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

tough
be-
Ll the
o the
like-
)ntrol
erests
He

tistry.
row 6
May,
Dt 'tbe
nister,
lamed

:Hear,

tefenee
The
)ended
and
ehend.
was *
)üblin,
Being a
irce of

mimic

riarchi-
:ted to
LOt the
)W, he
which
March,
oyaltp•
Letter,
io pur-
applied
The

not 50
goners,,
au WAY
Gentle-
now, not
systoot
ite in IP
he Lord',
Gentle',
ated the
rantageti
Lion las
inions Of
;the 0'
,ed to
P°- A
it. .Al -
!fore the
ork e"
;.

Secretary—(Hear, hear)—and if the Hon. Gen-
tleman Wished to see a stable, uniform, and permanent
system in Ireland, he had nothing to do but to support
Ine Government now in power.—(Hear, hear.) He
really thought that the Hon. Gentleman's objection was
Tnnoet mere applicable to the present system of govern-
int lreland, than it was to the present system of'
toeerninent in England, or indeed to any system of go-
iernment which was founded on representation.—(Hear.)
would n t go further into this subject ; but before he
heleded Must express his dissent from the opinion
of
sntte ntrtia
lCel ili9Gentleman, that Ireland was not repre-
t House. He• could not at all agree that
/Irelend was placed on the same footing as the
(t. her pertions of the United Kingd
esom, eith regard to
°_re'gn commerce, she was not reprented merely be-
;ittse she had a Lord-Lieutens.nt; and nothing, he be-
red would tend more to create dissatisfaction in Ire-
711d than to remove the present Government from that
wintry and transfer it to England.
for Lord
JOHN. RUSSELL said he had occasion, at a
able period, to consider whether or not it was advis-
a.,l4 aiiolish the office of Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland;
illuef he thought- there were reasons of great force
Which of the abolition, yet the conclusion at
that " .he arrived was, that it was not at
thi' time expedient to abolish it. •He thought that
the
also was atime in which it was not expedient that
'„ue change should take place.—(Hear, bear.) But if
question were merely a general one, he had no less
I,wtterheenligoatn
tohpeiniboenstthat government by a Lord-Lieutenant
kind of government for Ireland.
tk 0131 - Lord said there were many things done in
0e eeitineil by the Lord-Lieutenant; but there could be
ledoubt that if the office were abolished, other arrange-
"lerinnts could be made. There was a great difference of
eatiattn. on that subject :at the time of the union with
that
Lord Somers gave it as his opinion
The N s not desirable to continue the Council.
ob.e Lord stated that Scotland had different in-
se se:l°" and laws from England, while Ireland pos-
taaBd. tllle same institutions and the same laws as Eng-
sehu°4l:dllut neither was. that a reason why Scotland
in ot beeeme
united with England. Another diffi-
Lieete- become
Way of the abolition of the office of Lord-
Castlenoaful)w"
crises,
deco-7 questions
the numerous references made to the
Egg thetblin neethe local magistracy of Ireland. In
were, in the greater number of
in Ireland'''. by the local magistrates themselves. But
the cast, there was a disposition to refer everything to
rhithe
This was not an advantage, but an evil,
;.abreition of the office would tend to diminish.
4f themeoffice questions, came for discussion to the Home-
rn 'England, there would be a much stronger feel-
the_as' to what was the right and just course to take on
reese particular occasions than now. But with all these
18eas against the existence of the office, he thought no
Derso,,,
were so capable of judging of the question as the
it --'utive Government itself. If it was its opinion that'
tewras desirable to continue it, • he should be sorry to in-
earZa with it by a vote of that House. He, therefore,
not support the motion.
f SRAW said that all his prepossessions were in
°I retaining the office of Lord-Lieutenant. He
thoughtin the trade of Dublin and its society would be
VitierlauslY affected by its removal. At the same time
eider aware that public opinion had undergone a con-
hie -1,4„u1e change on this subject; and notwithstanding
not ..:rsenal prejudices in favour of the office, he was
sa4,PLepared to say that he differed materially from the
tioaetee,
'Ks he had formerly expressed, and which the
quote;. and Gallant Member had done him the honour to
Loie.: Ile agreed with him that the position of the
itedehLieute.nant of Ireland must be an anomalous one,
feoi believed it would ultimately be the unanimous
pe,elle of all parties in Ireland that it would be for the
017trient interests of that country for either the
ere 'nal Government or the real authority to be more
koener local control. He hoped the Hon. Member for
pat local
would not press his motion to a division.
aisLeaPetain LAYARD said that, after a twelve years' re-
ad-re' in Ireland, he was convinced it would be a dis-
ten:atage to Ireland to abolish the office of Lord-Lieu-
Ise ; and he believed the majority of the people of
ehopd were of the same opinion. If the office were
eceeissihed. it would tend to create absenteeism, and would
an a • still greater want of employmentehan was
ow felt
not at • He contended that the case of Scotland was
emurall: ail analogical, because the people of Ireland were
ice
ris y
t
e "'a, ghis ay
H and fond of amument. He was sur-
on. and Gallant Friend, who was so
taieg to Ireland, should support the motion. He (Cap-
mLaYard) should certainly vote against the motion.
