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

SUGAR DUTIES.

Lord J. RUSSELL asked when the Government in-
tended to go into Committee on the Sugar Duties Bill ?
The CHANCELLOR 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 COLLIERIES BILL.
Mr. LABOUCHERE stated that, in consequence of an
interpretation that had been put upon a clause in Lord
Ashley's Mines and Collieries Bill, by the Magistrates of
Bilston, in Staffordshire, no less than 1,000 womon 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 been 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 wag, 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 graciously pleased to consider whether
it would not be for the 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 question of repeal, he was
anxious to remove the principal cause of
that agitation. He had long believed that the
office was prejudicial to Ireland. Twenty-one
years ago be 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 Members voting for it. Again, in 1839, he gave
a notice on the same subject, but he was not able to bring
it before the House. He believed that there was no objec-
tion that he should do se 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 much. 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
would be 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. Ile was desirous of
abolishing the office of Lord-Lieutenant, because he
wished to bringlreland into the union. At thepresent 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 union 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 of the Vioe-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' impassible 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 14,4504 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 Idistinct 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 Lord-Lieutenancy was 100,000/.
a year, and it required 1,100,000/. to keep down the Irish
people. Ireland was as much a burden to England now, in
1844, as it was at the time ofthe rebellion 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 con-
firmed, with a seat in the Cabinet. The pomp of the
Viceregal system had been ridiculed oven 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 ad,
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 ofunitn
who
were parties, by destroying the focus of ;Arty spirit. Thosez
were the best judges of Irishdaistafireers,tiesendenwdhowere
most desirous of putting down discon-
tent, would have their wisheevsegrryatmifieeadns of bythmeaking measurethe
which he proposed. With
people happy and comfortable, the country
suffered
dlotrao bclaerrcyonadrinitisonun;
untilinhabitants they
first
rst
eag
been branded. He did not believe that there was a coun-
try
cwoausl d in
nota .most
s
u
in Europe at that moment in so distracted a state as
Ireland. As long
as ian
colony
Lord Di e
G vt
d
iered was
made nochtraeragt charge against
as
ains a t
was against the office, not the in..
dtaken away the independent Legislat
prosper;
ure
fromHavingeAl•thnhaotitscomplaint
country,
and not giving the people any benefit
instead of it, they had used them harshly ; favours had I
wholeben
Captain distributednation.BoeRN A
concluded oLn e
secondedp arti cu particular
yat :33
nee
el:
La
motion.ahn and
resolution.
Tn not to t oH House
uths ee
could not but remember that in a recent debate, Ireland
was described as a country with a starving popu•
lation, an absenteis aristocracy, an alien Church,
and the weakest Executive in the whole
world—but he believed he should be able to convince
the House that it was the most misohieveits as
well as the weakest. By a sort of -fiction,
Ireland was called an integral portion of the empire,
but was governed in all respects like a colony, the
Executive being quite overruled by the Cabinet
in London. In fact the policy of Pitt had never been
completed, and the union had never been perfected.
By means of steam and railroads Dublin was now
brought nearer to London than Edinburgh, yet at
Dublin there was a quasi-KinF, a Court, and a Privy
Council—all the outward and visible signs of a-different
kingdom, without the inward • and :spiritual race
of
grace of a
separate Parliament. Then look at the appointment
the Lord-Lieutenant. He wee always chosen from party
motives. When a Whig nobleman was'appointed, and
showed any favour to the Catholics, the Tories said the
peace of-the countri was in danger; when tv Tory inoble-
man was nominate , the Orange Tories were in ecstacies.
