The Sun.
London, England, 1838-07-25 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDN'ESDAY, JULY 25, 1838.

SHERIFFS' COURTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
On the brinujou. up the repot on the motion of the Earl of
HA DDI NGTON, elaus, s 15 16 17, and IS. welt. stru!.k out.
The Earl of HADDINGTON proposed an a►ren+iment to
the effect that the provisions of the Aet of the 6(h Geo. IV.,
relating to quarter sessions, should be continued in this Act.
The Earl of ABERDEEN proposed amendments to the
36th and 39th clauses, for the purpose of enabling those
agents who practi,:ed in Courts of Quarter Sessions to con-

cruet cases in. the Sheriff Courts.
Both amendments were agreed to, and after some verbal
alterations had been made in the other clauses, the report, as

amendod, was agreed to.
The report of the Committee on the Juvenile Imprisonment
Bill was, on the motion of the Marquis of LANSDOWNE,
received, and the Bill ordered for the third reading on Monday.
The Local Commissioners' Bill was, on the motion of Lord
PORTMAN, read a second time, and ordered to be corn.

mined.
The Sheriffs' Courts (England) Bill went through a Com-
mittee, and was ordered to be reported.
THE WESTMEATH ELECTION.
The Mtrquis of W E STM EAT H said that in March last
he felt it his duty to bring under the notice of their Lordships
some transactions which arose out of the last election for the
county of Westmeath. In the present instance, the case to
which he wished to call their Lordships' attention arose out
of the misconduct of a magistrate, whose appointment he de-
precated at the time as improper. As he on a former occa-
sion stated to their Lordships, this appointment was made at
the instance of Sir Richard Nagle, who, as their Lordships
must recollect, was himself removed from the Commission of
the peace in 1830, and again reinstated in 1836, it was ne-
cessary that he should allude to that transaction. In 1832
the Irish Government found it incumbent on them to call
Sir Richard Nagle to account for certain language held at
a tithe meeting of which he was chairman, and the result
was that Sir Richard Nagle wrote a letter, in which he re
commended the Roman Catholics not to pay tithes. This
conduct was unpalatable to the Government, and the conse-
quence was that the Noble and Learned Lord who then, and
now, held the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland removed
Sir Richard. Nagle from the magistracy of the county of
Westmeath. Before his restoration, however, Sir R. Nagle
wrote a letter to him (Lord Westmeath) recommending Mr.
Shell as a fit and proper person to be placed in the Commission
of the peace ; and in this letter he stated that the other Mem-
ber for the county concurred in the propriety of Mr. Shell's
appointment. In reply to this communication, he ( Lord
Westmeath) informed Sir Richard Nagle that he saw no
necessity whatever for increasing the number of the magis-
trates in the district of the county in which it was in-
tended Mr. Sheil should act, and as to the opinion of the
other party alluded to, he observed that little stress could be
laid on the recommendation of that gentleman, as he resided
at a distance of 19 miles from the place in question, and there-
fore could not be a competent judge as to whether a neces-
sity for the appointment of another magistrate existed or not.
Subsequently to this he (Lord Westmeath) received a com-
municaion from the Lord Chancellor of Ireland on the sub-
ject. The Noble and Learned Lcrd stated that Mr. Shiol had
been recommended to him by the Lord Lieutenant as a party
whose appointment was desirable on the ground that it would
tend to a more satisfactory administration of justice in that
particular locality, and he answered this communication by as.
suringethe Noble and Learned Lord that there was no occa-
sion whatever for such an appointment, there being already
six or seven Magistrates who discharged the duties at Petty
Sessions in a highly satisfactory manner. Notwithstanding
this, however, the Noble and Learned Lord thought fit to in-
troduce Mr. Sheil into the Magistracy of the county of West-
n-eath, and such a mode of proceeding was so contrary to the
doctrine laid down a few nights ago by the Noble and Learned
Lord on the Woolsack, that it was impossible not to call their
Lordships' attention to it.
Lord PLUNK ET was induced to interrupt the Noble
Marquis, not because of anything he had said in reference to
himself personally, but merely to apprise their Lurdships that
no objection was intended to be offered to the motion with
which the Noble Marquis mean to conclude. The object of
the Noble Marquis was the production of the evidence taken
before the Commissioners who presided at the inquiry held on
this subject at Mullingar on the report of those Commis-
sioners, and as he, so far from objecting to the motion, was
ready to consent that the whole of the papers should be laid
on the table of their Lordships' House, he submitted to the
good sense of the Noble Marquis whether his interruption was
not justifiable.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH said that all he wanted
was to lay Parliamentary grounds for his motion, and this he
contended he had a perfect right to do.
Viscount MELBOURNE—You can have the papers with-
out any statement.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH—Yes, but the Voble
Viscount must permit me to give their Lordships the grounds
upon which I call for their production.
Viscount MELBOURNE—No statement is necessary, as
there is no ()Neal n to your motion.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH should proceed. There
was on the evcnine of the 11th of August last, a tumultuous
meeting at a public-house in Mullingar, and after the police
and resident Magistrates had arrived there Mr. Shell and Mr.
Fitzsimon introduced themselves to this meeting. In March
last he stated, as he believed at the time, that the two indi-
viduals whom he had named were found in the public-hou-e
by the police ; but in this he was wrong, as they were not found
