The Sun.
London, England, 1838-07-04 00:00:00

IS V lir
(
,---7---
~..„( ....„.,:,..L--
.7.-..•
:A: . -i.-::,,

•
the production of the greater part of the papers called to
to the production of the confidential communications elltfti ss-.4
Lord Lieutenants of counties he should most decidedly ob.; - terir m
ject. The cases of the greater part of those persons were.,
still under consideration, and he must say that a more incon-
venient or more irregular motion than that taken by the Noble
Marquis opposite he could not conceive. He was very sorry
that such an injurious personal impression as that stated
by the Noble Marquis had been produced in Leland by
the dismissals alluded to ; but he could assure hirn that the
examination of the list had been a very labor ions task, and he
was harp/ to sly that after all there were only twenty-trine
cases to be found in all Ireland (with the exception of those
complained of hi the county Down) in which there were any
objections taken.—( Hear, hear.) With respect to the exclu-
sion of clergyinsn there had been for a long time felt in Eng-
land a conviction of the propriety of excluding them from
the magistracy on many serioue and practical grounds—
all of which applied with still more force to Ireland, dis-
tracted as it had been by polemical politics. These were the
only exceptions that had been made in the circular letter.
In the Rev. Trevor Corry's case, that gentleman had an-
nounced to the Gee-eminent his intention• of prosecuting
certain parties ; but he never did so, and never even notified
to the Government his reasons for declining to prosehute. In
regard to his case the law officers of the Crown had given a
strong opinion against the legality of his proceedings, and
therefore the Government could.herdly think of re-appointing
him to the magistracy in the face of such a fact. With regard
to the case of the Rev. Mr. -Lindsay he (the Marquis of-Nor- •
manby) could not then enter into it, as he was not so much in
possession of the details as the Noble Marquis seemed to be.
He had no objection to prbduce the papers moved for by the
Noble Marquis, with the exception nf the letters addressed to
the Lords Lieutenant. The Noble Marquis had threatened a
motion on the subject. " SuNcient to the day was the evil
thereof." \Vhen that day arrived, he (the Marquis of Nor-
manby) should be ready to meet it. "All he should add was,
that he and his Noble and Learned Friend (Lord Plunket) •
lied acted in the matter after all due deliberation.
Lord PLUNK ET said a few words which were wholly in-
audible in the gallery.
The Earl of WICKLOW said that what surprised him
most in the matter was, that the course pursued by the pre.
sent Government in regard to the revision of the magistracy in
Ireland, was quite different from that pursued by the prece-
ding Government, although it professed to be only a conti-
nuation of the same policy that had been adopted by Lord
Grey's Cabinet in this respect. He (the Earl of Wicklow)
confessed that lie could see no possible reason for their depar-
ture from that course under the same Lord Chancellor. The
Government took on themselves the responsibility of revising
the lists without consulting the Lords Lieutenant of the seve-
ral counties.
Lord PL UNK ET was understood to say that no warrants,
nor removals, nor new appointments, had been made without
such consultation.
The Earl of WICKLOW had received the circular with
the printed list of the magistracy of his own county only three
weeks since ; but even then the revision had taken place, and
he did not know what to do with either the one or the other.
Ile did not then intend to enter on the case of his own county,
though there were many complaints of grievance in respect to
the proceedings of the Government of the Noble Marquis
there; but he could not help thinking that the course adoptel
by him on this occasion was by no means a judicious one, nor
in anywise calculated to serve the country.
Lord PLUNK E T was understood to defend the course
pursued by the Government, and to deny that the Lords-
Lieutenant or counties had not been consulted respecting the
revision of the Magistracy. In only two instances—those of
Cork and Down—they were not consulted ; and the omission
arose altogether from want of time, as it was necessary to ap-
point all the Magistrates by a certain day, or obtain a new
Act of Parliament for the purpose of doing so. Moat of the
cases brought forward were those of gentlemen who had
been removed in pursuance of the general principle laid
down by the Executive for the revision of the Magistracy in
Ireland.
The Earl of GALLOWAY was of opinion that great in-
jury and injustice had been inflicted upon the Magistrates by
the course adopted towards them.
The Earl of G L ENG ALL said that the Noble Marquis
opposite had said that the best possible information had been
obtained relative to the formation of the lists. Now he (the
Earl of Glengall) believed that Lords-Lieutenant of the
counties had not been applied, to, and if this had not been
done, he did not know what other sources of information had
been applied to which could afford equal advantages. With
respect to the omission of Protestant Clergymen from the
the list, he could assure their Lordships that no class of the
community regretted this step more than the Roman Catholic
peasantry, who looked upon the Protestant clergymen as'those
Magistrates who took most interest in listening patiently to all
their grievances and disputes.
The Earl of RODEN observed, that with respect to Mr.
Trevor Corry, he was enabled to state that since the first re-
port of any intention to deprive him of the Commission of
the Peace had gone abroad, the greatest regret had been
evnced by all parties, grades, and classes, in the county in
which Mr. Corry resided.
The Earl of HARE WO OD on Thursday would move
for a copy of the letter of the Lord Lieutenant to him, dated
the 7th of January, with his answer of the 30th of that month.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY replied, and conclu-
ded by asking the Noble Marquis opposite if he intended to re-
place any of the Magistrates who had been omitted by the
appointment of stipendiaries?
'The Marquis of NORM ANB Y said, in cases where an ac-
tive magistracy was required, it might happen that he would
appoint a stipendiary. His previous conduct would, however,
Le the best mode of judging what what his future conduct
probably be in this respect. •
The papers were then ordered, with the exception of those
which hal been objected to.by the Marquis of Normanby.l;
The Marquis of LA NSDO WNE moved the third reading
of the Bill fur the better government of Western Australia.
Earl STANHOPE presented a petition from the Rev.
Mr. Mabcrley, of the parish of Wimpole, in Cambridgeshire,
Complaining of treatment which an agricultural labourer had
received from the Board of Guardians under the amended Poor
Law Act.
The Duke of RICHMOND objected to the proceedings of
the Rev. Gentleman.
The Earl of HARDWICK E said that the greater part of
the petition consisted of abuse to him, as having ejected the
individual in question. Te that abuse he would make no re-
ply. As to the Puor Law Act, the case showed the merits of
the Act in the most brilliant light. The individual to whom
the petitioner alluded, having no house to go to, sought an
asylum in the workhouse, where he and his family were kindly
received and treated. Being a healthy man, lie was allowed
to go out to seek employment. having obtained it, he was
told that he must contribute a part of his wages to the support
of his family. This he refused to do; and he was then pro-
ceeded against, not under the Pour Law Act, but under an
old Act, quite foreign to it, which provided that a rnan.who
had work, and did not contribute to the support of his family,,
should be punished. On this person's wife and family the
Poor Law Act had operated most beneficially. Of this
he was certain, that the new Poor Law had been pro.'
ductive of so much good, that, notwithstanding all that Mr.
Maberley and other individuals could do td excite discord,
their efforts were fruitless.

