than excluding those, who we suspect will be likely to give their verdict contrary to our wishes. The liberal club prevailed upon Lord Mulgrave, unconstitutionally, to turn out Mr. Howley, in order to nominate this Mr. Kelly, it being a part of his Excellency's admirable impartial policy, whenever the radicals express their dissatisfaction at the appointment of a Sheriff, at once to supersede him and to permit the complainants to nominate the Sheriff to be appointed in his place a very likely mode to prevent them from making frivolous complaints. We might mention many instances of the care which Lord Mulgrave took to have impartial Sheriffs at the late elections; but for obvious reasons we shall select the case of a county in which no contest happened to take place. In 1837, Mr. Henry Chester, a Roman Catholic gentleman, whose name was not in the lists returned by the judges, was appointed Sheriff of Louth by Lord Mulgrave. He wished to stand for the county on the radical interest, and is permitted to resign; and to secure impartiality, in case there should be a contest, Mr. Michael Chester, whose name also had never been in the judges' list, was appointed in his place.

This Mr. Michael Chester is again most illegally nominated Sheriff for 1838, in direct contradiction to the statute, which enacted that the Sheriffs of the counties shall be removed every year out of their offices; but we have found in the case to which we have referred in the year-books a precedent for setting this part of the statute aside by a non obstante" clause, and we do not suppose that the bill of rights, which put an end to the claim of this non obstante" power by the crown is more respected by Lord Mulgrave's advisers, than the other privileges conferred upon us at the same time by the revolution of 1688.

We cannot better conclude than by giving a short abstract of the state of the case. Ancient statutes directed the Sheriffs to be nominated in the exchequer, by certain officers, the chancellor, treasurer, and the judges. The nomination by the chancellor and the judges continued to be the practice from the reign of Richard II. to the present day; and has been recognized by several judicial decisions and acts of parliament. The person discharging the duties of treasurer might probably attend at the meeting, if he thought proper; but the nomination in his

absence is legal, just as decrees in the equity side of the exchequer are made by the barons alone, although all bills are directed to the chancellor, treasurer, and the barons. In the course of five centuries a few cases are found, in which the crown endeavoured to usurp the power of naming Sheriffs; but those attempts were either held by the judges to be illegal, or were justified on doctrines which are now unquestionably unconstitutional, or were made by monarchs or ministers, who have been handed down to posterity as traitors to the liberties of their country. We have the opinion of the most eminent constitutional writers, such as Blackstone and Chief Baron Atkins, treating it as decided law, that the king could not choose any other to be Sheriff than one of the three assigned to him. We find that if these are unwilling to act, one of them should be compelled, rather than the king should go out of the list; and that the power of compelling a Sheriff to act when he is duly nominated, is one of the unquestioned prerogatives of the crown. Between the bill of rights and the period of Lord Mulgrave's vice-reign, we do not find any writer claiming for the crown this privilege of nominating Sheriffs. A constitutional minister, even if his law advisers could procure a few abstruse and far-fetched reasons, to prove that he might do so legally, would still feel that he ought not to usurp a power, which for ages preceding the nation believed that he did not possess. The circumstance of the vacancy having happened through the death or resignation of a High Sheriff makes no difference in the law. In the case before the privy council, in the reign of Henry VI., the vacancy happened by the death of Sir John Tempest, who had been, with his own consent, appointed High Sheriff the November before. See Nicolas' Records of the Privy Council, vol. 6, p. 263, 331. Indeed, the refusal or resignation of a High Sheriff could easily be procured by a government which shows such readiness to insult or degrade those who accept the office. We find that the Sub-Sheriff is the officer of the Sheriff, who is responsible for his conduct, and who alone has the right to appoint him, and that any interference with his appointment on the part of the owner has ever been deemed unconstitutional. We find that Lord Mulgrave has set at nought all those statutes, decisions

