object of which is to demonstrate that THE APPOINTMEnt of a high sHERIFF

WITHOUT REGARD TO THE LISTS RETURNED BY THE CHANCELLOR AND THE TWELVE JUDGES, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND CONTRARY TO LAW.

We shall next proceed to shew that the pretence on which these arbitrary acts have been done were, in some instances, unfounded in fact; in some were mischievous and unconstitutional, and in others were not the real motives which governed Lord Mulgrave's conduct. The case of the Wexford Sheriff, in 1836, may be given as a fair specimen of Lord Mulgrave's conduct, of his motives, of his pretences, and of its consequence. Mr. Leigh, whose name was on the judges' list, was appointed High Sheriff. He received a letter from the Castle, informing him of his appointment, and requiring him to make the usual preparations for the discharge of the duties of his office. Mr. Leigh obeyed. Meantime, Lord Morpeth told Lord Mulgrave that Mr. Richards told him that Mr. Porter told him that he heard some young barrister say, that Mr. Leigh was an Orangeman. In fact, however, Mr. Leigh was not an Orangeman, and this could have been ascertained with certainty by the slightest enquiry. This enquiry, however, would not have answered Lord Mulgrave's purposes, and any communication on the subject with Mr. Leigh must have led to an enquiry. Accordingly, Lord Mulgrave adopts the business-like, and conciliating, and gentlemanly course of nominating another gentleman to be Sheriff, without informing Mr. Leigh of the change, who, in consequence of Lord Morpeth's letter to him, was then engaged in purchasing equipages, and making other public and expensive preparations for filling the office of Sheriff. Mr. Derinzy, whose name was not in the judges' list, was appointed in his place. This led to some public discussion, and another ground of defence was put for ward by Lord Mulgrave. The hostility of the present government to the ministers of the Established Church, is well known, and the effect which the knowledge of this hostility has had in encouraging the populace to resist the payment of tithes, and in making this resistance effectual. One form of this resistance consisted in threats and violence against any persons who presumed to purchase goods which were exposed for sale after being taken in execution for tithes. People

were deterred from purchasing such goods, or if any did buy them they were prevented from taking them away, and after a mock sale the goods soon found their way back in triumph to the original owners. In this state of things an attorney of the name of Reid was employed by a clergyman, who found himself obliged to take legal proceedings against some wealthy friend of the government who refused to pay his tithes. This gentleman

soon brought the suit to a successful termination, and seised the goods of the defendant under an execution. When they were exposed for sale, a hostile crowd assembled, and no person dare bid for them. In this emergency Mr. Reid had the courage to bid for some hay which was knocked down to him at a mere nominal price. The mob intimated that they would not permit the hay to be removed. Mr. Reid remonstrated on the wickedness and folly of this proceeding, and offered to give back the goods if the debt was paid, or security given for its payment; but that, by the sale, they had become his, and that on other terms he would not give them up, but would burn the hay rather than be robbed of it. His remonstrances had no effect, and he was compelled to burn his hay to prevent the triumph of robbery and violence. This gentleman was appointed Sub-Sheriff by Mr. Leigh, and it was evident that, under an officer of such resolution and determination to enforce the law, the system of resistance to lawful process must be defeated. A few instances would suffice to expose its folly, and to prove the utter impossibility of its success. Lord Mulgrave did not scru ple to refer to this nomination as a justification of his own conduct, and in May 17, 1836, the following words are attributed to him by the Mirror of Parliament - 'It appeared that Mr. Leigh had appointed a Mr. Reid as his Sub-Sheriff. Now, in the unfortunately distracted state of the county at that time, particularly with regard to the collection of tithes, a circumstance occurred which shewed Mr. Reid to be destitute of that temper and discretion which it was most desirable that a gentleman filling the office of Sub-Sheriff, and upon whom many of the duties of Sheriff must devolve, should possess." Now we, on the contrary assert that throughout the transaction' Mr. Reid displayed professional skill' integrity, discretion, and unbending'