The office of Lord-Lieutenant was the cause of violent
p arty spirit being carried into private society; and the
Lord• Lieutenant was merely regarded as the head

of a party, If it were that all Government
was experimental, and therefore progressive, how
happened it that for 672 years Government made
no progress in the sister kingdom ? The Government
of Ireland was administered by three principal officers,
the Lord-Lieutenant, the Lord Chancellor, and the
Chief Secretary. Up to the time of the uuion, there
was only one Irish Lord-Lieutenant, namely, James,
Duke of Ormond, and since the union there was only
one—the Marquis of Wellesley. Since 1760 there
were twelve Lord Chancellors, three of whom only were
Irishmen. During the same period, there were
42 Chief Secretaries, seven of whom only were Irishmen.
There were besides several minor officers, each of whom
had their several cliques. There was the Under Secre-
tary with his clique ; the Attorney-General with his
clique ; and there was another officer wbo acted in the
Castle like the prompter of a theatre—one who, though
never seen, was heard in whispers, and who, he be-
lieved, was a greater source of mischief than all the
others put together—he meant the law adviser to the
Crown. The Lord-Lieutenant had indeed " the like-
, ness of a kingly crown," but he was under the control
' of the Home Secretary, an officer in which the interests
of Ireland were indeed not best understood. lie
was not even a member of the Cabinet Ministry,
—(Hear.) The Hon. Gentleman then quoted from a
speech of Mr. Shaw, delivered on the 30th of May,
1843, who said that the Lord-Lieutenant had not the
responsibility of the Crown nor the power of a Minister,
that he was constantly controlled and was often blamed
for that for Which he was not responsible.— (Hear,
hear.) This was an opinion which was prevalent among
the higher classes in Ireland, and the Duke of Leinster
looked upon the office as one remote cause of the agitas
t.ion for the repeal of the union.--(Hear, hear.) It had
been said that it would be impossible to carry out the
measure, in consequence of the opposition of the Dublin
tradesmen, but they might abolish the office and continue
the grant, which they might apply towards the removal
of the local taxes of the city of Dublin.—(Laughter.)
He only suggested it might be applied to public works,
or to the moral and religious education of the people.
But at all events this argument was no defence
for continuing the office of Lord-Lieutenant. The
true element of a country's greatness depended
on the internal resources of the country, and
if Ireland relied on these, she had nothing to apprehend.
—(Hear, hear.) It had been said that the office was a
bond of union. Now he had spent seven years in Dub:in,
and he was certain that, so far from the office being a
bond of union in Dublin, it was a fertile source of
jealousy and discord.--(Hear, hear.) In fact, this mimic
representation of royalty tended to bring the monarchi-
cal principle into contempt. It had been objected to
Lord Normanby's Government that ho had not the
aristocracy of the country at his levees. Now, he
begged to read to the House an advertisement which
appeared in a Dublin newspaper, of the Ist of March,
1844. That was during the present viceroyalty.
The advertisement was from Saunders's News Letter,
and was to this effect :—" Notice.—Gentlemen who pur-
pose attending the approaching levee will be supplied
with a brown claret court-dress at 2s. 6d. the suit. The
strictest secresy will be observed.—(Laughter.) This
being the lowest charge made for claret-brown suits to
the humbler classes on occasion of teetotal and repeal
processions, there can be no deviation from it."—
(Laughter.) The House would at once gather from
this, that in the estimation of a tailor, the levees of' the
Lord-Lieutenant were placed on the same footing with
repeal and teetotal processions. The same claret-brown
suit was to answer fbr bath, and, what was of more im-
portance to the wearer, the price was the same. It
might be asked if they were to do away with the office
of Lord-Lieutenant, how were his duties to be per-
formed ? The Home-office was employed with a num-
bes of Bills, which w ould be got rid of—God knows when.
But what objection could there be to the ap.
pointment of a fourth Secretary of State for Ire-
land, with a seat in the Cabinet? By that
plan they would obviate the necessity of placing the Se-
cretary in the Cabinet, and thus raising hint above his
superiors. Grattan had defined the true genius of the
Irish nation to be affectionate. He (Captain B.) need
not refer to her past history to recal, in proof of that
assertion, their desperate fidelity to a fallen monarch.