-men

and customs, and although all parties admitted the care taken by the judges to select proper persons to be Sheriff's, he set them aside and nominated according to his own caprice in twentythree cases. He interfered unconstitutionally in the appointment of Sub-Sheriffs, and, in many instances, superseded Sheriffs and Sub-Sheriffs who were not guilty, or suspected of misconduct of unblemished character, whose only offence was, that they did not find favour in the eyes of the revolutionary party in Ireland. He encouraged the most frivolous complaints by yielding to them without enquiry, and by appointing a nominee of the complainants in lieu of the Sheriff, unconstitutionally superseded. We find absolute misconduct on the part of the Radical Sheriffs and Sub-Sheriffs allowed to pass without notice. We find that the men whom Lord Mulgrave illegally appointed, were in many instances those whose conduct or connexions, or headlong revolutionary politics almost disqualified from impartially performing the duties of their high office, and we find, in too many instances, that the conduct of the Sheriffs thus unlawfully appointed, fully justified the objections that were made against the principle of nominating those pocket-Sheriffs, that his conduct has led to disobedience to the law, and prevented the due administration of justice. He has not the vulgar merit of meaning well in his violations of the law, for his illegal nominations have been marked by the grossest partiality. He cannot plead expediency in his defence, for his conduct has been attended with the most

disastrous consequences to the country. His reappointment for a second year of Mr. Michael Chester, a Roman Catholic gentleman of small property and ultra-Radical politics, appears to have had no other object than to furnish him with a precedent which may be convenient on future occasions. For, the number of Radicals qualified to act as Sheriff is so small in many counties, that to answer Lord Mulgrave's purposes he will find it necessary to disregard the statute which prohibits a Sheriff from continuing in office a second year within five years of the first. We have made those few observations to direct the public mind in England to this important subject. In Ireland there is no public opinion, all who yield to reason are hostile to Lord Mulgrave, and those who follow him still are, with very few exceptions, impenetrable to arguments not addressed to their immediate interests. But we believe that in England there are many moderate men who support the present government from prejudice and an ignorance of their conduct and its consequences; to those we address ourselves, and request them to consider these things attentively. Let them peruse the little pamphlet to which we have so often referred, and whatever has been said in defence of the Irish government, and then let them judge whether the law has been intentionally violated, whether the purposes of the Irish government have been constitutional, or directed by the public weal, and whether their defences have been, if not legally valid, at least sincere, honest and true.

WE cannot preface our Memoranda better than by some passages from the Standard of the 1st of May. Like all the papers which appear in the columns of that journal, they are worthy of being recorded and remembered :

"We have above referred to a return of Irish crime, issued this day by the House of Commons, pursuant to the act of 56 Geo. III., c. 120, and, therefore, unavoidably issued.

"The committals for homicide in the third year of Mulgrave tranquillity amount to the hideous number of SEVEN HUNDRED AND EIGHTEEN, exceeding by greatly more than 100 the number of committals for

1836 1837 An increase in one year of

...

Crimes. Homicides. 23,891 27,398

3,505

...

...

620

722

102

This increase of homicides, too, is all in the murder class for the committals for murders in 1836 were stated at 340,

and in 1837 they are, exclusive of Tipperary, 453, and in that county-the return from which artfully confounds homicides there were ten murderers convicted, making certainly 463 com

mittals for that crime.

"But it would be injustice to the more Protestant part of Ireland, not to separate the ten northern counties, comprehending almost exactly one-third of the whole population of the island, 2,314,103, according to the last census. Here is the statement for those ten counties-the committals to the assizes and sessions being taken together:

Crimes. Homicides.

TIPPERARY.

MALICIOUS BURNING.-A few nights ago, the house of a man named Burke, residing within three miles of Clogheen, was maliciously set fire to and burned, with all his household furniture. Burke's only fault was having taken land from which former tenants were evicted, in consequence of owing £200 arrears of rent.-Tipperary Constitution of April 28.

man named Ryan, residing on the proOn the same night, the house of a perty of Caleb Going, Esq., was set fire to in several places, and, with all his furniture, &c. was totally consumed. Ryan narrowly escaped with his life, one of the ruffians having taken deadly aim and fired at him while endeavouring to make his escape. Same cause

as above. Ibid.

from the 20th of April to the 10th Committed to the gaol of Clonmel, May:-Murder, 8; shooting at persons, 1; house-burning, 2; highway robbery, 1; having in possession base coin, 1; ass stealing, 2; grievous assaults, 4; assaults, &c. 36; affrays, &c. 22; larceny, 29; breach of the excise laws, 4; misdemeanors, 7; trespass, 4; breach of the peace, 5. Total, 126.— Clonmel Advertiser, May 9th.

