The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-17 00:00:00

which were enforced with his usual ability. In one
part of his speech, the Noble Lord, censuring her Ma-
jesty's Government, said that, as a matter of policy, he
would recommend an addition to the stipendiary magis;.
trates, but at all events he thought it was highly im-
politic to diminish that number. He (Sir James
Graham) was
the Secretary for Ireland, who handed to him a return
which appeared to him to afford a triumphant answer
to the Noble Lord's statement ; and when he replied
to the Noble Lord he quoted that return. Now, what
was the substance of his statement? It. was that the
maximum number of stipendiary magistrates in
Ireland, under Lord Normanby and Lord For
tescue, was fifty-nine up to the 13th of June.
What was the fact, as admitted by the Noble Lord ?
It was that until the 13th of February, 1841, 59 was the
maximum number. He had stated that bet Ween the 13th
of June and the 28th of August, seven new magistrates
were 'appointed.
Lord EBRINGTON—Seven additional ones.

Sir J. GRAIIAM—Seven additional ones. What was

the fact? Between the 13th of February and the 28th
of August there only four new stations appointed, but
there were eleven new magistrates. There having been
only four new stations, it followed that there must have
been seven additional magistrates. He had now said all
that he had thought it necessary to say in explanation of
what had fallen from him in the hurry of debate.
Mr. BARING said that whilst he had been in office
he had, not been influenced in his appointments by party
considerations. The Right Hon. Gentleman then re-
ferred to various dates in order to show that
he bad made appointments of persons adverse
to the Government of which he was a member,
and that he was entirely goverEed by the consideration
of the fitness of the person appointed. He (Mr. Baring)
did not complain of the Government, in 1835, for the
appointments they had made after their resignations had
been announced ; but he referred to them merely. to
show what the rule was. He alluded to them to show
the strictness with which all acts connected with the
public service were performed, and on this account he
was the more more surprised to find the Right Honour-
able Baronet (Sir J. Graham) descending to the clap.
trap which he had donc.—(Hear, hear.) It was no
matter whether it was the last hour or the first hour of
official existence that vacancies took place, they _ mast
be filled up as they so became vacant. He did think
it was a very unworthy thing to keep a charge
back for the space of two years, then to be brought for-
ward in such a shape and in such a spirit; and he should,
therefore, suggest to the Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir J.
Graham) to be more careful for the future before he
ventured to attack even his old friends.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord ELIOT said, that for any inaccuracy which had
occured he alone, and not his Right Hon. Friend (Sir J.
Graham), was to blame. He did not much like the
argumentum ad hominem, and always abstained as care-
fully as possible from personal observations; but he
would venture to say that there had not been a news-
paper in that country, nor a periodical—not even the
great Whig organ the Edinburgh Review—whicht
had not denounced the late Government upon
this point.—(Hear, hear.) And after all that
had fallen, apparently with such triumph, from Vs:
Right Hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer (Mr. Baring), he challenged any one to show
any material inaccuracy in the return. There were
three new stations created, and, in his opinion, need-
lessly so. For when the House recollected that for the
last three years sixty stipendiary magistrates had been
found sufficient, and this during a period when there
had been famine riots in Ireland and poor-law distur-
bances, and all the agitation connected with repeal, he
thought most certainly that new appointments,
were most uncalled-for and extravagant. With
respect to the return of the appointments of magis-
trates that had been referred to, and which had been
asserted not to exist, he felt no hesitation in saying that
such returns did exist. • He maintained that the state-
ments that had been made by his Right Hon. Friend
were substantially correct, that the late Government had
made an addition of seven new magistrates, and that on
.the last day of their holding office they appointed one
magistrate.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. LAI3OUCHERE considered the question now
before the House was, whether the late Lord Lieutenant
of Ireland had prostituted the patronage that he has in
his power. The charge that had been made against Lord
Fortescue had entirely broken down, and he was
astonished at the language that had been employed that
night.—(Hear, hear.) He would put it to the Hon.
Member whether there was anything before the House
to justify the Right Hon. Gentleman in saying that Lord
Fortescue was actuated by unworthy motives in ap-
pointing the magistrates he had done. He was asto-
nished at the observations that had been made with re-
spect to the return, and he felt that nothing but the
high character of Lord Fortescue had shielded him
from the attack that had been directed against him.
With regard to the appointments themselves they had
not heard that any one of. the appointments had been
improperly filled up. His Noble Friend had, even at
the distance of two years, been enabled to state the
grounds of each appointment—(Cheers)—and the House
had heard the statement which he had made.—(Cheers.)
Lord Fortescue had received applications from persons
of respectable character, and of all shades of politics,
beseeching the Government to make these appointments;
and if Lord Fortescue had not added to the magistracy,

