The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-10 00:00:00

SUGAR DUTIES.

Lord J. RUSSELL asked when the, Government in-
tended to ge into Committee on the Sugar Duties Bill ?
The CIIANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
would inform the Noble Lord to-morrow.

Lord J. RUSSELL then gave notice of his intention
to move, on going into Committee, that the duty of 345.
per cwt. should be levied on all foreign sugars.
_ MINES AND COLLTF.RIES BILL.

Mr. LABOUCHERE stated that, inconsequence of an
interpretation that had been put upon a clause in Lord
Ashley's Mines and Collieries Bill, by the Magistrates of
Bilaton, in Staffordshire, nu less than 1,000 women had
been discharged from their employment, above ground,
and about the machinery of the collieries, in which labour
there was nothing injurious or unfeminine, and which
they had bee►► accustomed for many years to perform.
They had been entirely deprived of the means of gain-
ing a livelihood, and much excitement prevailed. He
wished to ask the Home Secretary whether he was able
to make any statement calculated to allay these appre-
hensions.

Sir J. GRAHAM said the statement made by the Hon.
Member was, in the main, correct. A large number of
females had been discharged from their employment in
consequence of what he believed was an overstrained and
erroneous interpretation of two clauses of Lord Ashley's
Bill. He had taken steps to procure the opinion of the
Law Officers of the Crown on the point, and that opi-
nion would be communicated to the magistrates as soon
as possible.
THE LORD-LIEUTENANTCY OF IRELAND.

Mr. HUME then rose for the purpose of moving that
"An humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying
that she will be gilacidugy pleased to consider whether
it would not be Toithe advantage of Ireland, and to The
interest of the 'United Kingdom, to abolish the office of
Lord-Lieutenant of ' Ireland." • Having always been
against the agitation of—the qaestion of repeal, he was
anxious to remove 'tile principal cause of
that agitation. He had long believed that the
office was prejudicial to 'lreland-. • Twenty- one
years ago he submitted this question to the House.
Again, in 1830, he brought the subject forward,
and though he did not succeed in carrying his motion, he
had 117 Merabers voting for it. Again, in 1839, he gave
a notice on the seine SUbject, but he was not able to bring
it before the House. He believed that there was no objec-
tion that he shoulddo so now: After having looked to the
terms of the union 'and the' address to the Crown, he
was firmly of opinion that it was never intended that
the office of Lord-Lieutenant should be continued. The
benefits held out by the union were, that it would give
peace and contentment to Ireland; but although
forty-four years had now 'elapsed since that
event had taken place, those expectant advan-
tages had not been realised, and Ireland was at
this moment as full of discontent, and as distracted by
party, as she was at the period of the union. Seeing the
extent to which party spirit was carried in that
country, it appeared to him that a delegated authority
was one of the worst evils that could be inflicted
upon Ireland. Ireland was made little better than a
colony of England, and she had a Governor-General
just as Jamaica or Canada had. Scotland, before the
union, was in a very disturbed state; but in consequence
of the union she advanced very muc. He thought the
example of the union with Scotland ought to be deeply
taken into consideration by those who were anxious
for the good government of Ireland. Scot-
land succeeded by having one government to regu-
late the affairs of both countries, and no person
could for a moment doubt that there would be a better
chance of justice' and that the business of Government
avould_he better done by one individual, than if the Go-
vernment were divided between various persons, and
the business of Ireland was transacted under a de-
legated authority. The Hon. Gentleman then
referred to the King's message to thelrish Parliament, on
the 29th of January, 1799, to the 'answer to that message
of the Irish House of Commons, and to the resolutions
of the Irish Parliament, in order to show that it was,
the intention, at the time of the union, to
assimilate the Government of Ireland to that of England.
The Secretary of State should exercise the same power
with respect to Ireland, that he did with respect to
England. Looking at the manner in which
affairs had proceeded in Ireland since the period of
the union, he must ask Hon. Members, whether those
results which had been anticipated at the time had taken
place. Many advantages had no doubt been derived
even from the imperfect- manner in which the union had
been carried out, but he held that the union had
not been completed. At the time of the
union there was a separate Secretary-of-War, a separate
Post-office Department, a separate office of Stamps and
Taxes, and a separate Exchequer for Ireland. All those
offices had been abolished and united with the
several offices in England ; but, in order to complete
the union, all the other separate offices for Ire-
land ought to be consolidated with those in England.
Everything that had occurred of late years showed the
necessity of altering the present method of governing
Ireland. The late affair at Clontarf proved the
evil of . communicating orders to Ireland through
the medium of a Viceroy. The delay which
had occurred in the issuing of that proclamation
had been occasioned by the necessity of issuing the pro-
clamation through the medium of a delegated sove-
reignty. It appeared as if the Government had wished to
induce persons to attend that meeting in order to
catch them in a trap, for they had issued their
proclamation only a few hours before. All delegated
authority was bad. The government of the Lord Lieu-
tenant of Ireland was attended with many of the evils
which attended colonial government. He was desirous of
abolishing the office of Lord-Lieutenant, because he
wished,to bring Irelandinto the union. At the present time
Ireland was not in the union, as long as Ireland had a
separate head there would be a desire on the part of the
Irish for a separate plan of government. The maintain-
ing a local government in Ireland conduced to the main-
taining the repeal agitation.. On that ground his motion
had formerly
.been opposed by those Irish Members who
were anxious for repeal. The Hon. and Learned
Member for Cork had opposed it, because he was
-desirous of making the Irish a distinct nation.
The object of the 'llion was to consolidate the
two countries ; the tendency of governing Ireland by
a Lord-Lieutenant was to separate them. This was as
much an English as an Irish question ; the welfare of
England depended upon the preservation of the union
with Ireland. By the mismanagement a the Vice-regal
Government, Ireland was governed as if it were a
conquered country. The Vice-regal Government had
a great deal to answer for. If they were anxious to put
down the agitation for the repeal they should
do away with the office of Lord-Lieutenant,
and do justice to Ireland in assimilating
its government to that of Great Britain. It
was: impossible that that assimilation could take place
unless they did away with the delegated authority of the
Viceroy. This ought to be done on economical grounds.
They had now 71 barracks in Ireland, maintained at an
expense of 14,450 L, for the purpose of keeping 'down
the agitation for repeal. If they wished to put down
that agitation, they should do away with every-
thing that tended to keep Ireland as a sepa-
rate and distinct country. They should make the
union perfect, they should govern Ireland as
hey governed England and Scotland, and no doubt, if
they extended to her those other remedies to which
she was entitled, they would restore peace to Ireland.
The expense of the I,ord-Lieutenancy was 100,000/.
a year, and it required 1,100,0001. to keep- down the Irish
people. Ireland was as much a burden to England now, in
1844, as it was at the tirneoftherebellion of 1798. Having
tried the present system for forty-six years with such
results, let them try what would be the effect of pursuing
a different course : let Ireland be brought under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary .of State for the
Home Department, and let the Irish Secretary be conl
tined, with a seat in the Cabinet. The pomp of the
Viceregal system bad been ridiculed even by
Hon. Gentlemen opposite when the office was
held by a Noble Marquis who did not belong
to their own party ; neither party could possibly feel
the least respect for such a system. He saw no injury
which could arise from changing that system. It had,
indeed, been stated in 1830, by the Hon. Member
for Cork, that if the Viceregal Court were removed, the
value of property in Dublin would be at a very low ebb.
He did not believe that such would be the case, and
he had the authority of Sir Henry Parnell in support
of his opinion. He believed that the withdrawal of the
Lord-Lieutenant would have the effect of uniting all
parties, by destroying the focus of party spirit. Those who
were the best judges of Irish affairs, and who were
most desirous of putting down disaffection and discon
tent, would have their wishes gratified by the measure
which he proposed. With every means of making the
people happy and comfortable, the country
was in a most deplorable condition ; the inhabitants
could not be suffered to carry arms until they had first
been branded. He did not believe that there was a coun-
try is Europe at that moment in so distracted A state as
Ireland. 'As long 'as Ireland was treated as a colony it
could not prosper. He made no charge against Lord De
Grey; his complaint was against the office, not the in-
dividual. Having taken away the independent Legislature
from that country, and not giving the people any benefit
instead of it, they had used them harshly ; favours had
been distributed to one particular class, and not to the
whole nation. He concluded by moving his resolution.
Captain IiER.NAL seconded the motion. The House
cquld not but remember that in a recent debate, Ireland
was described as—a • country with a starving popu-
lation,. ...... . ...... .
an abseutee....aristocracy, an alien. Church,
and the weakentJ 'Executive in the whole
world—but hel3lo6iesil -he should be able to convince
the House . Was the most mischievous as
well as the weakest. By a sort of fiction,
Ireland was ealWd an integral portion of the empire,
but , was governed in all respects like a colony, the
Executive being quite overs:l4ed by. the Cabinet
in London.. In fait the'peliey:or..Pitt had never been
completed,, and the union had never been perfected.
By `Means of steam and railkoads Dublin was now
beotight nearer to London. than Edinburgh, yet at
Dublin there was a quasi-King, a Court, and a Privy
Council—all the outward and visible signs of a different
kingdom; without the inward and spiritual grace of a
separate Parliament. Then look at the appointment of
the Lord-Lieutenant. He was always chosen from party
motives. When a Whig noblemaa was appointed, and
showed any favour to the Catholics, the Tories said the
peace of the country was in danger; when a Tory noble-
man was nominated, the Orange Tories were in ecstacies.
The office of Lord-Lieutenant was the cause of violent
party spirit being carried into private society; and- the
Lord• Lieutenant was merely regarded as the head