tine r'ol.l BELLEW said he was willing that this ques-
oud be tried upon its merits, and upon its merits
eitan • There was no doubt whatever but there was a
torcfe necessary in the present system. The Noble
itdheentSifeycinregtary for Ireland, talked in one breath
aed the interests of England and Ireland,
1,43 Lille next moment appeared anxious to preserve what
Tfe, rermed the last vestige- of Ireland's independence.
the reasons expressed by the Righe Hon. Gentleman,
eires.tLord of the Treasury, and by the Right Hono. the
of 41),.e110y of the Exchequer for co.ntinumg then
Dose '"-Lientenant of Ireland were widely different front.
elimentioned by the Noble Lord on that e.vening:
eouttzt was not without other resources than a viceregal
liga was
had court of law, a garrison, and was con-
eau_ans to the sea. If the office were abolished, .of
tee 'le the salary at present enjoyed by the Lord-Lieu-
sea ikat would
,be conferred on the country in some other
ferYe• The people in the country parts were quite indif-
eaur o
eit as the continuance of the office ; indeed, he
floe a(1,1 the general feeling was in favour of its aboli-
blw -Ln Louth, which was only thirty miles distant from
o,'ne the inhabitants did not know or care when the
" Lieutenant wits in Dublin, and when he was not.
lee thought it would be much more conducive to the
te'ests of Ireland if the business of the two countries
111; 1-,narnalgamated, and if the Members of the Cabinet
made immediately responsible in that House for the
overnrnent of Ireland.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir R. PELL said he thought the Hon. Member who
had just satedown would have acted more wisely if he
e:cconfined his observations to the subject matter be-
.)r.e
in
House, and not have wandered 25 years
I(o4lrtnn.
Peel)quest f
nut
Montrose,be wise to poa-sssorne passages
in
speeches which he
might have delivered. He thought it would
the motion of the Hon. Member for
unless they were prepared at once to abolish
0 a ins
Tee?
Hoff
ea g ice of Lord-Lieutenant, for the recorded vote of
t
i the tenure of the office would have the
t f paralysing
the executive government of Ire-
les ; and they- should not abolish the office un-
esbey weld substitute something better in its stead.
eet.Far, hear.) He would be sorry to express de=
L7d opinion in favour of the continuance of that office.
jva(rtleae, hear.) It was impossible to deny but there
thein trong
arguments why Ireland should be goVerned
said same manner as England and Wales. It had been
0 ethat the Government were unwilling to abolish the
, because it took away so much patronage. Why,
eve was a foolish argument,' for he apprehended that
I,44teeer Church patronage was at present vested in the
th eeutive, would be then conferred on' the First Lord of
1„., Treasury. The members of the Cabinet did not ask
tr at was the amount of patronage, and really
.Irish pa-
TVerltga was not what they were most anxious for.
reside was no doubt but the Lord-Lieutenant's
Latlee in rreland encouraged a good deal of
l'tPenditure, and he feared its removal wt
InFrn.iels' absenteeism. It was urged that they
s?''t have a fourth Secretary of State ; but he was
ietLrelY against this proposition, and thought it would
irtto-"uee endless confusion, and, perhaps, dissensions
I,th,e Cabinet. Such an office had been a great ano-
hat)." this country. The present Lord-Lieutenant,
seh ()gh having a high. name and privileges, was yet
eret°rdiale to the Secretary of State, but this new Se-
qui-is`rY of. State would be, according to the proposition,
tea,'"e, an indeedent nd almost irresponsible officery . He
Bpw be absenptn froma Ireland six months of the ear.
Irish
Ireland to be governed in his absence, or how
will- 'lrish questions to de discussed in the Cabinet
it el„eut his presence during. the other six months? But
ties-taald pOwer might be intrusted to other high func-
tealues, sen-lething as it now is during the absence of
bd ,„*"`ard-Lieutenant. He apprehended that this would
iier very dangerous investiture of power indeed, and the
aenee and authority of the Chancellor might become
ePter than was desirable for the fair and equitable ad-
ter-12,4teation of Irish affairs. There was a very
ora,L4 argument, indeed, against vesting the powers
1-10," office in the. Secretary of. State for the
be bepartment. He feared the duties would
at, vastly
en too onerous. There was a limit to human
F'Rth, but he feared such an accumulation of
Ilittess would be beyond the capacity of any man alive.
in Ilia tress
Hon Friend, thepresent Secretary of State—
see"t",aise praise' he would not say more, as he was pre-
leetethat' he was eminently qualied, from know-
he Zee and experience, to fill it—would, he felt confident,
tesc'etleal to such a tusk. There were numerous mat-
such' referred to the Lord-Lieutenant, wffil
in such an event, be transferred to the Home-o
_ce,
Work" grand jury affairs., the control over the Board. of
No a, and such like things. In his opinion, nothing
tee," he more ill advised than to take any step for the
ea,7°eal of the Court from Dublin without due and
that
thelte information; because he thought it essential t
eia'l•e should be a central source from whence the exer-
Vauthority in that country should emanate.
Hon.
• bILLON BROWNE differed from the
ehe,e'oer for Montrose. If the people of that country
