aepoitit the
Sheriffs.
That was further illustrated by an Act of the 34th
of Henry the Sixth. In the Exchequer, on the 9th of No-
vember the Puisne Judges produce their list, tad the Privy
Councillors, us such, prick them off. Again summonses were
Fent for that per, ose rot to the Judges, but the Privy
Councillors ; the Judges were there solely to give information.
And the title of the list might be taken as a further proof of
the.right of the Crown to the appointment of Sheriff.; for
during a period of nearly a century back it ran as '''The Names
of those nominated for Sheriffs by the Lords of the Privy Coun-
cil." The Jud-'zes had no power as Jutles to nominate the. She-
riffs. If the law of England applied to Ireland in the sta-
tutes of the Edwards, which were granted to that country
by Poyni,,,,, kw, it „.Fs. quite clear it had not been acted
;11-1" lhore for in Ireland neither the provisions of that
had oven observed by the Judges meeting in the Ex.
chequer, nor
vet was of Rich.ird the Second. requiring
an oath to &scheme the duty. Nothing was more clear than
that the law had not in a similar manner beer observed in Ire-
land.

lErelasnhodu"l!bleionnoilietteads.
an
tri'lle.illsjdectonue'ln;:tt"itAliii(aEst
Laolßfl
OCt hulejfAszyNNorEdß:hCalfdtAelirnl:De‘
nded to vrepose a simil3r
amendment if he had not been anticipated by his Noble
;t,;(1 for simillr retP:"ns. th: bad great pleasure in
supplrting it.
Alters words fr.m Lora BROUGHAM,
Lord LYNDHURST should have no objection to agree
to the proposition of the Noble Marquis.
Lord DENMAN 'should suggest the extension of the in-
quiry to England arso.
The Dul;e of WELLINGTON congratulated the House
upon the a,rangement they had made with respect to that
very important subject, but he did not think it would be de-
sirable to mix up wills it the inquiry connected with the pro-
ceedings relative to the English Sheriffs, as that inqt:iry could
be held separat.ly if it were necessary. The people of Ire-
land would feel themscl‘es under a lasting obligatiiml to his