The Irish people had, up to this century, never seen
their sovereign but in arms. The three first Princes of
the House of Hanover had never visited that country,
and at the time of the visit of George the Fourth, so glad
were the Irish to see a bona fide live King, that the im-
pression of his footsteps were cut in the rock who're he
landed. He would suggest to the Right Hon. Gentleman
at the head of her Majesty's Government, to advise his
Royal Mistress, in the event of the abolition of the Lord-
Lieutenantcy, to pass a portion of her time in Ireland
every year. He would then see the realization of the
peroration which the Right Hon. Gentleman declared
some time ago—his Royal Mistress visiting Ireland as an
angel of peace ; and, like her Royal predecessor, she
would leave, not her footsteps engraven on a barren
rock, but her memory living in the hearts of a loyal,
grateful, tied 'devoted people.—(Cheers.)
Lord ELIOT said that this motion referred not so
much to a question of party politics as to one or general
policy. The system which it was proposed to do away
with existed for 400 or 500 years, and the Hon. Gentle-
man who introduced the motion was bound to show, not
only that some great evil was inherent in that system,
but that that which it was proposed to substitute in its
stead was well adapted to serve the purposes of the Lord.
Lieutenantcy. It appeared that both the Hon. Gentle.
men who had spoken on the subject had overstated the
objections to the office nod understated its advantages.
The Hon. Gentleman who introduced the motion had
referred to debates on the subject, and to the opinions of
Mr. Pitt as favourable to his proposition. But the ex--
pressed opinions of several Irishmen were opposed to
the abolition of the office of Lord-Lieutenant, And
when the subject was on a former occasion before the
House, the Hon. and Learned Member for Cork ex-
pressed himself as decidedly opposed to it. Sir
John Newport was equally opposed to it. The
Hon. Gentleman who had seconded the motion had ad-
verted to his own experience during the time he was in
Ireland. He (Lord Eliot) could not, of course, say
what was the state of things in Dublin Castle at that
time, but, for himself, he knew nothing of the intrigues,
of which the Hoh. Gentleman had spoken. His Noble-
Friend the Lord-Lieutenant and himself held themselves.
responsible for all the acts of the Government, and they
were Rot influenced by any of the representations of un-
authorised persons. He believed that those persons who
held office under the Irish Government were actuated isy.
the purest motives, and he repudiated the insinuationa of
the Hon. Gentleman against them. The Hon, Gentle-
man proposed that there should be a fourth Secretary ot
State. He presumed that a new office was to be appointest
for him, for the Hon. Gentleman said, that nowhere
were the interests of Ireland less understood than in, the
office of the Secretary of State for the Rome Do.
' partment. Now, if they abolished the office of
Lord-Lieutenant, every Irish Act of Parliament must
be carefully revised. Various powers were given by
different Acts to the Lord-Lieutenant himself, or to the
Lord-Lieutenant in Council.' It would be a source of in-
calculable difficalty if all these powers were to be trans-
ferred en masse, without consideration, into the hands of
the new Secretary of State. How did they propose WI
vest these powers ? All transfers of licenses, and other
matters of detail, such as transfers of places for holding;
quarter sessions in assizes, were made by consent of the
Lord-Lieutenant. It would be matter of serious incon-
venience if the parties should be obliged to resort to
England in order to have business of this sort transacted.
Then, with regard to the Secretary's office. He would,
in order to give the House some notice of the multifar-
ious duties of that office, read to the House a list of that
establishment, and describe the duties which devolved
upon each branch of it. The establishment consisted or
a chief secretary, an under secretary, one chief clerk. Mt
senior clerks, seven senior assistant clerks. sod
eight junior assistant clerks. The first division
comprehended one senior and six other clerks, and the/
magistrates, with clerks of the Crown, with clerks
944,0 f
prepared condueted all the correspondence which took place wit
the peace, all ecclesiastical matters, dth
e
returns all
returns to be laid before Parliament. This latter por-
tion of their duties occupied a considerable part of their
time. The second division consisted of one senior and.
seven other clerks. They conducted all the business
Crown Solicitor s-office, and the remission of sentences..