of a party. If it were that all Govern
was experimental, and therefore progressive, h°lo
happened it that for 672 years Government mail
no, progress in the sister kingdom ? The Governmen
of Ireland was administered by three principal offieers',.
the Lord-Lieutenant, the Lord Chancellor, and t"'
Chief Secretary. Up to the time of the union, tiler:
was only one Irish Lord-Lieutenant, namely, Janie,'
Duke of Ormond, and since the union there was owl
one—the Marquis of Wellesley. Since 1760 there
were twelve Lord Chancellors, three of whom only "
1/P7,,
Irishmen. During the same period, there
42 Chief Secretaries, seven of whom only were Irishiaea
There were besides several minor officers, each of who
had their several cliques. There was the Under-Seere,
airy with his clique ; the Attorney- General with aP"
clique ; and there was another officer who acted in th:
Castle like the prompter of a theatre—one who, that
never seen, was heard in whispers, and who, he he
lieved, was a greater source of mischief than all the
others put together—he meant the law adviser, to t
Crown. The Lord-Lieutenant had indeed " the hkei
ness of a kingly crown," but he was under the control
of the Home Secretary, an officer in which the intesele
of Ireland were indeed not best understood.
was not even a member of the Cabinet Ministy.
—(Hear.) The Hon. Gentleman then quoted from
speech of Mr. Shaw, delivered on the 30th of Wl'
1843, who said that the Lord-Lieutenant had net ,rtf
responsibility of the Crown nor the power of a Minister'
that he was constantly controlled and was often blaial,"r
for that for which he was not responsible.— (be";
hear.) This was an opinion which was prevalent ara°,ll:r
the higher classes in. Ireland, and the Duke of Leftist
looked upon the office as one remote cause of the ag":i
tion for the repeal of the union.—(Hear, hear.) It he
been said that it would be impossible to, carry out vo,
measure, in consequence of the opposition of the .Pube
tradesmen, but they might abolish the office and comaila
the grant, which they might apply towards the rem°
of the local taxes of the city of Dublin.--(LaughtT,/,
He only suggested it might be applied to public worie,
or to the moral and religious education of the Pe°P,4
But at all events this argument was no defenie
for continuing the office of Lord-Lieutenant. Tea
true true element of a country's greatness dependa
on the internal resources of the country,- Pit
if Ireland relied on these, she had nothing to apprebeah
—(Hear, hear.) It had been said that the office with
bond of union. Now he bad spent seven years in
and he was certain that, so fax from the office hea'oo(
bond of union in Dublin, it was a fertile source_se
jealousy and discord.—(Hear, hear.) In fact, this IBIS
representation of royalty tended to bring the monare;
cal principle into contempt. It had been objected
tie
Lord Normanby's Government that he had not iv
aristocracy of the country at his levees. Now, .
begged to read to the House an advertisement Willeb,
appeared in a Dublin newspaper, of the Ist of
1844. That was during the present viceror
ter.
The advertisement was from Saunders's News e „r,
and was to this effect :—" Notice.—Gentlemen who cei
pose attending the approaching levee will be suPPTite
with a brown claret court-dress at 2s. 6d. the suit. n,bie
strictest secresy will be observed.—(Laughter.) to
being the lowest charge made for claret-brown suits
d
the humbler classes on occasion of teetotal and ret,
processions, there can be no deviation from it,4
(Laughter.) The House would at once gather ,""to
this, that in the estimation of a tailor, the levees 01
Lord-Lieutenant were placed en the same footiag,_,/vis
repeal and teetotal processions. The same claret-alie
suit was to answer for both, and, what was of more
portance to the wearer, the price was the sanie°4o
might be asked if they were to do away with the
of Lord-Lieutenant, how were his duties to be
formed ? The Home-office was employed with a nue,
bes of Bills, which would be got rid of—God knows
But what objection could there be to the
pointment of a fourth Secretary of State for ;0
land, with a seat in the Cabinet? By,. 500
plan they would obviate the necessity of placing Owlet
cretary in the Cabinet, and • thus raising him abolit;tbe
superiors. Grattan had defined the true genius 004
Irish nation to be affectionate. He (Captain B.), that
not refer to her past. history to recal, in proof fels
assertion, their desperate fidelity to a fallen nsoeaeee
The Irish people had, up to this century, never 5 of
their sovereign but in arms. The three first Prig afro,
the House of Hanover had never visited that co° led
and at the time of the visit of George the Fourth, s°lo,
were the Irish to see a bona fide live King, that the he
pression of his footsteps were cut in the rock wherose
landed. He would suggest to the Right Hon. Gentle
at the head of her Majesty's. Government, to ad/is„.„e
Royal Mistress, in the event of the abolition of the
...55-01
Lieutenantcy, to pass a portion of her time in
every year. He would then see ,the realization °, reel
peroration which the Right Hon. Gentleman dec''", so
some time ago—his Royal Mistress visiting Ireland ',he
angel of peace ; and, like her Royal predecessonrre'
would leave, not her footsteps engraven on a ha
el,
rock, but her memory living in the hearts of a
grateful, and devoted people.—(Cheers.)
„,„t 00
Lord ELIOT said that this motion referred f'nesel
much to a question of party politics as to one of gv",,,,51
policy. The system which it was proposed to do a de,
with existed for 400 or 500 years, and the Hon. Ger3vot
man who introduced the motion was bound to show,teo
only that some great evil was inherent in that sr ite
but that that which it was proposed to substitute IØ,J.
stead was well adapted to serve the purposes of the 1-1,,
Lieutenantcy. It appeared that both the Hon. G jelloa
men who had on the subject had •overatateu,,,eg,
objections to the office and understated its adeantstsj
The Hon. Gentleman who introduced the motion 'of