defendant knows that every opportunity of evasion will be given to him by those whose duty it is to execute the law. We see a sale announced under an execution for tithes ; a Radical Sub-Sheriff presides; a mob assembles, determined to prevent the sale from taking place; and confident that a very full measure of indulgence will be yielded to their excesses. The liberal Sub-Sheriff entertains no apprehension for his own safety, and if the protection of the police is imperatively called for, a scanty body appears at a proper distance. Some one insists that sufficient precautions against risk have not been taken, and the worthy Sub-Sheriff assures him with a sneer that there is no room for apprehension, and that he will be answerable for the consequences. Under such circumstances, will any man venture to bid, and to expose himself to the fury of a licentious mob, trusting to the protection reluctantly promised to him by an unprincipled adversary? A bidder appears and is instantly beaten, and almost murdered under the eyes of the Sub-Sheriff. When he has received sufficient punishment to deter others from daring to follow his example, the police are called in, the rioters desist, the victim is carried off senseless, the Sub-Sheriff orders the sale to proceed, and, with a sneer of ill-disguised triumph proclaims that he regrets the slight breach of the peace which has occurred, and that if any person now wishes to bid, he may safely do so. But enough has been done; no man ventures to bid after what he has just witnessed; the sale is found impracticable; the cattle are restored to the tithe defaulter, and are driven home in triumph with three cheers for the liberal Sub-Sheriff, and the government journals teem with praise of the temperate conduct of the Sub-Sheriff, and censures of the unfortunate "individual whose temerity provoked the just indignation of the people." This is not an affair of unfrequent occurrence, but is never deemed sufficient to call for Lord Mulgrave's interference.

We must call our readers' attention to the unconstitutional nature of the practice of superseding a Sheriff because the government disapproves of his nomination of a Sub-Sheriff, before he has been guilty of any misconduct. The Sub-Sheriff is the officer of the Sheriff, he is appointed by him, accountable to him, gives security to him, and is removable by him at his

pleasure. This right of the Sheriff has been recognized by acts of parliament, and by judicial decisions.—Vide 12 G. I., c. 4, 4 Rep. 33, Hob. 13. "I have heard that when Lord Stanley was Secretary in Ireland a remonstrance was made against the appointment of a Sub-Sheriff, whose political opinions were obnoxious. The government replied that it would be unconstitutional to interfere. So, a few years since, a Sub-Sheriff was appointed in a northern county, against whose appointment a remonstrance on the ground of political character was forwarded to the government. The law officers were consulted whether the executive could constitutionally interfere. Their opinious can be known only from the course pursued by the lord lieutenant of that day, who refused, in any manner, to interfere with the appointment. The high Sheriff, however, was apprized of the complaint which had been made. He was told that it was not the wish of the government to interfere with an appointment which the law vested exclusively in him, and that they had formed no opinion as to the truth of the charges which had been made, but it was suggested to him that it might be satisfactory to himself that he should look more particularly to the panels of jurors, and to other returns than might otherwise be requisite, that he might be satisfied that the person he had appointed acted in all respects as he would himself approve, and as the county had a right to expect. The present chief baron was then attorneygeneral, and Lord Leveson Gower secretary. This mode of addressing the Sheriff was calculated to win the gentry of all parties, and to shew them that the government reposed in them that confidence to which every man appointed to the high and responsible office of Sheriff is entitled. Self-respect would naturally suggest this policy to those who are entrusted officially to communicate with the gentry of the country."-Letter to Lord Lyndhurst, p. 78.

This novel and unconstitutional practice of exercising a negative on the appointment of Sub-Sheriff, has been employed for several purposes-1st. It has been made use of as a pretence for superseding a High Sheriff of obnoxious politics, and replacing him by one more disposed to forward Mr. O'Connell's projects.