light duty in Ireland, every sentence,
relating to the
,judicial departments, the Treasury, thee
This was no
almost was submitted to the Lord-Lieutenant, and V. 4,5;
no less then 1,270 sentences had been submitted to the
the subject of the most minute inquiries. In "Rem
Lord-Lieutenant, and considerable injury would bo s ft,
flitted upon the country if the people were denie, easy
access to the officer who exercised the authorit-
Crown. Then there were the duties exerek. of the
law adviser of the Crown, who was come
the magistrates to refer to the Crosse with the
Secretary's-office. It was the
_practice, -
-cted
ed by the
Crown for advice in all
cases of difficulty. These refereu •
to have an official la
that it would be impossible for •
s . in .Ireland for
e.es were so numerous
citor-Generals to attend to them
the Lord-Lieutentuit. the Attorney and Soli-
,and therefore it was neces-
sarytions. If the Hon. Gentlw eSP.lcer to answer those applica-
tions.
would and leave
merely to remove
clerks, U.S it wags';, present,
leave the establishment of
present, he (Lord Eliot) thought
by the e ur.Jon creep in which were now prevented
Zetrative authority, and the change would be at-
tendedv:lth great detriment to the public service. One
Hon, 'Gentleman had talked, in the course of his speech-,
of Pile case of Scotland, as though that were analogous to.
Om case of Ireland. He begged leave to tell the Hon.
1, Gentleman that the case of Scotland was not et all
in point. The Hon. Gentleman said a great deal about
identity of institutions. Why he must be well aware
that the laws and institutions of Scotland were widely
different from those of England. It was not till very
lately that trial by jury was introduced into that
country ; andn many other respects great &f-
--ferences had existed, and still contieued
_to ex-,
i
ist, between the two countries. He would
touch on the many extraneous topics which
.h
e
Gentleman had introduced into his speech ; he would
confine himself to the immediate question before the
House. It was, however, be contended no argutnrnt to
essentiallya ir c 1
--"—eratenant..
say that
state
different..
They knew that in the one case obedient',
oftho Scotlandt did
oco not
untrrieesqui was re
to the laws
was the rule ; and though he would not o so far
as to
say—God forbid that he should—that •
'alp reverse was
the case in Ireland, still he must say, without intending-
en
to reflect in the least degree on ttir
pceeopto law
le of Ireland,.
that they did not pay the same QV
the as
,
the people of Scotland. Dlistui,ban
cgs outrages, on& violations of the law, werennv .
more frequent in Are-
land than in Scotland.
Ireland, therefore, a
local executive was r_ a
red, to take upon it-
self the responsibility Of immediate action. There
was no time to consult the authorities irs
London ; ana he believed the public peace would be
greatly. endangered if there: were no Lord-Lieutenant
Or no oineei holding sirnilar:powers.:—(Cries of " Divides
divide.") The Hon. Gentles nan had spoken of the con
stant change of LorelseLient tenant, as though that were
an argument against the, continuanee of the office.
Surely that objection would, equally apply
to the office of

Home Secretary—(lean 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
the 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
government in England, or indeed to any system of go-
vernment which was founded on representation.—(Hear.)
He 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
foreign commerce, she was not represented merely be-
cause 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, hear.) But if
the question were merely a general one, he bad 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-
ments could be made. 'There was a great difference of
opinion 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-
sessed 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-
Lieutenant, was the numerous references made to the
Castle of Dublin by the local magistracy of Ireland. In
England these questions were, in the greater number of
cases, decided by the local magistrates themselves. But
in Ireland there was a disposition to refer everything to
the Castle. This was not an advantage, but an evil,
which the abolition of the office would tend to diminish.
li' these questions came for discussion to the Home-
office in England, there would be a much stronger feel-
ins, as to what was the right and just course to take on
these particular occasions than now. But with all these
masons against the existence of the office, he thought no
persons were so capable of judging of the question as the
Executive 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
favour 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
lion. and Gallant Member had done him the honour to
note. He agreed with him that the position of the
Lord-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 cf that country for either the
numinal Government or the real authority to be more
under local control. He bop d 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 Irelend 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
ale-cash-in a still greater want of employment than was
now felt. He contended that the case of Scotland was
not at all analogical, because the people of Ireland were
naturally gay and fond of amusement. He was sur-
prieed that his Hon. and Gallant Friend, who was so
long in Ireland, should support the motion. He (Cap-
tain Layard) should certainly vote against the motion.