referred to debates on the subject, and to the opini°le.
Mr. Pitt as favourable to his proposition. But the, to
pressed opinions of several Irishmen were opposelo
the abolition of the office- of Lord-Lieutenant- ''tie
when the subject was on a former occasion before
e 5,
House, the Hon. and Learned Member for Cork sir
pressed _himself as decidedly opposed to its irl,
John Newport, was equally opposed to it. „Ike
Hon. Gentleman who had seconded the motion We ie
verted to his own experience during the time he W° sof
Ireland. He (Lord Eliot) could not, of course'teas
what was the state of things in Dublin Castle at.,tise
time, hut, for himself, he knew nothing of the ietrilsroslo
of which the Hon. Gentleman had spoken. flis
setae
Friend the Lord-Lieutenant and himself held theterteei
responsible for all the acts of the Government, and f
were not influenced by any of the representations ° fib°
authorised persons. He believed that those peesoesj by
held office under the Irish Government were actust!7, of
the purest motives, and he repudiated the insinua,,tl°oles
the Hon. Gentleman against them. The Hon. uery of
man proposed that there should be a fourth Seerct:ioteil
State. He presumed that a new office was to be aPP„phere
for him, for the Hon. Gentleman said, that n°::, 010
were the interests of Ireland-less understood than I've
office of the Secretary of State for the Ilettle of
e
partment. Now, if they abolished the tffie 01t
9
LordeLieutenant„ every Irish Act of Parliainen: by
be carefully revised. "'Various powers were g°to
different Acts to the Lord-Lieutenant himself, or die'
Lord-Lieutenant in Council. It would be a soureettseig;
calculable difficalty if all these powers were to be_acis
ferred en masse, without consideration, into the h'",e
the new Secretary of State. How did they prOretber
vest these powers ? All transfers of licenses, allholcht4
matters of detail, such as transfers of places for 000
quarter sessions in assizes, Were made by conseetiecer
Lord-Lieutenant. It would be matter of serious ~t
venience if the parties should be obliged to reSteq•
England in order to have business of this 'sort
Then, with regard to the Secretary's office. ne itifort
in order to give the House some notice of the Piuof th!A
ions duties of that office, read to the House a list, von
establishment, and describe the duties which ut.3,l°
upon each branch of it. The estitblishment con% tel
a chief secretary, an under secretary, ono chief ere , ste
senior clerks, seven senior assistant der dioiea
.emit junior assistant clerks. The -first
comprehended one senior and six other clerks, arse f
conducted all the. correspondence which took Plefeeltse
magistrates, with clerks of the Crown, witli_Ae ill°
the peace, all ecclesiastical matters, and prePar'"lsYer:
returns to be laid before Parliament. This lattef tbeifj
tion of their duties occupied a considerable part lot 011.
time. The second division consisted a one fil
seven other clerks. They conducted all the ks,
dte
relating to the judicial departments, the- Treaa_tocit
Crown Solicitor's-office and the remission of stoteJ3n
This was no light duty in Ireland, every 5013
almost was submitted to the Lord-Lieutenants
made the subject of the most minute inqUiries• , to
no less then 1,270 sentences had been subinitte',l be ;
Lord-Lieutenant, and considerable injury wom.d
flieted upon the conntry if the people were cirl; of To
access to the officer who exercised' the authoriti by t.:O
Crown. Then there were the duties exerelse,',„itiv t!'e, r
law adviser of the Crown, who was connectk
_lsed
Secretary's-office. It was the practice in 1700 $ll5
the magistrates to refer to the Crown for ad' toser6ii,
cases of difficulty. These references. were 8° &) 0.
that it would be impossible for the Attornel see
W° lier
citor-Generals to attend to them, and thereforell_ „ spP
sary to have an official law officer to answer tlivs;) 00° of
tions. If the Hon. Gentleman proposed merei loot bt
the Lord-Lieutenant, and leave the estals.!, teolta
clerks, as it was at present, he (Lord Ellev,reveo;t.
abuses would soon creep in which were nnwa,iii haose
by the executive authority, and the change 'Lice, ch,
tended with great detriment to the publiecrese.aF,:iiitsbeepeesit:lol
Hon. Gentleman had talked, in the course cinnaidoll"loo,
of the case of Scotland, as though that w
the case of Ireland. He begged leave to te"'not at out
Gentleman that the case of Scotland was, deal auto
in point. The Hon. Gentleman said a greas 11.0.1,1
identity of institutions. Why he must be
were
that the laws and institutions -of Scotland t tin ° t
a, no Oa
different from those of England. It , nto
lately that trial by jury was introduce: „Tat
e,.
country ; and in many other respects to
lot
ferences had existed, and still continuovr .14,100.
ist, • between the two countries. niv7l,ch the "'old
touch on the many extraneous topics
cl w
Gentleman had introduced into his spe__..l 'berorop,, to
confine himself to the immediate quetirargonacutne
House. It was, .however, he contendqt.
to
say that Scotland did not require a -6_ftliejv
he faro
The state of the two countries was eu so
wTahseYthkenreuwleth; aatndin
the rding
say—God forbid thtit he should—that int
e„
the case in Ireland, still he must say, vll'e of Ir lautis
tile 0"
obedience
that they did not pay the same. s outrage! ire.
Disturbanceet
the people of Scotland.
ore ireq-° fore,
to reflect in the least degree on the people lav/
violations of the law, were much ra
there n it-
land than in Scotland. In. Ireland,_Ho uPo,,..beee
ththouegohnhee cwao.seuldebsieisodtiengeoes-C ftareaawst°6
self the responsibility of immediate
bo
authoritie be
local executive
was no time to consult t
üblic Peace would slant'
London ; and he believed the p ordzie:utev.se,
greatly endangered if, there were n
was required,
Criesof of' piton'
or sPe e• that we
divide.") -The-Hon.- Gentleman .
_.thougb,
stant change of Lords-Lieutqqattt-ie of
or no officer holding similar powers.. k of the vu
an argument against the contain:_
_i_ca op
Surely that objection Would equal' app
a"ction• .

