The Sun.
London, England, 1832-02-14 00:00:00

(Laughter)—and cutting down the estimates. From the
slightness of the opposition which that Hon. Member was
now giving to the estimates, he (Mr. Hunt) was very
much disposed to press upon the House the measure pro-
posed by the Hon. Member for Dundalk—that is, that
the estimates be referred to a Committee. He should like
to know what became of the 32,0001. which was charged
under the bead of rewards for the apprehension and con-
viction of the incendiaries? He had been applied to by
many persons, who complained that they had not been ade-
quately rewarded. He did not see why, as a Member of
that House, doing a public duty, he should allow the public
money to be voted away without expressing his opinion
about the purpose to which it was applied, lest he should
he accused of being personal—(A laugh)—espvcially when
the person to whom he should allude had not been at all
nice in speaking of him, not only in his absence, but when
he was in prison. That person was now certainly not in
prison, but in the House of Lords—( laugh)—and as he
and his family were receiving from the public so much as
30,0001. a year, he (Mr. Hunt) felt himself called on to
protest against the allowance of 9001. for that Learned
Nobleman's outfit. He had merely passed from one Court
to another, and surely he could afford to equip himself for
the journey out of the large sums which he drew from the
Treasury.
Mr. RICE, in reply to the question of the Hon. Mem-
ber for Preston, explained that the convicts with reference
to whom the rewards had been given were 577 in num-
ber, and the rewat ds were distributed amongst 1,8E37
persons. The sums paid to those persons amounted to
28,2201. 125., and the expences of the Commissions
added to that made up the sum of 32,000/. charged i❑ the
estimates. He believed that the sums charged were
rightly distributed, and rightly applied, and that the
House would not object to the item.
Mr. HUNT believed that much of the money was
stopped on its way to the persons for whom it was intended.
Mr. RICE was understood to say that that could not
be the case, as the Treasury bad received authenticated
receipts signed by the persons who were entitled to the

rewards.
The resolution was then agreed to, the item of 1,0001.
to Mr. Telford being excepted, and postponed for consi-
deration on another night.
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and asked
leave to sit again.
The other orders of the day being disposed of, the
House adjourned at Two o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS, FEBRUAItY 13.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, the Duke of RICHMOND, and
the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, sat on the Woolsack as his
Majesty's Commissioners, whe❑ the Royal Assent was
given to the Buckingham Palace Bill, Court of Session
(Scotland) Bill, the Woods and Forests, the Outstanding
Lottery Tickets, and the Embezzlement Bills.
Sir GEORGE RoniNsoN and other Members from the
Commons brought up several private Bills.
Lord CLONCURRY presented a petition from the
county of Dublin, in favour of Reform ; also one from a
place in Ireland for a commutation of the punishment of
death in cases of forgery.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from
the licensed victuallers of Brighton, praying to be re-
lieved from the burdens they were exposed to by the corn-
inqn law. The Sacramental Test Act went through a
Committee, and was reported without amendments.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved for various re-
turns connected with the cholera morbus, and, in so
doing, said this proceeding was intended to ground a mo-
tion which he meant to introduce to enable parishes to tax
themselves, in order to meet the expenses to which they
might be put in older to meet this insidious disease.
The Earl of WICKLOW once more called the atten-
, tion of the House to the present state of the Irish Magi-