there, but made their appearance immediately after the police
had obtained admission to the house. The parties who writ
to the public house on the occasion referred to were twenty-
five policemen, and they were accompanied by the Chief
Constable and the resident Magistrate. The Chief Con-
stable, as it was his duty to do, represented the transaction to
the proper authorities. But what was the consequence?
Why, that Mr. Deglisau received the thanks of both Colonel
Shaw Kennedy and Col. O'Donoughue for his conduct. Mr.
Deglisau heard nothing more of the affair for many months,
not until he was called upon by the Government to furnish a
copy of his report. The occurrence took place in August,
and it was not until December that this report was called for
by the Government, although their attention had been pre..
viously called to the circumstance. Mr. Deglisau had not
only been grossly insulted and spat upon, but his personal
safety rendered it necessary that he should be attended by two
orderlies during the whole election. On the night of the
11th of August be was accosted by Mr. Fitzsimon in an in-
sulting manner. Mr. Fitzsimon asked him what business he
had there ; and although Mr. Sheil knew Mr. Rowan, the
resident magistrate well, he allowed him to be shoved and
Bushed about without even once interfering to prevent it. The
Irish Government thought the matter of sufficient importance
to institute an inquiry, and it was not a little remarkable that
when he first stirred in it he was informed that the official
report had been lost. Although this statement Lad been
made, it appeared from the testimony of Mr. Fitzsimon that
the report had passed into the hands of Mr. Shell. It was
afterwards in possession of Mr. Fitzpatrick, the Secretary
of the Liberal Club ; and although he ( Lord West-
meath) was unable to show that its contents were known to
Priest O'Brien, Priest O'Farrell, and several other parties
connected with that club, in subsequent Committees Mr.
Drummond, in a studied manner, endeavoured to
get rid of the subject, and it was not until lie
had been suddenly called on for the report by Lord Mor-
peth that he took any steps to obtain it. HOW was it pos-
sible, after such prevarication on the part of the Irish Secre-
tary, that the affairs of that country could be properly carried
on ? On the I Ith of December Mr. Drummond wrote to Mr.
Rowan, and in this letter Mr. Drummond stated that Mr.
Fitzsimon and Mr. Shell had been called to account; but
what was the testimony of Mr. Shell on this head ? Why he
denied that he had eve; been called on for explanation by the
Irish Government.
Lord PLUNKET—sIow does that appear?
The Marquis of WESTMEATH said it appeared from
the evidence given by Mr. Shell on the inquiry. What
was it that further appeared from that evidence ? Why
that Mr. Drummond was in communication during the
whole of these transactions with Mr. Shell. Mr. Shell de-
clared that the Lord Lieutenant was perfectly satisfied with
his conduct; but what did Mr. Drummond say? Why, that
Mr. Sheil had been written to for explanation. There was,
then, a mistake somewhere ;'for Mr. Sheil nut only denied Mr.
Drummond's statement, but asserted that the Lord Lieu-
tenant was satisfied with his conduct. If was true that
after the occurrence at the public-house Mr. Fitzsimon
apologized both to Mr. Rowan and Mr. Deglisau, but he at
the same time used language towards the police which was
insulting to them and the Government. Mr. Rowan declared
that he appealed to Mr. Shiel to maintain tranquillity, but
without effect; and he was then told that the police had no
e
rtgsprhgehealteatlell.gri todewfnoehtbrfl
oeettmhght
eaeah
,necceroowounr
anidtsst
conduct
to
interrupt
efteshrvewrzeuinisldiitt
nnshtuetuthaehr
tdebeh f.
rinrneepeetrHhh, freeholders.
protege
end
gwcdecoorhyurns
geal.f
demrdt 0
di
bmhesl
etyobwshnnulteaehposmef,
them
hst
guilty.latr
supposed
But how different was the cyhouabdrescebaeuoesfnepdarisonmceoisesrdeaidnng in this and
n
omtihsesirocnasoefs.theMpre. a
eßelameekreerl
i
; maennd
nb crr
.laet
sthasht
Nadit,Mre
h.
was rfao.otirh,:da t
thetoo.
nntencheoesluol Georgn;lpwt
present
set,
hoseoefi
nnon
gKtne
cet
ccohr
rar
yfansteet, hdwwae.
anasdsm,d\toli
hssr
been placed in the balcony of one of his windows without his
t
it:aenssorewefeluetldathgoleethe Government, he also was removed from the
parallele
oNI :icg oisnt
nr aeocifly
eNwlaht
aa
st Tian
al-
thoughw
he had used denunciations at Carlow, which Mr. Vig-
nolls, the chief constable of police, was ready to verify, his
statement being substantiated by the testimony of two of the
officers of the 71st Regiment; yet Mr. O'Connell was allowed
to continue in the Commission of the Peace for the county
of Kerry. This, then, was anything but even-banded justice.
The Noble Marquis, in conclusion, moved for the production
of the evidence taken during the inquiry at Mullingar, and
the report of the Commissioners thereupon.
Lord PLUNKET said that it was not his intention to re-
ply to that part of the speech of the Noble Marquis which
applied to himself in relation to the appointment of Mr. Sheil
to the Magistracy of the county of Westmeath, and be
thought their Lordships would alsoexcuse him if he declined
to
oobnl e
theMaLorqrudisLiethurtoeunganht,
the imputations
which Mr.
ummond,
and Lord Morpeth.
The Marquis of NN E bT. MEATH denied that he had in-
feil
leie w hadthe castN
in-
tended to cast any imputation on Lord Morpeth.
Lord PLUNKET said that the reason he had mentioned
the name of Lord Morpeth as one of those against whom
censure had been pronounced by the Noble Marquis was be-
cause it was Lord Morpeth who had recommended the ap-
pointment of Mr. Shell, on the ground that it would not only
be satisfactory, but lead to the peace and tranquillity of that
part of the country. The observations which the Noble
Marquis had made about Mr. Degli an Mr. Blacker, and
others, had no relation whatever to the pr, sent subject, but
although the Noble Marquis had spent upwards of half an
hour is making statements respecting the trial which had