Home Secretary—(Hear, hear)—and if the Hon. Gen-
tleman wished to see a stable, uniform, and permanent
Vstens, in Ireland, he had nothing to do but to support
Use Government now in power.—(Hear, hear.) He
really thought that the Hon. Gentleman's objection was
not more applicable to the present system of govern-
ment in Ireland, than it was to the present system of
s.overnment .in England, or indeed to any system of go-
- fernment•which was founded on representation.—(Hear.)
lie would not go further into this subject ; but before he
concluded he must express his dissent from the opinion
of the Hon. Gentleman, that Ireland was not repre-
sented in that House. He could not at all agree that
when Ireland was placed on the same footing as the
other portions of the United Kingdom, with regard to
f°reign commerce, she was not represented merely be-
sanse_she.had a Lord-Lieutenant; and nothing, he be-
• lieved would tend more to create dissatisfaction in. Ire-
land than to remove the present Government from that
country and transfer it to England.
Lord JOHN-RUSSELL said he - had occasion, at a
former period, to consider whether or not it was advis-
able to abolish the office of Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland;
and he thought there were reasons of great force
• in favour of the abolition, yet the conclusion at
which he arrived was, that it was not at
that time expedient to abolish it. He thought that
this also was a time in which it was not expedient that
the change should take place.—(Hear, bear.) But if
- the question were merely a general one, he had no less
strong an opinion that government by a Lord-Lieutenant
was 'not the best kind of government for- Ireland.
The Noble Lord said there were many things done in
the Council by the Lord-Lieutenant; but there could be
no dOubt that if the office were abolished, other arrange-
, meats could be made. There was a great, difference of
°Pinion- on that subject :at the time of the union with
Scotland; .and Lord Somers gave it as his opinion
that.. it ..was. .not . desirable to continue the Council.
The Noble Lord stated that Scotland had different in-
. stitutions and laws from England, while Ireland pos.
tiessed the same •institutions and the same laws as Eng-
land. But neither was that a reason why Scotland
should not become united with England. Another diffi-
culty in the way of the abolition of the office of Lord-
--aelienant, was the numerous references made to the
Castlei of Du blip s
oy the local magistracy of Ireland. In
casts:11(11 these questions were, in the greater number of
in Ireland there by
the local magistrates themselves. But
ere
This was not
the Castle was a disposition to refer everything to
• vlvfhitchhestehe.abolition of the office would tend to diminish.
an advantage, but an evil,
Home-
office in Ecniurtion. came for discussion to the g and, there would be a much stronger feel-
tug as to what was the right and just coarse to take on
these particular occasions than now. But with all these
reasons Against the existence of the office, he thought no
e
rsons.were .so capable ofjudging of the question as the
zzeeutive. Government itself. If it was its opinion that
it was desirable to continue it, he should be sorry to in-
terfere with it by a vote of that House. He, therefore,
Could not support the motion.
,„ Mr. SHAW said -that all his prepossessions were in
',Mlle of retaining the office of Lord-Lieutenant. He
thought the trade of Dublin and its society would be
injuriously affected by its removal. At the same time
he was aware that public opinion had undergone a con-
siderable change on this subject; and notwithstanding
his personal prejudices in favour of the office, he was
not prepared to say that he differed materially from the
sentiments he had formerly expressed, and which the
Hon. and Gallant Member had done him the honour to
quote. He agreed with him that the position of the
ord-Lieutenant of Ireland must be an anomalous one,
and he believed it would ultimately be the unanimous
feeling of all parties in Ireland that it would be for the
Permanent
.interests, , of that country for either the
nominal Government or the real authority to be more
"Montrose
local control. He hoped the Hon. Member for
Montrose would not press his motion to ;a division.
Captain LAYARD said that, after a twelve years' re-
sidence in Ireland, he was convinced it would be a dis-
. advantage to Ireland to abolish the office of Lord-Lieu-
tenant ; and he believed the majority of the people of
Ireland were of the same opinion. If the office were
abolished, it would tend to create absenteeism; and would
occasion a still greater want of employment than was
. liew felt. ille.contencled _that the case of Scotland was
. not at all analogical, because the people of Ireland were
111°111'411Y gay. and. fond of amusement. He was sur-
prised that- his -Hon. and Gallant Friend, who was so
in Ireland, should support the motion. He (Capi•
tt►tn Layard) should certainly vote against the motion..!
Mr- M. BELLEW said he was willing that this quese
tion should be tried upon its merits, and upon its merits
slow There was no doubt whatever but there was a
ange-iseeessarY in the present system. The Noble
Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, talked in one. breath
, about identifying. the interests of England and Ireland,
and the next moment appeared anxious to preserve what
*'as termed the last vestige of Ireland's independence
-Ihe•reasons expressed- by the Right Hon. Gentleman;
t,e :
First Lord of the Treasury, and by the Right Hon. the
uhancellor of the Exchequer for continuing the °JEN)
of Loid-:Lientenant of Ireland were widely different front
those mentioned by the Noble Lord on that evening,
Dublin was not without other resources than a viceregal
-t:Ourts ' It had a court of law, a garrison, and was cons
'lgatons to the sea. If the office were abolished, of
coisrse the salary at present enjoyed by the Lord-Lieul
tenant would be conferred on the country in some other
Way- The people in the country parts were quite indifs,
terent as to the continuance of the office ; indeed, he
believed the general feeling was in favour of its abolit
tn• In Louth, which was only thirty miles distant from
üblin, the inhabitants did not know or
care when the
D was in Dublin, and when he was not;
-de thought it would be much msore conducive to the
interests of Ireland if the busines of the two countries
Ras amalgamated, and if the Members of the Cabinet
were made immediately responsible in that House for the
Government of Ireland.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir R. PEEL said he thought the Hon. Member whq
had Just sat down would have acted more wisely if he
had
confined his observations to the subject matter be
fursllie House, .and not have wandered 25 years
I)aels in quest of some passages in -speeches which he
(Sir R. Peel) might have delivered. He thought it would
not be wise to pass the motion of the Hon. Member foil
Montrose, unless they were prepared at once to abolish
thei: office of Lord-Lieutenant, for the recorded vote of
• effect 'se against the tenure of the office would have the
Ire-
land
:°', Paralysing the executive government of Ire-
and they should not abolish the office un-
less....they could substitute something better in its stead.
'-(Hear,. hear.) He would be sorry to express a de-
., elded opinion in favour of the continuance of that office.!
(Rear, hear.) It was impossible to deny but there
were strong
ns the same ergureents why Ireland should be governed
me manner as England and Wales. It had been,
:o'said that the Government were unwilling to abolish the
thine' because it took away so much patronage. Why,
was a 'foolish '.argument for be apprehended that,
ivatever Church patronage was at-present vested in the
x-eentive, would be then conferred on the First Lord of
:t
Ze Treasury. The members of the Cabinet did not-ask
trhat was the amount of patronage, and really Irish pa-
lintage was not what they were most anxious for.
ere was no doubt' but the LOrd-Lientenant's
residence in Ireland encouraged' a good, deal of
inx-Penditure and he feared its removal would
irjrease absenteeism.' It was urged that they
..Ight have a fourth Sectetary of State ; but he was
,!ntirei
IlltbaduYeeagainst this proposition, and theught it would,
s endless confusion, and, perhaps, dissensions.
rut toe Cabinet. Such an ffice had been a great ano-
altho-41,11 in this country. The present Lord-Lieutenant,
"ugh having a hih name and privileges, was yet;
ugh
to the Secretary of State, but this new Se-
Zte arY of State would be,- according-to the proposition,
C an independent and almost irresponsible officer. He
ewust be absent from -Ireland six months of the year.
o:" was li-eland to be governed in his absence, or how
e Irish questions to de discussed in the Cabinet
ittt4eut his presence during the other six months? But-
tin/vas said power might be intrusted to other high func-
tharies something as it now is during the absence of
bee Lord-Lieutenant. He apprehended that this would
theinea very dangerous investiture of power indeed, and the
and authority of the Chancellor might become
later than was desirable for the fair and equitable ad-
etzlatration -of Irish affairs. There was a very
of an.,5 argument, indeed, against vesting the powers
110,14`e office in the Secretary of State for the
he home De Be feared the duties would
at n'att,lY too onerous. There was a limit to human
,hiteisi-„g`n, but he feared - such an accumulation of
-ae,ss would be -beyond the capacity of any man alive.
in fight lion Friend, thepresent Secretary of State—
!eni,"t7e praise. he would
.not say morel as he was pre-
lecit.. an that lie was eminently qualified, from knows
he ,` and experience, to fill it—would, he felt confident,
tera-aeoual to such a task. There were numerous math-
,a. present referred to the Lord-Lieutenant, which
sue lti such an event, be transferred to the Home-office,
We as grand jury affairs, the control over the Boad of
conial: and such like things. In his opinion, nothing
re,4o-yuie more ill advised than to take any step for the
earet„a of the Court from Dublin without duo and me-
th - information, because he thought it essential that
. ere
cueshould be a central source from whence the eater-
s° authority in that country should emanate.
Hon.
v, DILLON BROWNE differed from the
v,:lallser for Montrose. If the people of that county
time Placed in the same position as those of Scotland,
ah, had not to pay for a Church establishment from
kooteh they dissented, they would give up the point
of tl ted by the Hon. Member. But in the present state
Sou case, the people .of Ireland would exclaim,
take, -ave taken away our Parliament, you have
away our aristocracy, and now you seek to deprive
last remnant we possess of our national
stipe tl's because you are called upon to pay a paltry
ttss 11' to its maintainance. " He certainly was most
•
bide- y in favour of supporting a Viceregal Court
.in
cut'n' because when -Ireland possessed a local Parlia-
ssand the precincts of the Castle were more pure, it
11r. be the source of much benefit to the people.
ilia a, MIME said that although differing entirely from
feel :gutlents which had been adduced against him, yet
tutcinig satisfied with the expression of opinion which
,xilleen manifested, he should withdraw his motion.
e 11014- UEMBER then withdrew his motion.
CH/EP JUSTICE PENNEFATIIER.
15t...,,„."er a desultory conversation, in which Lord Eliot.
zats:m- O'Connell, Mr. D. Browne, and Mr. Shaw took a
gtier. BUTLER, who was very indistinctly
.heard in the
lace rY, rose to move for a copy of an opinion and ad-
tie given by 111 r. Pennefather the present Chief Jus-
4te,of the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland, on the
1, p`.( day of February, 1820, in a case of toll, namely,
Itivetne broke 0. Kingsmill," in' which the Corporation of
aes:_ nwas interested, the original of which was in the
eitseossfiolA of the present Mayor and Corporation of the
lkenny. He said that inany years ago'
e°'`Porat74 the
Nis ion of the City of Kilkenny imposed certain
i'4).4 upon one occasion the inhabitants offered
8o hg Opt' to them. The corporation thereupon
Juice, the opsitlion of Mr. Pennefather, the present Chief
ias„ (TheGentleman here read the opinion
-"oY PennetaaleZ 94 Lhe gub of February,