"We have (says the Tipperary Constitution) heard of private informations, or friendly warnings (as we ought to style them) which have been given to another retired magistrate, cautioning him against proceeding in a certain direction, and telling him that two armed men have been latterly on constant watch for him, and to beware!"

"Mr. Cooper had, it is well known, received similar intimation for months before his death-that a committee had actually sat on him, and the result of their determination was, that he was to be the next victim of their hellish schemes in order to deter landlords from daring to exert any control over their property or tenantry."

MURDER. A few days ago a man named Connors died in consequence of the blow of a stone, thrown at him deliberately, and in cold blood, by a fellow named Tierney, who is in custody for the murder.-Ibid.

ANOTHER MURDER.-A man named Dwyer, when returning from the races of Newport, was waylaid and so inhumanly beaten that he died in a few days after. Persons named Gleeson, charged with the murder, have absconded. In the same neighbourhood, a man named Coffe was waylaid, and his skull fractured so dreadfully that there is no hope of his recovery.Ibid.

LONGFORD.

AWFUL STATE OF COUNTY LONGFORD ATTEMPT TO ASSASSINATE A Gentleman on HIS WAY TO CHURCH. -As Thomas Ellis, Esq. of Hermitage, was proceeding to church at Newtownforbes, he was fired at from behind a hedge, in Briskill-several slugs went through his horse's neck, and thirteen through his hand; one of his fingers was broken. He rode into Newtownforbes in the most deplorable state, without a hat, and covered with blood. A tenant of his own, named Prunty, a Roman Catholic, was close to Mr. Ellis at the time, but did not afford him the slightest assistance. Mr. Ellis called to him to watch the assassins as he rode away, but the villains were suffered to escape, and, up to the present time, there has been no apprehension or clue to the discovery of them." -Correspondent of Evening Mail, of May 14.

On Sunday week last, as Mrs. Moore, wife of the Rev. Mr. Moore, clergyman of the parish of Drumlish, was returning from divine service, between the hours of two and three o'clock, on a private car, and unaccompanied, an armed ruffian suddenly sprung from behind a ditch, and presented a pistol at her head, at the same time handing her a notice, which he ordered her, in the most offensive and menacing terms, to give to her husband. He plainly told this lady that the notice contained a threat of assassination, which would without fail be put into execution, if Mr. Moore did not immediately surrender some land, of which he had lately taken possession, in consequence of his not having been paid his rent by the tenant. The ruffian is well known to Mrs. Moore's servant, who declares that his life would not be worth a day's purchase if he gave information. -Ibid.

INTIMIDATION.-Our readers cannot yet have forgotten the horrid murder of the unfortunate Brock, who fell a

The un

CORK.

A dispute arose on Monday the 14th ultimo, at Middle Downing, convenient to Kilworth, between parties named Linehan and Macnamara, when Linehan received a desperate wound in the head from one of the Macnamaras, with a spade, from the effects of which he died the same night.Cork Constitution.

COUNTY GALWAY. SAVAGE ATTACK ON A PROTESTANT -One of those shameful CLERGYMAN.— scenes of insult and outrage, which are now so commonly offered to the clergymen of the Established Church, was witnessed on Wednesday, the 8th of May, in the burial ground of Tuam Cathedral. It appears that a report was industriously spread that Mr. Thomas Burke, son to Lady Matilda and Major Burke, had died a Roman Catholic. The Rev. J. M'Lindon, Curate of Tuam, having been required by Lady Matilda and Major Burke to officiate at the interment of their son, accordingly met the funeral at the church gate, and proceeded to read the burial service. Scarcely had he uttered a word when he was set upon by hundreds of ruffians, who drove him away, and dashed him with great violence against a tree, where they left him faint and exhausted from the brutal treatment he received at their hands-then, with savage yells, they bore away the remains of the deceased to inter them. Major Burke positively refused that his son should be buried, as he expressed it, like a brute, and sooner than suffer such an indignity he would submit to be buried in the same grave. Mr. M'Lindon made