and naPlaced in the same position as those of Scotland,
d not to pay for a Church establishment fr?m
aLteh they -dissented, they would give up the point
or,teed by the Hon. Member. But in the present state
yett`ne case, the people of Ireland would exclaim,
teke,, have taken away our Parliament, you have
es ',away our aristocracy, and now you seek to deprive
ree.,°,t the last remnant we possess of our national
tin"tY, because you are called upon .to pay a paltry
aierrend to its maintainance. He certainly was most
b„'aerlegly in favour of supporting a Viceregal Courtinun, because whet.- Ireland possessed a local Parlia-
ment,t
at-7 and the precincts of the Castle were more pure,
ld be the source of much benefit to the people.
the `r• HUME said that although differing entirely from
e,ei!'rgneaents which had been adduced against him, yet
hatial ueg satisfied with the expression of opinion which
Then manifested, he should withdraw his motion.
"a 'Lox. ME3IDER then withdrew his motion.
CHIEF JUSTICE PENNEFATHER.
4After a desultory conversation, in Which Lard Eliot.
Port,O'Connell;Mr. D.-Browne, and Mr. Shaw took a
g4lr• BUTLER, who was very indistinctly heard in the
viceerY, rose to move for a copy of an opinion and ad
ti given by Mr. Pennefather, the present Chief Jus-
28e of the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland, on the
th day of February, 1820, in a case of toll, namely,
kiiinerbroke v. Kingsmill," in which the Corporation of
pot was interested, the original of which was in the
eit'eesen of the present Mayor and Corporation of t e
corY of lilkenny. Ho said that many. years ago, the
te4P,oration of the City of Kilkenny imposed certain
st,,, and upon one occasion the inhabitants offered
• sough
ePposition to them. The corporation .thereupon
deught the opinion a Mr-. Perinefather, the, Chief
tiee.
, (The Hon. Gentleman here read the opinion
ela ILr. Pennefather on the 28th 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 pleadirigs; and he
further advised them to employ a person to search in
their muniments, who was ignorant of the existence of
this charter of James 11., 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 1., as
it might tell against them, if, on cross-examination, that
person should admit that he knew anything of the
charter.ofJarnes II.) Now, if he had read this paragraph
in an amusing novel which was lately published,called" Ten
Thousand a Year;" if he 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 llouEe, 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 I
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 would
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. Ile 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. .11e (Lord Eliot) un-
derstood the circumstances to be shortly these :—that
the corporation o: 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
have the effect of throwing doubt on the question
- which the Court had to adjudicate upon, but 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 Justice 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 s.n 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 hey
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 lie were so, the fact coming out on cross-
examination might fetter the case. 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 (Mr
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-
fectly well known that the patent of James the Second
was in existence, but it was a repudiated patent, and the
whole case turned on the proof being given of the non-
existence of an anterior patent. He looked on this
motion as an attempt at intimidation ; it was part of a
system of intimidation against the Chief Justice of the
Queen'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-
tice 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. BOWRING 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 int
"o. 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 Hon. 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. DARBY 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 he 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 tho
conclusion that it had never been given by Chief Justice
Pennefather. But when he came to calmly consider it,
and to read as it ought to be read, he said that it had
been put forth merely to prejudice the character of that
Learned Judge. He thought it was a monstrous thing
that when a man had been fifty years a member of the
legal profession, at this moment, for what purpose, he
would not inquire, the whole of his professional career
was to be raked up and an opinion produced that was
given a quarter of a century ago which bad been
printed in a manner that totally misrepresented it. The
dishonour would fall not on the accused party, but on
those who had mutilated his opinion so as to mislead the
public altogether.
Mr. MAURICE O'CONNELL thought that the
lapse of time 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 lion. Member who spoke last had gone so far as to
say that it was mutilated. In answer to that- charge
let them have the document in its original form.
It had been asked why had it snot been produced
before? , But it should be recollected that it had always
been in the' possesiion of the old corporation of Kul-
kerillYl and that the new corporation did not come iiit9