1820, in the case of Pembroke v. Kingsmill. The ac-
tion was brought to try the right of the corporation of
Kilkenny to levy certain tolls, -to which they laid claim
under a charter of James I. It appeared that in the mu-
niments of the corporation there was also a charter of
James 11. Mr. Pennefather, who was counsel for the
corporation, advised them, in the opinion referred to, to
avoid all allusion or reference to the charter of James
11., as if produced it would falsify the pleadings; and he
farther advised them to employ a person to search in
their muniments, who was ignorant of the existence of
this charter of James IL, to take care that he should
have no knowledge of its existence, and then to put him
into the witness box to prove the. charter of James L, as
it might tell against them, if, on cross-examination, that
person should admit that he knew anything of the
charter of James II.) Now, if he had read this paragraph
in an amusing novel which was lately published,called" Ten
Thousand a Year;" if be had read this paragraph as the
production of Messrs. Quirk, Gammon, and Snap—or if
he had received it as the production of two solicitors
who were lately before that House, and who had at-
tempted to extort money from certain Noble Lords and
Hon. Gentlemen opposite, he would have expressed his
surprise at it; but he hardly knew how to express his great
astonishment when he found attached to this document
the name of an eminent lawyer, who was now Chief Justice
of the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland. Now, he had
stated the grounds upon which he founded his motion,
and if this document were in existence he thought her
Majesty's Government ought to grant the motion. In
making this motion he had not been actuated by any
wish to see his name flourishing at the head of a long
speech in the newspapers, his only object had been to
elicit truth.
Lord ELIOT could not think that the House
.would
comply with this motion. The House would recollect
that the document to which reference had been made
was the opinion of counsel given in confidence to his
clients ; and if they were to grant this motion, it wou'd
be establishing a most dangerous precedent. He appre-
hended that the document was correct as read by the
Hon. Gentleman who had brought forward the motion ;
and .he,(Lord Eliot) would content himself by merely
opposing the motion upon that ground. He understood
that the Right-Hon. Member for Dublin, University
would more fully explain the circumstances under
which this opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Pennefather had
been given, and the ground for it. He (Lord Eliot) un-
derstood the circumstances to be shortly these :—that
the corporation of Kilkenny claimed certain tolls in
right of a charter granted by James the First. Subse-
quently to this James the Second issued a second char-
ter, but which the corporation of Kilkenny repudiated.
It was, therefore, under these circumstance that Chief
Justice Penefather advised his clients not to pro-
duce the second , charter, as it would only
hare the effect of throwing doubt on the question
which the Court had to adjudicate upon. Init to rely
entirely on' the charter of James the First. This,
then, was the whole case. In conclusion he would say
that no man in public life had exhibited more probity,
honour, and integrity in his professional capacity that
had Mr. Chief J ustioe Pennefather, and he (Lord Eliot)
therefore regretted that this motion had been brought
forward.

