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

error as he had done now, the present discussion would
not have continued. His Right Hon. Friend admitted
every error of which he was convinced, but his Right
Hon. Friend did not admit, and would not admit, that of
which he was not convinced. But the Right Hon.
Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth said that if his
Right Hon. Friend bad made, in the first instance, the
speech which he made to-night, there wctuld have been
no necessity for the motion.
Mr. BARING—No, no.
Sir R. PEEL so understood the Right Hon. Gentle-
man. This was no original attack made by his Right
Honourable Friend upon Lord Fortescue. The Govern-
ment had been acJused of reducing the number of
stipendiary magistrates, for the purpose of reviving the
ancient authority of the old magistrates. His Right
Hon. Friend met that accusation by stating that there
was no reduction in the number of the stipendiary ma-
gistrates, if they took the present number and compared
it with the three years preceding the Ist of January,
1841. But in the interval from the Ist of
January, 1841, seven new appointments had been made,
so that his Right Hon. Friend was justified in making
that statement. There were seven new stations. It
was not that seven vacancies were filled up, which would
be only a legitimate use of authority by the Government
who were going out, but that was not the question.—
(Hear, hear.) It was that there were seven new stations
made. He did not say that they were improperly made.
He would now state the particular circumstances of
those cases. A justification had been made out for
each appointment, but that did not touch the defence of
:his Right Hon. Friend. He would say that the mere
circumstance of an application being made was no con-
clusive proof of its being necessary. (Laughter.)
He apprehended that stipendiary magistrates were
paid out of the Consolidated Fund. If the mere
application of a person for an office worth 500/. or 6001.
a year was a complete proof of the necessity of appoint-
ing the applicant. Nothing could be more easy than
to produce, not only a moral conviction, but even a
mathematical proof, of its necessity. He would not say
that the appointment of Mr. Walker was not justified
by the necessity of the case ; all he would say was, that
it an application constituted a conclusive proof of the
propriety of the appointment, there
.would hardly
be any limit to the number of appointments
which might not to be vindicated upon that ground.
The circumstances of the country might justify the ap-
pointment of those magistrates, yet his Right Honour-
able Friend the Secretary of State for the Home
Department was, he thought, justified in vindicating the
present Government.
Mr. HAW ES said that the impression made on his
mind was, that there had been jobbing on the part of the
late Government, and now it appeared that there was no
ground for such a charge.
Sir R. PEEL—We did not -say that Lord Fortescue
committed any such job.
Mr. HAWES—No, but it was insinuated. The effect
of the present discussion was to remove any impression
from his mind unfavourable to the late Government in
the matter.'

Lord EBRINGTON replied.
The'Report of the Committee of Supply was brought
up and agreed to—two votes having been reserved, one
regarding Irish poor-laws, and the other relating to the
expenses of the House of Lords. .
The House then adjourned, at a Quarter-past One.