« PreviousContinue »
a sound judgment in refusing the informations. He considered that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had acted unconstitutionally in summarily dismissing magistrates simply at the dictation of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and this proceeding had created a feeling among the magistrates that their position was dependent on the caprice of the political chief of the day; had irritated, by the dismissal of magistrates of irreproachable character, a most loyal body; and had called forth expressions of sympathy and respect in favour of Lord Roden. In conclusion, he stated that he abstained from moving a direct vote of censure, because he wished that this great constitutional question should be kept apart from any party conflict.
The Earl of Clarendon hoped that the circumstance of his having come from Ireland, in order to defend an act of the Executive Government, would not be converted into a precedent. He appeared in his place because, understanding that he had been challenged to attend, he feared his absence might lead to misconstruction. After stating that he had always been anxious to prevent party processions in Ireland, the noble Earl proceeded to meet in detail the several charges preferred against him by Lord Stanley.
Since the expiry of the Processions Act, party processions had been looked upon not as necessarily or à priori illegal, but liable to become so according to the character they might assume. It was the opinion of every sound lawyer, that if they inspire reasonable terror among the peaceable, they are illegal. In 1848 a procession assembled to pass through Dolly's
Brae; but hearing that its passage would be disputed, it passed another way. In 1849 the Messieurs Beers deliberately pre-arranged and led a procession by that road, though they had twelve months' notice that it would probably induce a breach of the peace. The Government had the fullest private information of the general state of things, and expected a great demonstration on the 12th of July; but they had no information of the special intentions in particular localities. Lord Clarendon himself superintended the arrangements for preventing disturbance ; sending down experienced police inspectors, a body of that force, and a body of military. The procession marched; after it had passed Dolly's Brae the first time, the stipendiary magistrates became apprehensive of a collision. Mr. Fitzmaurice urged Lord Roden to prevent the return of the procession by the same way; but no effort was made by either Lord Roden or the Messieurs Beers to prevent it, although the latter admitted that it could, perhaps, have been prevented. It must be left to the local magistracy to determine what was necessary for conserving the peace, the Government supplying the means; if they pre-arrange and sanction that which leads to danger, and afterwards, when the danger is pointed out, do nothing to prevent it, they are unworthy to remain in the commission of the peace. As to the nature of Mr. Berwick's inquiry, it had been sanctioned not only by successive Governments and Parliaments, but by Lord Stanley himself, in the Maghery and Portglenone cases, when he was Irish Secretary, in 1830-1832. Moreover,
Mr. Berwick was himself put in the commission of the peace. The Act 5th and 6th William IV. c. 62, had been quoted to prove that his examination of witnesses was extrajudicial and illegal; but the 13th section of that Act expressly excepts from its operation all evidence before any justice concerning "the preservation of the peace. The Lord Chancellor was "recommended" to dismiss the magistrates; and he was enabled to act on that recommendation the same day, because he had himself come to the determination to do so, on investigation of proofs. The weight of those proofs was not impeached by criticism of Mr. Berwick's report in comparison with the short-hand notes. The Government had information that those notes were grossly false, and that it had been falsely sworn that they were taken in court: they were, in fact, a perverted and distorted adaptation of the notes which the Government used in addition to Mr. Berwick's report. Lord Clarendon lamented that upon evidence such as this a man of high judicial character, and of unimpeachable conduct, should have been charged with garbling and suppressing testimony.
In reference to the dismissal of Lord Roden, Lord Clarendon expressed himself as follows:"My Lords, when Mr. Berwick's report came into my hands, I am bound to say that I perused its contents with very great regret. The opinion which I formed from it with reference to the noble Earl I communicated to my noble Friend at the head of the Government; from whom and his colleagues, including the noble Lord on the woolsack, it received the most anxious and careful consiVOL. XCII.
deration. The result was, that they appealed to me on the necessity of superseding the noble Earl in the commission of the peace; and, my Lords, I must say that to me it was a most painful act to execute. I had long been honoured with the friendship of the noble Earl. From the moment that I had gone to Ireland until then I had received from him assistance of the most useful character. I felt the most sincere respect for him. I knew how much his dismissal would be resented by his numerous friends, and the unpopularity I should earn for myself, even among those who were not his friends, throughout the north of Ireland. I felt and I foresaw all that but still there was one feeling superior even to that—a feeling of duty; a feeling from which I did not venture to shrink, and by which I need not assure your Lordships I was alone actuated in the course that I adopted. Ever since the government of Ireland was confided to my care, my great object has been to render the law a reality-to inspire all classes of the community with confidence in the impartial administration of justice-to convince them that before the law all men were equal; and that, whether high or low, rich or poor, the same justice should be meted out to all. (Much cheering.) And I should have felt ashamed of myself, and unworthy the confidence of my Sovereign, if I had decided in a manner different with respect to the noble Earl to that in which I should have decided in the case of any other man; or if I had allowed for one moment any personal consideration to interfere with what I believed the justice of the case required."
Lord Clarendon then entered into explanations with regard to the allegation that he had furnished, or been privy to furnishing, the Orangemen with arms in the year 1848. He read passages from a private letter by Captain Kennedy, now serving in India, which showed that he, the Captain himself, really furnished the money [6001.] from his own pocket. Lord Clarendon wound up these explanations with this assurance"I hope it is sufficient for me to give my solemn assurance that, during the whole time I have held office, I never, directly or indirectly, have given a weapon, or a shilling to purchase one, to any 'person in Ireland."