Mr. SHAW was persuaded that the Hon. Gentleman
who had brought forward this motion was altogether in-
capable of intending to support an attempt which had
been made to overrule and defeat justice in Ireland, in a
case now pending in the Court of Queen's Bench there.
This matter had occurred twenty years ago. He un-
derstood that Chief Justice Pennefather had no distinct
recollection of having given this opinion in the words
stated, but he recollected giving the opinion, and he
(Mr. Shaw) contended that he was perfectly justified in
doing so. The facts of the case were these. The cor-
poration of Kilkenny were at that time about to com-
mence a suit respecting certain tolls, which tolls were
derived under a patent of James the First. A subse-
quent patent was in their possession which had been
granted by James the Second, but which patent they
had repudiated. It was, therefore, necessary that
formal proof should be adduced of the non-ex
istence of an anterior patent to that of James the
First. Mr. Pennefather, assuming that there was no
such anterior patent, stated, he was consulted as
the confidential adviser of the corporation of Kilkenny,
directed them to give formal proof of the non-existence
of an anterior patent, and he directed that the person
who gave that formal proof should be a person not ac-
quainted with the subsequent patent of James the Se-
cond ; or, if he were so, the fact coming out on cross-
examination might fetter the ease. He was right in
doing so. Did any person say that a counsel ought to
advise his client to produce evidence against himself ?
The idea was absurd. He (Mr. Shaw) had referred to
some of the most eminent men in the profession of the
law in Ireland, and they all confirmed him in the opi-
nion that Mr. Chief Justice Pennefather had acted as ,
became his position and character. The opinion which
he had given was a perfectly justifiable one, and one for
which numerous examples could be found. Let them
take the case of an action for use and occupation. In
such an action a verdict could fairly be obtained upon
oral evidence as to the occupation of the house.
In many cases there existed a written docu-
ment, • or • letter, which was unstamped. It was
an every day practice to direct that somebody
should be produced to prove occupation, who did not
know of the existence of the unstamped agreement, be-
cause if they were to produce it, it would defeat the
action, although without it that action would be main-
tained upon oral evidence without producing the docu-
ment in question. Now, he did not think that the Hon.
Gentleman himself was at all ready to deny—and he (Me
Shaw) would affirm—that there was no man in the pro-
fession, either in this country or in Ireland, who was
more eminent for propriety and delicacy of conduct than
Chief Justice Pennefather, nor was there a man more
distinguished in all the relations of life for his purity
and integrity of' character and of conduct. Now he re,
collected one instance himself, when he was practising
at the Irish bar twenty years ago • he remembered in
the Court of Queen's Bench that Mr. O'Connell had re
ceived a brief, and was objected to on a point of form
by the attorney in the cause. Mr. O'Connell said
on that occasion that he had such a high opinion of Mr,
Edward Pennefather, that he would leave him to decide
the point, and by him it was decided. Now he (Mr.;
Shaw) heard Mr. O'Connell make that offer himself ;),
yet this was the gentleman against whom the charge
which was contained in the Hon. Gentleman's motion;
was made. It had been attempted to make it appear to
the public that Chief Justice Pennefather had recom-
mended that a person should be provided to prove that
there was no subsequent patent in existence ; whereas;
his advice was that a person should be produced formally
to prove that there was no anterior patent. It was per-,
feotly well known that the patent of James the Second
was in existence, but it was a repudiated patent, and thel
whole case turned on the proof being given of the none
existence of an anterior patent. He looked on thiw
motion as an attempt at intimidation ; it was part of a:
Qstem of intimidation against the Chief Justice of the.
ueen's Bench with reference to the depending State:
trials in Dublin. And if the House permitted him he
would read a paragraph from a letter which he had re-
ceived from the Chief Justice himself. The Chief Jus-.
lice. said, " This motion is of a character quite in keep-
ing with that which' has preceded it. I have, during the!
course of these trials, received letters of violent abuse,
containing very serious threats and menaces both towards
myself and my family. Public insult has been offered
to me in my judicial capacity; but of none!
of these do I make complaint, for they could!
have no effect upon me in the conscientious dis-
charge of my duty ; but I feel that it is an attempt to
injure and prejudice the true administration of justice."
Now he (Mr. Shaw) would ask the House whether the
conduct of Chief Justice Pennefather had warranted the
motion which was then before them ?
Dr. BOWING said he was one of those who had
never taken part in Irish debates ; but he thought that
this was a question in which he could take a part, for he
was of opinion that when there was an imputation cast
on a public officer—that he had recommended the sup- '
pression of truth—it was a question which every Mem-
ber of that House had a right to inquire into. There
had been a suppression of truth.—("No, no," from Mr.
Shaw.) The Learned Judge had advised that a certain
person should be produced to give evidence of the non-
existence of a certain document ; and that another cer-
tain document should be kept from his knowledge. That
document, had been repudiated, but not rejected. He
thought, under these circumstances, that the Hen. and
Learned. Gentleman opposite was not justified in in-
dulging, as he had done, in vituperation. He, for one
Should support his • Hon. Friend below him in the privi-
lege which he had asserted, of inquiry into this subject.
Mr. DARR! said that he had known the Chief
Justice during his whole life, but certainly if it were
possible to put, this interpretation upon the opinion de-
livered by him which had been attempted by the Hon.
Gentleman opposite, he (Mr. (Darby) would not for a
moment attempt,to defend that Learned Judge. But it
was impossible for him to believe that such interpretation
could be put on it. He had known the Chief Justice dur-
ing his whole• life, and, be had, known him to be an
honourable man,•whose worth had been acknowledged in
that - House -by the Hon. and Learned Member for Cork
himself. He contended that they were unable to judge
this matter without knowing the whole facts of the case,
as they were laid before Chief Justice Pennefather. The
charter, which he recommended should not be produced,
it was well known was in existence, and was known to
be in the possession of the corporation. This was a
very common occurrence in Ireland, for it was matter of
history that almost all James the Second's charters
were repudiated by the corporations to whom they
were granted. He had not the slightest hesitation in
saying. that Mr. Justice Pennefather was perfectly justi-
fied in what:he did. He was bound in duty to his clients
to advise as he did. He (Mr. Darby) confessed
that When he first saw this opinion in the newspapers
he was astonished: at the construction which at the first
view was put upon it,. and -he immediately came to the
conclusion that it hadnever been given by Chief Justice
Pennefather. But when he.came •ta calmly consider it,
and to read as it ought to be read, he said that it had
beenpiit forth merely to prejudice the character of that
Learned Judge. He thought it was a monstrous thing
that when it man had been fifty years a member of the
jegai-protession, at this moment, for what purpose, lie
would not inquire, the whole of Ms professional career
was to be'raped-- up and an opinion produced that was
given a quarter of a century ago which had been
printed in a manner that totally misrepresented it. The
dishonour would fall not on the acensed party, but on
those who had mutilated his opinion so as to mislead the
public altogether. ,
Mr, MAURICE' Q'CONNELL thought that the
inpse of !line since the opinion was delivered did not
diminish its dishonesty. Much stress had been laid on
the shape in which the opinion had. been printed ; and
the Hon. Member who spoke last had gone so f"'_'-as to,
say that it was mutilated, In answer to that charge
let them have the document in its original form.
It lied been asked why had it not been produced
before? But it should be recollected that it had always
been in the possession of the old corporation of Kil7
kenny, and that the new eorgoratio4 (IA Int pan into