these applications would have been produced, and lie
would have been charged with having failed in his duty,
and with having left the country in an unprotected state.
—Hear, hear.) He congratulated his Noble Friend on
the result of this debate.—(Cheers.) His Noble Friend
had by this debate secured the only object which he
cared about relating to it, which was, to relieve his
Noble Relative from the accusation which bad been
brought against him, that he had improperly used his
patronage while be held the office of Lord Lieutenant of
Ireland.—(Loud cheers.)
Lord STANLEY would not have taken any part in
the discussion had it not been for the speech of the
Right Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. Any
one listening to that speech would have supposed that
his Right Hon. Friend had brought this forward as a
charge against the Government of Ireland. Now, the
fact was, that his Right lion. Friend was replying,pn
the spur of the moment, to a charge which had been
made by the Noble Lord the Member for London, who
said, " You have unduly diminished the stipendiary ma-
gistracy of Ireland, when you ought to have increisett
it ;" the answer to which had been, " so far from di-
minishing the number of stipendiary magistrates, we
have now, and have had, throughout our Government, a
number equal to the number which either Lord Nor-
manby or Lord Ebrington ever maintained in Ireland,
except during the last six months' of Lord Ebrington's
administration; and his Right Honourable Friend,
availing himself of a paper that had been put into his
hand by his Noble Friend the Secretary for Ireland,
said, "If you dispute the fact, this paper will show it."
That paper proved that in 1838, 1839, and 1840, the
number of stipendiary magistrates had varied from 57
to 59, at no time had they been higher than 59 or less
than 57; and it was only during the last six months of
Lord Ebrington's administration, that seven additional
magistrates had been added to the stipendiary force in
Ireland,—and in fact, they had done so. There might
be causes for it or there might not, but while they were
boasting of the increased tranquillity in Ireland WI..
doubtedly they had made seven new appointments.
Mr. LABOUCHERE—Not new appointments.
Lord STANLEY—Seven new magistrates.—(Hear,
hear.) But if those three were new appointments,
those . three appointments had been made not only after
the month of June, but after the 28th of July. On that
day Nicholas Kelly had been appointed, vice an old ma-
gistrate appointed to a new station. On • the 6th of
August Edward Savage was appointed to Ballyshannon,
a new station; and on the 28th of August Henry Al-
cock was appointed, vice another old magistrate 'ap-
pointed to a new station. He did not say that the Lord"
Lieutenant had- not good reason for appointing these
magistrates.
Mr. LABOUCHERE—That is the whole case.
Lord STANLEY—That was not the whole case; the
case must be considered in ccnnection with the whole
course of the debate. While boasting that Ireland was
in a state of extraordinary tranquillity, they had made
seven new appointments, and three new stations. That
had been brought forward by his Right Hon. Friend as
an answer to the charge made by the Noble Lord the
Member for London, and had been mentioned as a proof
that the present Government had kept up a force of
stipendiary magistrates equal to that which was kept up
by the late Government.
Mr. VILLIERS STUART felt it his duty to state
that applications had been made from some of the most
respectable inhabitants of the part of the country with
which he was connected, to the Lord Lieutenant for the
appointment of new stipendiary magistrates, as the
number of those at that time appointed was not suffi-
cient for the due administration of justice.
Lord ELIOT explained. Some magistrates had been
removed from one part of the country to another, and
lately there had been no demand for magistrates to be
permanently appointed.
Mr. WYSE bore testimony to the high character of
Mr. Alcock, who had been put to great inconvenience by
being dismissed.
Mr. MORE O'FERRALL said the only object of his
Noble Friend in bringing forward the motion, was to
rescue Earl Fortescue from an imputation of an imprsper
exercise of his patronage. If the Right Hon. Bafbnet
had said that he did not intend any such imputation, the
debate would have terminated with his Noble Friges
speech. But he had not done so ; on the cotitPliy,
he had justified the imputation, and attempted to
re-assert the truth of the statement. It was this
of which the Noble Lord had reason to complain.
mNionipsetrrsaotinoncooufldlrs
to make an appointment of a stipendiary magistrate. As
Ireland,
dw:110 when was
it a cmq
iugahi nt t
be de wn
ei
et he s
stahrey a
td
0-
an instance of this, lie would mention that there were
two magistrates in the commission of the peace in Tal-
low, who gave up their commissions because a Whig
Government was in office. A stipendiary magistrate
had of course to be appointed. It might happen that
every appointment was not for the benefit of those who
were in office, but it might be also for those who would

• •
succeed.
Sir R. PEEL said that it was the invariable practice
for a Government to fill up all existing vacancies before
they were formally superseded, and though they had
announced their intention to resign ; nay, more, there
was nothing unusual in one Government filling up appoint-
meats which had been made by a preceding Government.
He could give an instance in which an appointment was
made to two peerages, and upon the intentions of the
Government being conclusively proved, when the plea-
sure of the Crown was known, although no formal in-
strument passed,_ the succeeding Government repected
• the appointments; they consequently took place, and there
was nothing peculiar in the case which had been re-
ferred to. The question arose as to new appointments,
and not with regard to the filling up of vacancies. The case
was put upon its right fuoting by his Noble Friend, the
Member for Lancashire. The Right lion. Gentleman,
the MeMber for Kildare, said that if his Right Hon.
Friend had only c°lll° forward WM and admitted his