provided, that no sheriff shall tarry over one year; and then another convenient shall be ordained in his place, that hath land sufficient in his bailiwick, by the Chancellor, Treasurer, and Chief Baron of the Exchequer, taking unto them the Chief Justices of the one bench, and of the other, if they be present."

The law, thus laid down, still remains in force. But it appears, that, in Ireland, a different practice has, at various times, prevailed. And the object of Lord Lyndhurst's argument was to demonstrate, that the law of Ireland, in this respect, corresponded with that of England, 'and that the Crown had no right to take the nomination of sheriffs into its own disposal.

His Lordship, however, admitted, that there had been an interval in Irish history, during which the law had been systematically violated; and an irregular and unconstitutional practice introduced, which continued until Sir Robert, then Mr. Peel, went to Ireland, as chief secretary. Mr. Peel investigated the practice, and took the opinion of the Crown lawyers on the subject, who determined that the prevailing system was illegal, and ought to be remedied. Sir Robert Peel, therefore, restored the law and usage to their original footing; and so it continued to exist, until the day when Lord Mulgrave became Lord - lieutenant. That noble Earl had introduced a different practice, and in the course of three years, had, in upwards of twenty instances, made a dreadful inroad upon the constitution in this respect. Lord Lyndhurst then proceeded to enumerate certain specific cases, in which the law had been violated, and concluded

by moving for a select committee to inquire into the manner in which high sheriffs had been appointed in Ireland for the four preceding years.

The Earl of Mulgrave denied the law to be such as Lord Lyndhurst had represented it to be, or that the English statutes were applicable to Ireland. It was unquestionable, that Sir Robert Peel had introduced a beneficial change, but the system as remodelled by the right hon. Baronet, had never been considered compulsory upon his successors. And the noble Lord cited instances from every Viceroyalty since 1817 in corroboration of that assertion.

Lord Mulgrave then entered upon an explanation of the cases, eighteen in all, in which he had departed from Sir R. Peel's practice, and said that, in every such instance, he had acted upon the best advice, and felt satisfied that there were good and substantial reasons for his conduct.

Lord Brougham supported Lord Lyndhurst in a powerful argument, directed to establish the identity of the law, in the two countries. It had been contended by Lord Mulgrave, that the statutes of the two Edwards, on this head, could not be referred to Ireland, because at the time they were passed and long afterwards, there existed no machinery in that country, for carrying them into effect. But the noble and learned Lord argued that by Poyning's act, in Henry 7th's reign, the general law of England, as it then existed, was imported into Ireland, and that as soon, therefore, as Ireland was in a state to submit to any particular provisions of that law, they instantly took effect, though they might theretofore, from the neces

sity of the case, have been placed in abeyance.

It was, on the other hand, maintained by Lord Plunkett, who followed Lord Brougham in the debate, that, previous to the statutes of the Edwards, and even up to the passing of Poyning's Act in 1495, the Crown had claimed, and exercised the right of appointing the sheriffs in Ireland. At an early period, a large proportion of the land in that country was divided into Palatines; and the Palatines, in right of the Crown, appointed sheriffs. But as to the right of the judges to interfere, no such thing was ever heard of in Ireland, up to Henry the 8th's time. But then arose the question whether Poyning's law had not transferred the statutes to Ireland? and on this point, Lord Plunkett admitted that he spoke with less confidence. He appeared to hint, that even in England, in the earlier ages, the right of the freeholders to nominate the sheriffs was probably by sufferance only, and that the Crown throughout had, at least, a dormant claim. Now the English statutes only deprived the people of the power, without affecting the right of the Crown, which remained untouched. When, therefore, the statutes in question were imported into Ireland, by virtue of Poyning's law, the rights of the Crown in that kingdom were not affected one way or the other, and the nominations continued to be made by the Government. It did not appear, that the judges claimed the right in dispute, until after the Restoration. But that practice was soon disturbed, and all sorts of irregularities ensued.