being until last year. Any application to inspect papers.
would haVe been refused by the old corporation.‘• Then
it was said that the charter in question was worse than
nothing. Why, then' in the name of God, what harm
could there have been in any one seeing it ?
Why was there such ingenuity employed in putting it
out of the way ? If it was mere waste parchment, what
harm could have been done by its production ? But
the fact was, that the corporation of Kilkenny at its
convenience sometimes acted on one charter and some-
times on the other. Where the charter of James 11.
bound the people the corporators acted upon it, and
where the people got an immunity by the former char-
ter, the latter was brought into play. Thus they had a
double-handed blow at them. What could be thought
of the character of the man who could deliberately ad-
vise that a person should search the public records in
the Auditor-General's office, in the Birmingham Tower,
where the records of Ireland were kept, for the purpose
of directly falsifying the public records of the country?
Was not that the fact ? Let them imagine a similar
case with regard to wills, and that a barrister had ad-
vised the suppression of a second will in order that a
party might inherit under a former one. The Hon. and
Learned Gentleman said lie had consulted the Irish bar,
and that their opinion was that it was a mere customary
matter to give such advice. For his (Mr. O'C.'s) part
he had a considerable acquaintance among the Irish
bar, and the general feeling amongst them seemed to be
one of astonishment and surprise that such a man could
'have given such advice. There was a disposition to pass
it over, and to attribute it to one ,of those moments of
weakness to which every man was liable. But surprise
it certainly did occasion. He was also assured
that a legal gentleman was at that time asked
to give his opinion on the case, and he abo-
lutely refused to give such advice as that which was
given by Chief Justice Pennefather, on the ground that
it would be derogatory to his professional character.
Still he would not press his Hon. Friend to go to a division,
because in the first place they were sure to be beaten,
and, in the next, because the sense of the House seemed
to be against it.
Mr. ESCOTT said the Hon. Gentleman did not un-
derstand the question. Nothing was more common
than for counsel to object to the admission of evidence
that they thought irrelevant. Nothing could be more
improper than for a counsel, under pretence of searching
for evidence, to come forward with a witness to prove
that they had made a search for that which they wished
to keep out of sight. But was that the case here? The
whole matter turned on the word " anterior." He did
not instruct them to keep out of sight any evidence that
was anterior to the charter of James the First, but ad-
vised them not to embarrass their case with anything
subsequent to tkat charter.
Mr. DILLON BROWNE denied that they were
actuated by factious motives ; but advised his Hon.
Friend to withdraw his motion.