Mr. M. BELLEW said he was willing that this ques-
tion should be tried upon its merits, and upon its merits
,alone. There was no doubt whtitever but there was a
change necessary 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
was termed the last vestige of Ireland's independence.
The reasons expressed by the Right Hon. Gentleman,
the First Lord of the Treasury, and by the Right Hon. the
Chancellor of the Exchequer for continuing the office
of Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland were widely different from
those mentioned by the Noble Lord on that evening.
Dublin was not without other resources than a viceregal
court. It had a court of law, a garrison, and was con-
tiguous to the sea. If the office were abolished, of
course the salary at present enjoyed by the Lord-Lieu-
tenant would be conferred on the country in some other
was.. The,people in the country parts were quite indif-
ferent- as to the continuance of the office ; indeed, he
believed the general feeling was in favour of its aboli-
tion. In Louth, which was only thirty milesdistant from
Dublin. tie inhabitants did not know or care when the
Lord-Lieutenant was in Dublin, and when he was not.
Be thought it would be much more conducive to the
interests of Ireland if the business of the two countries
was amalgamated, and if the Members of the Cabinet
were made immediately responsible in that House for the
bovernrnent of„ Ireland.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir R. PEEL, said he thought the Hon. Member who
just sat deem would have acted more wisely if he
sisei onfined hi's observations to the subject matter ba-
fare tLe HouSe, and not have wandered 25 years
qerest of some passages in speeches which he
(Sir Rs Peel) might have delivered. He thought it would
nut be '.vise to pass the motion of the Hon. Member for
Montrose, unless they were prepared at once to abolish
the office of Lord-Lieutenant, for the recorded vote of
the House against the tenure of the office would have the
effect of paralysing the executive government of Ire-
laud ; 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-
eielesi opinion in favour of the continuance of that office.
--(Hear, hear.) It was impossible to deny but there
were strong arguments why Ireland should be governed
in the same manner as England and Wales. It had been
said that the Government were unwilling to abolish the
office, because it took away so much patronage. Why,
this was a foolish argument, for he apprehended that
evitatever Church patronage was at present vested in the
Besseutive, would be then conferred on the First Lord of
the Treasury. The members of the Cabinet did not ask
what sees the amount of petronage, and really Irish pa-
tronage was not what they were most anxious for.
There was no doubt but the Lord-Lieutenant's
residence in Ireland encouraged a good deal of
expenditure, and he feared its removal would
Increase absenteeism. It was urged that they
-.night have a fourth Secretary of State ; but he was
entirely against this proposition, and thought it would
introduce endless confusion, and, perhaps, dissensions
;into the Cabinet. Such en office had been a great anis-
waiy in this country. The present Lord-Lieutenant,
eeithough having a high name and privileges, was yet
suN
rdinate to the Secretary of State', but this new Se-
cresseey of State u ould be, according to the proposition,
quite „en independent and almost irresponsible officer. He
must be absent from Ireland six months of the year.
atav was Ireland to be governed in his absence, or how
were Irish questions to de discussed in the Cabinet
withenit his presence during the other six months? But
,it wes said power might be intrusted to other high func-
setnething as it now is during the absence of
te•orarie
the Lord- -Lieutenant. He apprehended that this would
be a eeee langerous investiture of power indeed, and the
Influence istesi ,authority of the Chancellor might become
greater than
vele desirable for the fair and equitable
;ad-
ministration Of Irish affairs . There was a very
"'Tone. argument, indeed, against vesting the powers
of the office in i'be Secretary of State for the
Departruent. He feared the duties would
be vastly too onerous. There was a limit to human
streneeth, but he feared such an accumulation of
busines's would be beyond the capacity of any man alive.