Earl STANHOPE was aware that that House was not a
court of appeal against the decision of a Magistrate, but that
was no reason why a petition, such as that which he had pre-
sented, shOuld not be submitted to their Lordships. He agreed
also that every man was bound to assist in supporting his
family, but to call for half the wages of a man who only earned
nine shillings a week seemed rather too much. He wished to
see the evidence of the pa:ties immediately concerned. As to
the benc•fbial operation of the New Poor-law, and to tho
general feeling upon that subject, all that he hoped was that
the time might not arrive which would furnish proof of the
fallacy of the Noble Earl's opiniun which it would be impos-
sible for him to resist.

The Dulte of RICHMOND said that he was as desirous as
the Noble Earl to seethe evidence of the party immediately
concerned.. He was desirous also to see his petition. There
was no gaol in which the gaoler was not bound to furnish a .
prisoner with the means of addressing a petition to the Great
011icers of State, or the two Houses of Parliament. Vv'hy,
then, did not this petition proCced from the. individual said to
be aggrieved, and who must know better the circumstances of
his. case than the agitator who bad signed it ? lie would move
that the petition be rejected.
Lord.HOLL AND was very unwilling to reject any pc,
titicn ; but as a nietin had been made to reject this petition
he should certainly support the motion, . There were three
circumstances in a petition which justified its ..tcjection :
disrespectful language, want of proper formaiitiev, and pray-
ing for that whien was nc.t under their Lordships: cognizance,
but which was under the cognizance of ano• her Court. It
was on this last ground that he should vote for the rejection
of the petition.

Eat f STANHOPI . did not believe that Mr. Maberly had
had any ecrnmunication with Ingle.
The Duke of RICHMOND asked hew it was possible for
him to know that Ingle felt aggrieved, or wished to have his
erse heard by their Lordships.
The petition was then rejected.
Earl STANHOPE presented a petition, signed by tho
Rev. Mr. Dowdney, arid o:her inhabitants. of Po.tsmouili and
Portsea„agailst the new Poor Law Act, which the petitioners
characterised as unjust, unconstitutional, and un- Christian.
The Duke of RICHMOND observed that Mr. Doavdney
was another of the agitators on the subject of the Poor-laws.
and :t.,..tcd the circumstances of the Rev. Gentleman's attack
upon the Board of Guardians of the district, and especially
upon the Chairman of that Board, who had done his duty and
received the thanlis of the inhabitants. If the Noble Earl
chosJ to move that the petition be referred to the considera-
tion of the Committee on the subject, he (the Duke of Rich-
mond) would support the motion. Hs was sorry to see the
clergy so busy on this subject. Undoubtedly they had a right
to interfere, but he wished they would exhibit Snore modera-
ti in that interference.

Lord STANHOPE said that the Committee to whom the
Noble Duke proposed to r&r the petition had already more_
business upon that hands than they could get through in the
p cm-A Session.
The Duke of RICHMOND wished the Noble Earl would
point out a single instance in which a Board of Guardians had
%jointed the law.

Earl STANHOPE said that the Board of Guardians were
only the tools of the great dictators—the Commissioners.
The petition was then received, as was also a similar peti.
tion presented by the same Noble Earl from North Walsham,
in the county of Norfolk.
Adjourned at Ten o'Clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, JULY 3.
The SPEAKER entered the House at four o'clock, but there
being- only 27 Members preterit the House stood adjettriled.