Mr. BLEWITT said the opinion was the most dis-
graceful and the most disgusting that had ever come
within his knowledge.
After a few words in explanation from- Mr. M.
O'CONNELL and Mr. SHAW,
The motion was negatived without a diiision.
TURNPIKE ACTS (IRELAND).

Lord ELIOT moved for leave to bring in a Bill to
continue, until the 31st day of July, 1845, and to the
end of the then session of Parliament, expiring Turn-
pike Acts (Ireland).—Granted.
MEDICAL CHARITIES (IRELAND).
Mr. TRENCH moved for a return of the sums sup-
plied by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to the dis-
pensaries* and other medical charities in Ireland.
Lord ELIOT did not see what object could be attained
by such a return.—Motion refused.
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC PETITIONS.

Mr. HUME moved that it be an instruction to the
Committee on public petitions that they do not record
any petition on which the name of the Member present-
ing it is not written.
Mr. THORNELY seconded the motion.
Mr. GREENE thought it would be very desirable
that some such resolution should be come to.
Motion agreed to.
SAVINGS' BANKS BILL.

On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX-
CHEQUER, the Savings' Banks Bill was read a second
time.

EDINBURGH AGREEMENT BILL.
This Bill passed through Committee.
STAMP DUTIES BILL.

On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX-
CHEQUER the Stamp Duties Bill was read a second
time.
The House then adjourned, at Half-past Nine o'Clock.