His Righet Hon. Friend, the present Secretary of State—
,in
whose praise he would not say more, as he was pre- I
sesnt, than that he was eminently qualified, from know- r
lentee and isaperience, to fill it—would, he felt confident,
be le leconal to such a task. There were numerous mat-
ten as. resent referred to the Lord-Lieutenant, which
must, is; a taa,:i an event, be transferred to the Home-office,
such as gri, le jury affairs, the control over the Board of
Works, and
.esech like things. In his opinion, nothing
could be mere, sill advised than to take any step for the
removal of the Coe,rt from Dublin without clue and ac-
curate information, s
enhecause he thought it essential that
there should be a etshal source from whence the exer-
cise of authority in that country should emanate.
Mr. DILLON' BROasneeE differed from the Hon.
Member for Montrose. If tiee people of that county
were placed in the same positime as those of Scotland,
and had not to pay for a Church establishment from
which ,they dissented, they would gs.,:h up the point
„mooted ,by the Hon. Member. But in the ;resent state
o. the ease, the people of Ireland would exclaim,
yeet have taken away our Parliament, you have
Mkt n away our aristocracy, and now you seek to deprive
us 0.4" the , test remnant we possess of our nation 11
was most
nee ause you are called upon to
nobiritf,pay a paltry
stipend to ite mainteinance. He certainly
f onr supporting a Viceregal
strongly in _ Court
in
Dublin, becat nse when Ireland possessed a local Parlia-
ment, and the precincts of the Castle were more pure, it
would he the puree of much benefit to the people.
Mr I ,
ILTME ,said that although differing entirely from ,
.
the arguenente saintla
; had been adduced against him, yetfa I
V ion of opinion 1
'cling w
ding satisfit ith the express
d withdraw his motion.le 1
ha d been main tested, he shoul
!,The HON. Nilr:'TßErt then withdrew his motion.
'
CHIEF JITSTICE PENNEFArI IIER
•
Afte,- a desulta )ry conversation, in which Lerd Eliot.
e'elonnell, Mr. D. Browne, and Mr. Shaw took a
part,
Mr. BUTT
X,lte who was very indistinctly heard in the_
gallery, rose to move for a copy of an opinion and ad-
vice given by %fr. Pcnnefather, the present Chief Jus-
tice of the Cou rt of Queen's Bench in Ireland, on the ,
,28th day of Fe brua, 17, 1820, in a case of toll, namely,
Pembroke e. Kingie lain," in which the Corporation of
lillkenny;was i terestee the original of which was in the 1
lr 7ssession of th es present Mayor and Corporation of the
City of Ki • lken ay. He ss aid that many years ago, the
co, rporation of the City f Kilkenny • imposed certain
goys, and use tat one occasion the inhabitants offered
strong opposit' ism to them. The corporation thereupon
s, ought the opi n ion of Mr. Perenefather, the present Chief
Jt tatice. (TI le Hon. Gentleman here road the opinion
vi by Sfr. Xenneitubter cm the path of rebruary,

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
IL, as if produced it would falsify the pleadings; 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 of James II.) Now, if he had read this paragraph
in an amusing novel which was lately published,called" Ten
Thousand aYear;" 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 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 hardlyknew 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 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. 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
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
Lad Mr. Chief Justice Pennefather, and he (Lord Eliot)
therefore regretted that this motion had been brought
fi,rward. _

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
ho 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 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-
I existence of an anterior patent. He looked on this
I motion as an attempt at intimidation ; it was part of a
system of intimidation against the Chief Justice of the
I 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-
po 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 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 lie 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 occnrrence 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
confusion 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
nfeoarfl
oon
nt
ay u rtl
m
yh agoe accusedi srep
tal
nhoatteett which
t party,e dh d.
b u been t
oh ne
had mutilated his opinion so as to mislead the
printedt
o s
e whoidishonourn
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 Hon. 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.
that it had always
But it should be recollected K It had been asked why had it not been. produced
before?
been in the possession of the old corporation of L-
kenny, and that the new corporation did not come into

being until last year. Any application to inspect papers
would have been refused by the eld 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 'pitting 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 he 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 abso-
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 that 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-
?,,raceful 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 division.
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. FRENCH 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 moiion 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.