stracy. The time was now come when the present Go-
vernment could no longer permit that country to be in the
state in which it now was. The local Magistracy must either
take up their commissions, or the Government must ap-
point stipendiary Magistrates in every part of the country.
The Irish Magistracy had refused to pay for the new com-
missions, and whether they were right or wrong, it
was necessary that the subject should be inquired
into, for the purpose of clearing those Magistrates from
the odium which had been thrown upon them in another
place. The great body of the Magistracy refused to comply
with this demand, and those that had done so, did it under
a strong protest as to the legality of those fees. He wished
to know from the Noble and Learned Lord (Plunkett)
whether from his recent experience he thought that the
Magistrates were likely to return to the exercise of their
official duties ?
Lord PLUNKETT said he was satisfied that the Noble
Lord had made this appeal to him from no unfriendly mo-
tive, but the very contrary, and he should certainly answer
it in the same spirit. Whether he should afford that satis-
faction which the Noble Lord was desirous to obtain on
this subject, he could not tell ; but this be begged to say,
before he went farther, that the state of this case was much
altered since the Noble Lord had on a former occasion ad-
verted to it in that House. With respect to the grounds
en which the payment of those fees was resisted by the
Magistrates in Ireland, he apprehended that they had not
been correctly stated. A great number of the Magistrates
there declined to pay those fees, but amongst their grounds
for doing so, as far as they came to his knowledge, there
was no allegation as to the illegality of the fees. The Ma-
gistrates in refusing to pay them merely stated that they
conceived that there was great injustice and impolicy in
their being called upon to pay fees on the taking out of
their commissions which were not required from the Ma-
gistrates of this country. That was the ground, as far as
he had understood the matter from the Magistrates of
Ireland, that they resisted the payment of those fees, and
not on the ground of their being illegal. Now with re-
spect to that point he begged to say a word. At the time
the Magistrates in Ireland made those complaints, the law
in Ireland differed from the law i❑ England on this sub-
ject : all fees on demise of the Crown, with very few ex-
ceptions, having been abolished in England by Act of
Parliament, and especially by the Ist of William IV.
That was a law, it was to be recollected, passed under the
late Administration, and there existed a Treasury minute
which had been made by the Lords of the Treasury under
the late Administration, i❑ reference to it. He did not
mean to say that for that law, and for that Treasury
minute, his Majesty's present Ministers were not respon-
sible : what he meant to say was, that all he had to do
was to the best of his judgment to execute the law of the
country. One of the provisions of the Act to which he
had just adverted was, that compensation should be made
to several persons who would be entitled to certain fees on
the demise of the Crown, and for the labour then per-
formed by them. On that Act the Treasury sat, and in
the month of September, 1830, that minute was made to
which before he sat down he should call the attention of
their Lordships. Since he had arrived in London during
the last week, he had for the first time heard it alleged
that the fees which the Irish Magistrates bad been called
upon to pay could not be legally demanded. It was his
bounden duty to see that no illegal fees were demanded by
those persons or officers who might be considered as pe-
culiarly under his controul : if it appeared that any ille-
gal fees had been so demanded, it would in that case have
bee❑ his duty to have instituted an inquiry into the mat-
ter. But no such allegation was made by the Magis-
trates in Ireland on the subject, and it was not,
as he had already said, until his arrival in town,
within the last few days, that he had heard that an
allegation to that effect was made in another place.
The fres in question were payable to the Lord Chan-
cellor's secretary, his purse-bearer, and train-bearer, and
to the hall-porter. He had no reason to doubt the legality
of those fees, the more especially as the Commissioners
who had been appointed some years ago to inquire into
the Courts of Justice in Ireland, and who in their reports
censured some fees as unjust, and such as ought not to be
enforced, did not do so with regard to the fees in question.
In fact those fees had existed from time immemorial.
They were to be found in the list of fees published by the
House of Lords in 1731,, and they were legally payable
under• an Act of Parliament passed at that time. He was
not of course, under such circumstances, to be held per
sonally responsible for the fees demanded in his office, un-
less he had reason to think that such fees were illegal, and
should not be demanded. The insinuation that had been
thrown out, that he (Lord Plunkett) had acted in this
affair in a manner he ought not to have done, because the
individual who tilled the office of his secretary was his
relative, was an insinuation, be believed he might say,
totally unworthy of his character, and he was sure that
he might safely oppose the whole tenor of his life to such
an unwarrantable charge as that.,-.( Hear, hear,) It had
been remarked by a learned person in another place, that hia
(Lord Plunkett's) secretary only received 5001. a year,
and that he did not know what became of the rest of the
money. He was sure that the learned individual could out
possibly mean to convey by such a statement as that, that be
(Lord Plunkett) would endeavour to snake up for a defi-
cient salary to his secretary by the enforcement of illegal
fees, or by any unworthy or unjustifiable means of such a
description. Now the simple facts of the case were
these :—When Sir A. Hart was appointed Lord Chancel-
lor of Ireland, he named Mr. Long as his secretary.
When he (Lord Plunkett) succeeded Sir A• Hat in that
office, he nominated his nephew, Mr. M. Causland, to the
situation of his secretary. However, Mr. Long having
had much experience in that situation, and several harris-