What then was the effect of
VOL. LXXX.

Sir R. Peel's measures, or at the suppression of what did he aim? Was it the nomination of the Crown, the misconduct of the judges in their appointments, or the abusive practice of one sheriff nominating his successor? None of these; it was merely the jobbing of the county members, that Sir Robert Peel, co-operating with Sir John Newport, proposed to restrain.

The noble and learned Lord then entered into some of the details of particular appointments, and concluded, by saying, that he was quite ready to share, with Lord Mulgrave, the responsibility of whatever had been done in the matters in question.

Lord Abinger said, that a case for inquiry had been clearly established; while the Lord Chancellor contended, that so far from its having been demonstrated that the Irish judges had a right to be consulted on the subject, the proof was all the other way. And the noble and learned Lord pointed out some circumstances, of no great weight apparently, which he thought might make it impossible that the practice of the two countries could be identified. For instance, the law of England required, that the judges should meet for the purpose of appointing sheriffs in the Exchequer Chamber, with the two heads of that branch of the public service, the Treasurer and Chancellor. Now, the former of these offices had been abolished; and it was not likely that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give his attendance in Ireland with a view to prick for sheriffs.

Lord Clanricarde brought the discussion to an amicable conclusion, by proposing an amendment, [0]

which struck out so much of the motion as indicated any particular period of time. Thus removing all appearance of censure from Lord Mulgrave, and giving the proposed inquiry a general cha

racter.

Lord Melbourne said he had no objection to this mode of disposing of the subject, and Lord Lyndhurst acquiesced willingly in the proposed arrangement.

Lord Denman remarked, that, in his opinion, it would be desirable to extend the inquiry to England; for the law, in that respect, was exceedingly uncertain and ill defined.

For this declaration, the noble chief justice was severely rated by Lord Brougham, who said, that not only would such an extension as he had suggested defeat the inquiry altogether, but that, with the greatest respect, he was bound to state, that it was no light matter for a chief justice of England, without looking at the laws on the subject, to declare that there was nothing so uncertain as the law of England respecting the matter in question. His noble and learned friend, he said, seemed to think it desirable to "send the whole legal question of the appointment of sheriffs to sea."

The Duke of Wellington congratulated the House on the turn which the discussion had taken. Had the question gone to a vote, he should have supported Lord Clanricarde's amendment.

The Duke of Richmond, at the close of the debate, remarked, that the practice in England was far from satisfactory. He should be glad if they could, by means of this inquiry, secure a good zystem for Ireland, which might

eventually be extended to Eng land.

The debate on the question of the Irish sheriffs was shortly afterwards followed by a motion, on the part of the Marquess of London. derry, for papers connected with the magistracy of that country. The noble Marquess, in the speech with which he prefaced his motion, charged the Earl of Mulgrave with partial and arbitrary conduct in his mode of dealing with the commission of the peace; and cited a variety of instances in support of his allegation. The noble marquess dwelt particularly on the number of Protestant clergymen that had been omitted in the new commissions of the peace issued since the demise of his late majesty.

Lord Mulgrave, who, at the coronation, had been elevated to the rank of a marquess, with the title of Normanby, defended himself with his accustomed spirit. He admitted that he was disposed to omit clergyman in general from the commission, as thinking that there was little affinity between the duties of the ecclesiastic and the magistrate. Even in England there was a very strong feeling, that it was desirable, whenever it was consistent with the due administration of justice, that clergymen should be relieved from magisterial duties. With regard to the particular cases of malversation mentioned by the Marquess of Londonderry, his lordship proceeded to shew, that they were not of the character alleged, but admitted of the fullest justificatio. when fairly considered.

The motion for papers was not opposed, and the subject dropped, not, however, before the Earls of Wicklow and Glengall had taken

occasion to censure the precipitation with which the new commissions had been made out, no time having been given to the lords lieutenant of the different counties to make their reports, although

they had been applied to by the government for information, and had, consequently, employed themselves in making the requisite inquiries.