We say pre

tence, for we sometimes find that in one instance a cause is alleged, which,

in another instance, is disregarded. Thus a High Sheriff is dismissed without further cause alleged than that his sub-sheriff was apprenticed to an attorney. In Kildare, however, Mr. Cassidy is appointed Sheriff. Either he or his brother had, a short time before, entered "the General Association," and paid in a subscription of £27, the amount of his tithes, which he said he was determined not to pay to the person lawfully entitled to it. Such a speech ought to have been considered a sufficient objection to his appointment, as a man determined himself to evade the law was not a proper person to entrust with its execution. He, as we are informed, noninated a subsheriff who was then an attorney's apprentice; and this, with more propriety than consistency, was not made the ground of even a remonstrance from Lord Mulgrave. A Mr. L was his returning-officer, and was, in fact, the acting sub-sheriff. As might have been expected, under such circumstances, the tithe agitation broke forth with double vigour. The clergy found it almost impossible to get their writs duly executed. Some cases lately came before the court, in which the said Sheriff, for his misconduct, was obliged to pay the entire amount of the debt and costs. In one of those cases, it appeared that several ineffectual mock attempts had been made to sell some goods taken under an execution. No bidders, however, appeared, no man being willing to trust himself to the protection of Lord Mulgrave's Sheriff, who always fixed for the sale those places in which the attendance of a hostile mob could most easily be procured. The village of K- was in the neighbourhood, in which the goods might casily have been sold, as it was a quiet, peaceable district, inhabited chiefly by Protestants, or by Roman Catholics who considered it to be their duty to obey the laws of the land. The Sheriff was requested to have the goods exposed for sale there, as his duty demanded. Mr. L wrote back an answer, that he would not have the goods sold at K-, commonly called the Protestant colony. The words in italics, which were in Mr. L's letter, were not in the letter to which it was a reply, and shewed strongly what were the motives which prevented him from having the goods sold there. This Mr. L. is appointed sub-sheriff for the present year, and Lord Mulgrave makes no objec

tion to the appointment. It seems that an actual conviction for misconduct in that office is no objection to a reappointment, provided that the misconduct had the effect of oppressing the Protestant clergy of the country. 2d. This interference, on the part of Lord Mulgrave, at the appointment of sub-sheriffs, enables him to proscribe, to a certain extent, the persons and families of those who have in any way rendered themselves obnoxious to the Roman Catholic leaders. We have already alluded to the case of Mr. Reid, in Wexford. The Monaghan case is another strong example, and well known, because Lord Mulgrave's conduct in it has had the effect of leaving the country without any administration of the law for one whole year. A Mr. Coote, whose name was in the judges' list, was duly appointed Sheriff. It happened that a good many years before, Jack Lawless led a tumultuous mob to terrify the peaceable parts of the country. Among the rest, they invaded the little village of Ballibay. The approach of a tumultuous mob of several thousand strangers, highly excited, and clamouring for destruction and vengeance upon all Orangemen, by which they meant all Protestants, filled the inhabitants with apprehension, and they assembled, in alarm, to defend their lives and properties.— The invaders retired. Among the defenders of Ballibay was a Mr. Gray, whose property, education, and character, placed him at their head on this memorable occasion. Lord Mulgrave gave Lawless a place of some value, but the offence committed by Gray in defending his life and property was treasured up against him for many years. There was a rumour that Mr. Coote had named a member of this man's family (who all, as well as himself, were men of excellent characters) to be his sub-sheriff. But it was not to be tolerated that a man displeasing to the Roman Catholics should hold any place; accordingly, in March last, the following requisition appeared in the public papers :-" We, the undersigned, request a meeting of the Catholics of the county of Monaghan, to be held at Castleblayney, on Tuesday, 13th March, instant, to express, publicly, their indignation at the outrage inflicted on their feelings by the recent appointment of the deputy-shrievalty of this county; and to adopt such means as may be deemed effectual to prevent the evil consequences so much