In conclusion, Lord Clarendon declared his opinion that, had it not been for this unfortunate rencounter and its consequences, their Lordships would have had the satisfaction to know that Ireland was then more free, on the whole, from religious, as well as political agitation and agrarian outrage, than at any period within recollection. He regretted that this question had been brought forward, as it had a tendency to keep up irritating feelings; but he anticipated that the passing of a Bill now before the other House, to put a stop to party processions, would be attended with the most beneficial results. He would give no opposition to the motion, but would make some addition to the papers moved for.
The Earl of Roden thanked Lord Stanley for giving him this opportunity of addressing the House in reference to the transactions connected with the procession in Castlewellan, for he was anxious to defend his public and private honour. He could not
help feeling that he had been harshly dealt with by the Government. The evidence against him was drawn from the one-sided report of Mr. Berwick. He referred to the loyal conduct of the Orangemen of Ulster in 1848, which enabled the Government to withdraw all the military from Ulster, and to crush the incipient insurrection. With respect to the procession last year in Castlewellan, he had no reason to suppose, previous to its occurrence, that Lord Clarendon (whom he had seen about a month before) thought it illegal; and he believed that the brave men who composed the procession would have gone quietly home if they had not been cowardly and brutally attacked. He repelled the charges made against him in Mr. Berwick's report; and, with reference to his attendance at the petty sessions alluded to, he declared that he went there to do justice; but he could not countenance charges not substantiated by the evidence. He had always, as a magistrate, done justice to all parties, to the best of his ability.
After an explanation from the Earl of Enniskillen respecting the document referred to by Lord Clarendon,
The Earl of Winchilsea. addressed the House, and condemned Mr. Berwick's commission as unconstitutional. The persons assembled in Lord Roden's grounds, in July last, were peaceable, and the attack was made on them by parties who had come to the spot from distant places.
Lord Brougham could not concur in the proposition that Lord Roden had been unjustly and arbitrarily used. A meeting, legal in its inception, might become
unlawful by its assuming a character calculated to lead to a breach of the peace; and the purpose for which this procession met in Castlewellan rendered a collision extremely probable. He believed that, upon the whole, substantial justice had been done in this case.
vernment for the manner in which he had acted in the affair brought under the notice of the House, and from Lord Abinger, who stated that he had not been able to collect why Lord Roden was dismissed from the commission of the peace,
After some observations from the Marquess of Clanricarde, who declared that Lord Clarendon had the entire approbation of the Go
Lord Stanley replied, and his mótion was agreed to without a division, the noble Lord expressing himself well satisfied with the results of the debate.
FINANCE.- The Budget is introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 15th of March-Favourable condition of the Public RevenueEffects of reduced Taxation on necessaries of life-Proposed reduction of the Stamp Duties and repeal of the Brick Tax-Reception of the Budget-Remarks of Mr. Hume, the Marquess of Granby, Mr. Newdegate, Mr. Henry Drummond, Mr. Bankes, and other MembersProgress of the Financial Arrangements-Difficulty found in adjusting the details of Stamp Duties-Defeat of the Government on an Amendment moved by Sir H. Willoughby-Two Bills withdrawn in succession-Mr. Mullings suggests alterations which are mainly adopted— The Stamp Duties Reduction and Brick Duties Repeal Bills are ultimately passed-Various Motions in favour of Retrenchment and reduction of Taxation-Mr. Henley gives notice of a Motion for reduction of Official Salaries-Lord John Russell anticipates the Motion by proposing the appointment of a Select Committee for the same object— Speech of Lord John Russell on that occasion-Mr. Disraeli moves an Amendment-Speeches of Mr. Hume, Mr. Henley, Lord H. Vane, Mr. Cockburn, Mr. Herries, Mr. Bright, Mr. H. Drummond, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer-Lord J. Russell's Motion is carried by a majority of 91.-—Mr. Horsman moves that the inquiry be extended to Ecclesiastical Incomes-The Motion is opposed by Sir George Grey, and rejected by 208 to 95. MOTIONS IN FAVOUR OF RETRENCHMENT: -Mr. Cobden moves Resolutions on the 8th of March pledging the House to reduction of Expenditure-He is answered by Mr. Labouchere-Speeches of Mr. Spooner, Mr. Hume, Mr. Herries, Mr. M. Gibson, Mr. Henley, and Lord John Russell-Majority of 183 against Mr. Cobden's Resolutions-Mr. Henry Drummond, on the 13th of March, brings forward another Motion in favour of Economy-His Resolution is seconded by Mr. Cayley, supported by Mr. Newdegate, Mr. Stafford, Lord John Manners, Mr. Bennett, and other Agricultural Members, and opposed by Mr. F. Maule, Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Labouchere, Mr. Bright, and Lord John Russell-The Motion is negatived by 190 to 156. REPEAL OF THE WINDOW DUTY :-Moved by Lord Duncan-His Speech-Answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer-Speeches of Sir G. Pechell, Sir Benjamin Hall, Lord Dudley Stuart, and Mr. Hume, in favour of the Motion, which is rejected by a narrow majority of 80 against 77-Motion of Mr. Cayley for Repeal of the Malt Tax-His Speech- Mr. Christopher seconds the Motion — The Chancellor of the Exchequer opposes it-Speeches of Mr. Henry Drummond, Mr. Bass, Mr. M. Gibson, Mr. Spooner, Mr. Hodges, Mr. J. Wilson, Mr. Disraeli, and Lord John Russell-The Motion is lost by 247 against 123.