to be apprehended from the said appointment." This meeting did not take place. It was not necessary for the Roman Catholics to shew how their feelings were outraged by the appointment. The day before the intended meeting Mr. Coote is superseded. For this despotic act, it was deemed sufficient cause that a few Roman Catholics should assert that they were indignant, and that an outrage was inflicted on their feelings. In order to encourage them to such expressions of indignation in future, and to shew them the profit they might derive from an over sensitiveness on this head, Lord Mulgrave appointed the Roman Catholic whose name appeared at the head of the requisition, though it was not in the judges' list, to be Sheriff in Mr. Coote's place. The Roman Catholic must, indeed, be duller

"Than the fat weed

That rots itself at ease on Lethe's wharf,"

if, with such encouragement, he has not a suitable stock of indignation and outraged feelings to display at any future appointment that does not obtain the sanction of his titular bishop. Meantime, the object has been gained. The system of proscription is complete. A denunciation by the Roman Catholics is sufficient to exclude any man, however competent, not only from those offices which it is the power and duty of the government to fill with the most competent persons, but also from those with which the government has no legal or constitutional right to interfere. When we add to this the system of exclusive dealing now in operation, and the frequent outrages on life and property, we find some excuse for the recreant Protestants who support Lord Mulgrave's government. It requires the courage of a martyr to oppose O'Connell's tyranny. A third object has been gained by government, by their unconstitutional appointment of Sheriffs and Sub-Sheriffs. They have friendly Sub-Sheriffs to pack juries for registry cases, and friendly Sheriffs to preside at the elections of knights of the shire. The following abstract of the case of the Sligo Sheriff is taken from the letter to Lord Lyndhurst, page 83 - Mr. Howley was appointed High Sheriff of Sligo for the present year. He appointed Mr. Cogan his sub-sheriff. This appointment was disapproved of by some of the active members of the liberal club of Sligo. He was, therefore, superseded by Lord VOL. XI.

Mulgrave, and Sir William Parke was appointed in his stead. He was a

member of the liberal club which had complained of Mr. Cogan's appointment, and the object of which was to attend to the registry of the claimants on the liberal interest. Sir Wm. Parke had taken an active part on behalf of Mr. Jones, the candidate who had been supported by the Roman Catholic priesthood at the recent election for the county. Mr. Kelly, who had also been a member of the liberal club, was appointed sub-sheriff. His brother was awaiting his trial at the ensuing assizes, on a criminal information for defamation of the registering barrister, from whose decisions appeals were then pending, which were to be tried by a jury returned by Mr. Kelly. The defamation consisted principally of charges against Mr. Robinson for partiality in the discharge of his duty as a registering barrister. It is curious, that at the same assizes, in Monaghan, the brother of Mr. Kenny, the Sheriff, was to be tried on an indictment which had excited a good deal of public attention; and in each case Lord Mulgrave revokes the former nomination of Sheriffs, and appoints, about a week before the assizes, the respective brothers of the traversers to return the juries by which they were to be tried.

But to return to our Sligo case-the assizes commenced by Mr. Justice Crampton finding himself called upon to fine Sir William Parke ten pounds, for a wilful breach of his duty, in refusing to return such a grand jury as is ordered by the statute. Of the Sub-Sheriff's conduct, in the performance of his duties we need not say much. He himself had an appeal respecting his own claim to register then pending, and admitted that he left out the names of certain persons from the appeal panel, because he thought they might believe witnesses who had not been believed on a former occasion.

It is easy to give the name of ultra to persons with whose politics we differ; but when Mr. Kelly admitted that he excluded certain ultra Conservatives, because he thought they might believe persons intended to be brought up as witnesses, on the Conservative side, who were disbelieved by Judge Perrin and a jury on a former occasion, our readers will perceive that the same thing would have been better expressed if it had merely said, that he packed the jury in favour of the radical interest. What is packing a jury more

31